The Military/War Thread

[Dak]

https://warontherocks.com/2018/07/t...ssons-from-a-failed-grand-strategic-exercise/

The pre-1965 orthodox interpretation of appeasement held that senior British politicians and policymakers were “vain, naif and ignorant” and thus underestimated Nazism, refused to educate the public to Hitler’s expansionist ambitions, and failed to increase defense spending as soon as they should have. The “treasonous” appeasement of Adolf Hitler at Munich in 1938, then, simply reflected that the British government was led by knaves whose “ineptness and incapacity, [displayed] almost criminal negligence in their appointed tasks of protecting the national security. There was no strategy, merely “old fools.”

With the release of the Cabinet papers and greater distance from the trauma of World War II, however, new historical research revealed that the British government did actually have a grand strategy and that it was quite sophisticated — even if a dismal failure.

Apparently the pre-1965 orthodoxy on British "appeasement" is still orthodox in the minds of most.

 

[tagradh]

Should the UK continue to spend money on nukes?

Yay/nay?

 

[Dak]

At this point isn"t that almost all the UK has to protect itself before relying on the Unite- I mean NATO?

The British military is a shell of its former self, much like the country at large. The US is heading in that direction too on the civilian side, at least.

 

[tagradh]

I'd argue that the UK (and France) having nuclear weapons hasn't been relevant for decades. It's purely done because enough morons in both countries are clinging to the whole 'great power' thing. The amount of nukes that the US and Russia have, the fact that the only remotely likely nuclear conflict is Pakistan v India, that the only remotely likely nuclear attack on the UK is some sorta dirty bomb (and we can't go nuking Tower Hamlets in retaliation, as much as we might like to) all seem to make the UK spending billions on them a massive fucking waste.

The UK would be far better served by stopping all these daft, short term vanity projects (e.g. Trident, blowing billions on aircraft carriers) and putting the money towards things we can and would actually use. Like a massive investment in cyber capabilities, more funding for satellite and space shit, and actually maintaining a reasonable level of infantry and aircraft.




"much like the country at large"

Because other countries, with far larger populations and greater resources have finally developed to the same level, and the UK (quite rightly) 'gave up' a load of its possessions? I don't really give a fuck either way, but the UK has done the inevitable decline of empire more gracefully than the vast majority have managed.

 

[Dak]

I'd argue that the UK (and France) having nuclear weapons hasn't been relevant for decades. It's purely done because enough morons in both countries are clinging to the whole 'great power' thing. The amount of nukes that the US and Russia have, the fact that the only remotely likely nuclear conflict is Pakistan v India, that the only remotely likely nuclear attack on the UK is some sorta dirty bomb (and we can't go nuking Tower Hamlets in retaliation, as much as we might like to) all seem to make the UK spending billions on them a massive fucking waste.

The UK would be far better served by stopping all these daft, short term vanity projects (e.g. Trident, blowing billions on aircraft carriers) and putting the money towards things we can and would actually use. Like a massive investment in cyber capabilities, more funding for satellite and space shit, and actually maintaining a reasonable level of infantry and aircraft.

"much like the country at large"

Because other countries, with far larger populations and greater resources have finally developed to the same level, and the UK (quite rightly) 'gave up' a load of its possessions? I don't really give a fuck either way, but the UK has done the inevitable decline of empire more gracefully than the vast majority have managed.

The UK is not a land power, it is a sea power. As is the US, interestingly enough. The nature of the UK as a tiny island necessitates that the citizenry mostly be available infantry in the event of an invasion. It lacks the manpower to project itself as an infantry to any continental nation of note. Lacking the additional resource power of its former empire, it must then turn to exclusively defensive posturing. Home and submarine based nuclear weapons are the primary physical option here. Dollar for dollar, SAM (Surface to Air Missiles) Systems are far better for air defense than aircraft. More money for better SAM systems and also for 21st century defense of the cyberspace would be better than aircraft carrier groups, aircraft, and infantry. Any additional naval forces should be relegated to something akin to swarm tactics for the channel, North Sea, immediate Atlantic, etc.

Aircraft carriers are the ultimate money sink of anyone other than the world power or aspiring world power. They are sitting ducks for increasingly advanced long range missiles, require massive groups of ships for defense, and house billions of dollars in equipment, men and training. Be mad at the UKs 2 aircraft carriers before being mad at the nukes.

 

[Dak]

 

[FEZZILLA]

I just want to add one short comment to this discussion. We must have a very strong military in order for Americans do live the lifestyle we live. If our leaders engage in war then we all hope its for the best interests of the nation. I don't think most Americans want to fight wars, but there are times when war is our only means of preserving our peace and prosperity in our country. If our military ever got weak or corrupted, our lives will become drastically different and life in America won't be so fun as it is now. We all have great lives compared to people in other countries. Even the poorest among us have it real good compared to those poverty stricken in other countries. We want to keep our nation strong and powerful at all times which is why so many billions of dollars is spent on the military each year. We can never allow our enemies to become stronger than us. The stronger America is...the safer we are. We all want a peaceful nation where children can be brought up with a chance to live a normal life. Think of the day when our troops stormed the beaches of Normandy. The slaughter that took place on that beach was horrendous. Many brave and scarred Americans didn't even make it to the beach. But they charged into the bullets shooting at them, watching their friends get cut down in front of them. But they succeeded. They sacrificed their good life here in America so we would not have to be slaves to tyrants. We must always remember this and be grateful for every man and woman in uniform who has ever served our nation.

 

[The Ozzman]

Bruh

https://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/

Listening to 'Blueprint for Armageddon' which is WW1 themed. 3+ hour episodes.

 

[Dak]

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/dip...ypersonic-aircraft-starry-sky-2-could-be-used

Partially what I was referencing previously regarding the approaching outdatedness of aircraft carriers.

Although still at the experimental stage, once fully developed, waveriders could be used to carry warheads capable of penetrating any anti-missile defence system currently available.

Beijing-based military analyst Zhou Chenming said it would most likely be used for carrying conventional warheads rather than nuclear ones, adding that such a capability was still some way away.

“I think there are still three to five years before this technology can be weaponised,” he said.

“As well as being fitted to missiles, it may also have other military applications, which are still being explored.”

Now, we are talking about China state media, so it may be more bark than bite at the moment, but given the incredible cost sink of a carrier group, the incredible vulnerability this missile technology presents, and the lengthy strategic and practical procurement process for changing the technological nature of warfare, US/NATO is looking at significant navigational/power projection challenges on the near horizon.

 

[Dak]

One of my favorite Marines.

 

[The Ozzman]

Tet v2.0?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/13/taliban-surprise-offensive-afghanistan-catches-us-/

 

[Dak]

https://warontherocks.com/2018/08/h...ssons-from-the-american-expeditionary-forces/

Interesting article on how backwards the US military was when it showed up in Europe in WWI.

 

[The Ozzman]

imaginemyshock.jpg

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/ne...ine-is-getting-kicked-out-for-fraternization/

Remedios Cruz joined the Marine Corps in 2013 as a supply clerk. One year later, she completed infantry training, and in 2017, made history when she became one of three females to join 1st Battalion, 8th Marines at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.

Now, Cruz is awaiting separation from the Marine Corps after pleading guilty to maintaining a romantic relationship with a subordinate.

Cruz, 26, eventually married the person, who was a lower-ranking Marine in her unit, according The New York Times.

“The biggest mistakes I’ve made in the infantry were from my personal relationships,” Cruz told the Times. “I really want to move on.”

Cruz was reduced in rank from sergeant to corporal and restricted to the base after pleading guilty to fraternization as part of a broader plea agreement. The commanding general of 2nd Marine Division will now decide if she will be forced out with an other-than-honorable discharge, according to the Times.



“Regardless of the outcome of this case, Corporal Cruz has been a courageous pioneer for women in the military and she has earned a place in Marine Corps history,” Cruz’s lawyer, Capt. Jacob R. Johnston, said in a statement to The New York Times.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

I think you were looking for Mort's thread.

 

[The Ozzman]

I think you were looking for Mort's thread.

It could've gone there, but since it deals with the military I put it here.

 

[rms]

This is tactics dog

 

[The Ozzman]

jfc okay I'll post in the Mort thread

 

[CiG]

Does anybody know any good documentaries focusing on military tactics? I've been watching a few lately but just kinda winging it on Youtube. I was watching one on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan last night which had a good deal about guerilla tactics and the Mujahideen but this is all decades old stuff, I'd like something a bit more modern. Post-1990's I guess.

 

[The Ozzman]

Does anybody know any good documentaries focusing on military tactics? I've been watching a few lately but just kinda winging it on Youtube. I was watching one on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan last night which had a good deal about guerilla tactics and the Mujahideen but this is all decades old stuff, I'd like something a bit more modern. Post-1990's I guess.

There is a series on Amazon Prime called Close Quarter Battles which touches on it. It doesn't go into super detailed explanations but it talks about weapons and shit too which is neat

 

[CiG]

Cool, cheers man!