NEWS If War Comes, Will the U.S. Navy Be Prepared?

[nodropinufaka]

Also you guys keep going back to “my JO intel view”

Id imagine if you’re still active duty it’s difficult to understand right now but your ranks mean nothing in the civilian sector and literally no one cares about it.

I’m not in the military anymore so unsure why bring it up? It means nothing. Im a civilian and go to work to do my research and travel then go home.


To our prior discussion on PRC economy and why understanding PRC behavior outside of military context is important.

Advancing U.S. Engagement and Countering China in the Indo-Pacific and Beyond - United States Department of State

Chairman Risch, Ranking Member Menendez, and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee to discuss the threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to the United States and the global order, and what we are doing about it. I am joined by my...

2017-2021.state.gov

Economic Actions
Globally, one of the CCP’s most insidious and powerful influence vectors is its economic clout, which it uses as leverage in other strategic areas. PRC state-led lending and investment often distort markets, encourage corruption, avoid transparency, and create an uneven playing field for American companies and local competitors. PRC initiatives like “One Belt One Road” seek to fuse Beijing’s economic and strategic goals to the detriment of host country sovereignty, security, and sustainable economic growth. The United States has been on the forefront of raising global awareness about the dangers of this type of PRC lending and investment.”

 

[Brett327]

I disagree. It’s extremely important to State Department and security cooperation planners trying to counter Chinas malign influence.

You’re looking at the conflict as 1 and 0s only through the DOD lense.

This response is non-sequitur.

 

[nittany03]

Id imagine if you’re still active duty it’s difficult to understand right now but your ranks mean nothing in the civilian sector and literally no one cares about it.

Secure the condescension; it just makes you look like an asshole. "It's difficult for you to understand" really means "I think I'm better and smarter than you," and you're not. This isn't Sailor Bob; we don't have our ranks posted here, and you're being challenged on the (lack of) credibility of your arguments. If that's not too "difficult for you to understand."

Sincerely, someone else not on active duty anymore.

 

[nodropinufaka]

Secure the condescension; it just makes you look like an asshole. "It's difficult for you to understand" really means "I think I'm better and smarter than you," and you're not. This isn't Sailor Bob; we don't have our ranks posted here, and you're being challenged on the (lack of) credibility of your arguments. If that's not too "difficult for you to understand."

Sincerely, someone else not on active duty anymore.

Ya I agree we don’t have our ranks posted. So why everyone keep bringing it up on me?

 

[nittany03]

Ya I agree we don’t have our ranks posted. So why everyone keep bringing it up on me?

Because your arguments indicate a lack of experience on the subject, specifically 3-4 star staffs, their role in planning, and the interagency. And every time someone explains how your JO-level time in a CCMD may not necessarily have given you key insights on how the Platonic ideal of a CCMD operates, or even the garden variety CCMD operates, you push back and snark.

Your arguments are overrunning your perceived credibility, and if you haven't noticed yet, that's something the average aviator has zero tolerance for. Counting myself, there are at least 3-4 people here who have at least one tour, if not multiple tours, on the Joint Staff, combatant commands, and sub-unified commands at the O-5+ level. That is the experience base you are snarking with and jousting with, and in the immortal words of one Walter Sobchak . . . "Donny, you're out of your element."

It's not the rank, it's the experience that comes with the rank that you're scoffing at, and getting flamesprayed for that. You can pull the "your rank doesn't matter" card if someone is trying to get hired at Amazon. Not if you are challenging them about something that is literally germane to the military job they have spent decades learning. That's no different than trying to lecture a Technical Fellow at Microsoft about computer science . . . you're going to get laughed out of the room there, too.

 

[nodropinufaka]

Because your arguments indicate a lack of experience on the subject, specifically 3-4 star staffs, their role in planning, and the interagency. And every time someone explains how your JO-level time in a CCMD may not necessarily have given you key insights on how the Platonic ideal of a CCMD operates, or even the garden variety CCMD operates, you push back and snark.

Your arguments are overrunning your perceived credibility, and if you haven't noticed yet, that's something the average aviator has zero tolerance for. Counting myself, there are at least 3-4 people here who have at least one tour, if not multiple tours, on the Joint Staff, combatant commands, and sub-unified commands at the O-5+ level. That is the experience base you are snarking with and jousting with, and in the immortal words of one Walter Sobchak . . . "Donny, you're out of your element."

It's not the rank, it's the experience that comes with the rank that you're scoffing at, and getting flamesprayed for that.

I’m not even claiming anything outrageous or making false statements or anything of the sort. So I don’t understand why people get all wound up.

I simply said we may not ever go to war with China and if we do it could be a limited conflict and asymmetric in nature.

I don’t see how any of that is wrong or unintelligent.

People jump all over for it being a different point of view.

 

[Brett327]

I don’t see how any of that is wrong or unintelligent.

It's completely irrelevant.

 

[nodropinufaka]

It's completely irrelevant.

Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[nittany03]

I’m not even claiming anything outrageous or making false statements or anything of the sort. So I don’t understand why people get all wound up.

I simply said we may not ever go to war with China and if we do it could be a limited conflict and asymmetric in nature.

I don’t see how any of that is wrong or unintelligent.

People jump all over for it being a different point of view.

None of that is wrong, but the idea that DoD shouldn't be making plans for the worst and then putting them on the shelf is what you're coming across as saying. I mean, my God, the President has an O-5 following him around with a briefcase full of plans to chuck nukes at various countries. No one wants him to use those, either, but there's a reason DoD has those plans just in case.

That, and the idea that "no one really knows" what will happen. That works great in freshman philosophy, but not so good in a J2, J35, or J5 shop that is dealing with MLCOA, MDCOA, and the DPs the commander needs to know when to flex to branches and sequels. "No one really knows" for sure what I'm going to have for lunch on Wednesday. But if I look in the fridge and the pantry, check out what's for sale at Safeway, and think about what I feel like eating these days, I can probably make a pretty educated guess in the event that question becomes relevant somehow.

I'm sure there are plans on the shelf somewhere for a limited asymmetric scenario against China. I'm also sure there are a whole lot of other plans for other things, and that's as it should be. The fact that those other plans probably exist doesn't mean the planners were thinking in "1s and 0s" like you accused Brett of . . . quite the opposite.

 

[nodropinufaka]

None of that is wrong, but the idea that DoD shouldn't be making plans for the worst and then putting them on the shelf is what you're coming across as saying. I mean, my God, the President has an O-5 following him around with a briefcase full of plans to chuck nukes at various countries. No one wants him to use those, either, but there's a reason DoD has those plans just in case.

That, and the idea that "no one really knows" what will happen. That works great in freshman philosophy, but not so good in a J2, J35, or J5 shop that is dealing with MLCOA, MDCOA, and the DPs the commander needs to know when to flex to branches and sequels. "No one really knows" for sure what I'm going to have for lunch on Wednesday. But if I look in the fridge and the pantry, check out what's for sale at Safeway, and think about what I feel like eating these days, I can probably make a pretty educated guess in the event that question becomes relevant somehow.

I'm sure there are plans on the shelf somewhere for a limited asymmetric scenario against China. I'm also sure there are a whole lot of other plans for other things, and that's as it should be. The fact that those other plans probably exist doesn't mean the planners were thinking in "1s and 0s" like you accused Brett of . . . quite the opposite.

I didn’t say that anywhere in any of my posts the DOD shouldn’t be making plans for the worst or planning for a military on military engagement.

 

[Brett327]

 

[Brett327]

 

[Random8145]

The truth is, China is dependent on the rest of the free world to maintain their economy. This leads to other statements people have made. Any war with China will be “different.” At least for the next ten or fifteen years we can choke off China’s economy without ever facing the “hordes.” We can cut what parts of the “belt and road” system exists today but surely it will get harder as it progresses. Put simply, geography and economics do not favor China in most future war scenarios. Of course, that could change for any number of reasons, but few imaginable are going to be in the near term.

One last thing, the US will never start a war against China mostly because we don’t need to do so. If ever there is to be war, it will be because China starts one.

IMO, a problem is can the rest of the world be counted on to unite its economic strength against China. Right now, China seems to be getting the rest of the world to bend to its will, with all the big business and Hollywood turning a blind eye towards China's slavery, oppression, and now oppression of Hong Kong, and John Cena apologizing for calling Taiwan a country.

 

[Random8145]

nodropinufaka, I disagree with three points you've made thus far:

“Third, and perhaps most important, both sides have a genuine and shared interest in keeping their rivalry within boundaries, both to avoid unnecessary clashes and to facilitate cooperation on issues where U.S. and Chinese interests overlap (climate change, pandemic prevention, etc.). One cannot eliminate all risks and prevent future crises, but Washington must be clear about its own red lines and make sure it understands Beijing’s. This is where unit-level factors kick in: The rivalry may be hard-wired into today’s international system, but how each side handles the competition will be determined by who is in charge and by the quality of their domestic institutions. I would not assume that America’s will fall short, but I wouldn’t be complacent about that either.”

This is just my opinion, but I do not believe that China has any mutual or shared interest with the U.S. on climate change. Climate change for the Chinese is an issue to use to help hamper the U.S. economically because they know many of our politicians are foolish enough to sign an agreement that hamstrings us while doing nothing to them, just like the Paris Accord, while at the same time, giving the Chinese free positive press from the (IMO) fools in the global media who applaud them.

A good recent example was our ability to get KJU to come to the negotiating table without the threat of force. No other President or administration before Trump was able to do that.

?Without the threat of force? I'd say it was precisely the threat of force that is what brought Kim Jong-Un to the negotiating table, because Trump didn't fold to his threats. In the past, the West has acted very fearful of NK. And (IMO) both the Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations acted like idiots (for lack of a better word) with regards to them. Donald Trump on the other hand, in response to NK's threatening language, upped the ante and spoke in even more threatening language. When asked if his rhetoric on NK had perhaps been too tough, he basically said that no, if anything maybe it hadn't been tough enough. He called Kim Jong-Un "rocket man" and said he is on a "suicide mission for himself" and that he would face fire and fury. NK responded by upping the language and all the liberals and leftists were pulling their hair out, panicking to death thinking we were on the verge of World War III with North Korea, that we were going to get nuked, etc...meanwhile Trump kept up the tough rhetoric and moved in multiple heavy bombers to the region and aircraft carriers.

Then NK said they were going to maybe fire a missile at Hawaii or close to it. Then Secretary of Defense General "Mad Dog" Mattis said that any military strike on Hawaii would be met with force, which IMO showed the true seriousness of the situation for the NKs. It's one thing for Trump to make threats, but if someone of Mattis' caliber was saying so, the NK leadership knew it was truly serious. It was also questionable as to whether the NKs could fire a missile close to Hawaii without "missing" and actually strike Hawaii.

Then there was the panic as Hawaii's government "pressed the wrong button" and sent out a statewide alert that a nuclear attack was inbound and to take cover, then said, "Wrong button pushed." Anyhow, then NK backed down. I've read some think the Chinese told them essentially, "If you attack the United States, you're on your own." I have no idea if that's true or not. But Trump broke them and showed it was a bluff. Then when things were calming down and the NKs were going to talk, they tried starting up the violent rhetoric again. Trump immediately responded that the deal is off if they're going to start talking like that. They then went right back to talking friendly again.

So I don't get what you mean that we did not use the threat of force unless I am mixing something up...?

Why is that? We didn’t win. So we lost. It’s pretty simple really.

We left Afghanistan and now Taliban has control of it. The very thing we set out to stop 20 years ago.

We left Vietnam. North Vietnam took over south Vietnam. We failed to stop their advances and prevent it. Which was the goal.

A few things:

1) IMO, not winning doesn't mean losing. We didn't "win" the Korean War but we didn't lose it either.

2) My understanding is that we very much stopped North Vietnam. They were on the ropes after the Tet Offensive, which was a last ditch attempt and they lost badly. They would have come to the negotiating table but then Walter Cronkite made a huge mistake and reported that the outcome had been a stalemate and the war was unwinnable, upon which then American public opinion turned against the war effort. But even then, when we pulled out of Vietnam eventually, South Vietnam was able to hold up against the North on their own. What caused their fall was unfortunately Congress decided to cut the funding to them and then the North was able to take over. So the North taking the South was ultimately a political, not a military, failure.

 

[Griz882]

IMO, a problem is can the rest of the world be counted on to unite its economic strength against China. Right now, China seems to be getting the rest of the world to bend to its will, with all the big business and Hollywood turning a blind eye towards China's slavery, oppression, and now oppression of Hong Kong, and John Cena apologizing for calling Taiwan a country.

Bend to what? Are you really comparing the actions of some vapid Hollywood actors (and let’s face it, the “movie industry” isn’t exactly the key to any nations global success) to the mechanisms of a global economy? As I noted earlier the world is already moving beyond China. India and South America are making aggressive moves to assume more manufacturing and supply lines are being redirected because of the lessons of COVID. Hewlett-Packard, Dell, Microsoft, and Amazon are actively seeking to move, or have moved, significant parts of their business capacity outside of China. In the case of HP and Dell, these companies moved about are 30% of their China-based activity to India, Vietnam, and other places. Other firms that are among US companies that are seeking alternatives to China are Google, Sony, and Nintendo. But, I will state it once more, the essential point is that China will eventually have to bend to the will of its own middle class. The simple truth is that China is neither a colossus nor a creaking disaster waiting to happen. They are a first world nation facing first world problems. They feel the heat of global competition just like the US and the EU, and if the Central Committee attempts another Great Leap Forward based on ideology they will suffer the same fate.