The Military Thread

In some ways we got lucky in WWII.

Europe and Africa, as well as Russia took such a hit and really whittled down everything that when we came in it wasn't as bad as it could be. Hitler splitting down both sides really was a dumb-ass move. He could have taken most of Europe and held it even with massacring his labor force if he didn't do that.

It was rough on us sure, but it would have been a lot worse if it didn't.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

Really I can't think of any society right now that could survive a war economy. Too much unrest and resentment everywhere.

Oh really when?

Not for the First Time...

True. Nobody's happy. But if it had to be done, it probably could.

edited 1st Dec '14 2:27:45 PM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On

We don't have a large industrial base to turn full war economy

edited 1st Dec '14 2:28:24 PM by JackOLantern1337

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.

Yeah but about the only situation where any of the world powers would have to turn to a war economy isn't a very bright one. Don't think you'd have to worry about the long term in that one.

Oh really when?

China is definitely a threat but mostly to their neighbors or anyone coming into their country. I am certain they can project some of their military power but not as well as say the US or Russia can. They could do some real damage if they chose to. But I don't think they will be a serious concern for a while.

The US has seriously stretched itself thin and we need time to rest and recover. No more long or big wars for a decade or two. As it is now many nations need to be looking less abroad and more inside their borders.

Who watches the watchmen?

That's not underestimating though. Them intervening when you thought they won't is not underestimation but misinterpretation.

When a battalion of ours can hold off divisions of theirs...where's the underestimating there?

I'm reading this because it's interesting. I think. Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot, over.

Again, the problem is that China only needs to attack the countries next to each other.

The US has many treaty commitments, troops stationed around the world and we're just recovering from two big conflicts.

If the US is seen as weak and unable to commit to the defense of it's friends? That undermines US foreign policy. Even if PACOM was able to recover from a major hit and deliver the Dope Slap to the PLA, would the public stand to see the casualty list?

All night at the computer, cuz people ain't that great. I keep to myself so I won't be a case on The First 48

Except the US doesn't need to beet China on the battlefield. If China were to launch a war against the US and its allies the Chinese economy would last a couple of months before it shattered into tiny little bits. The American economy would hurt but it could actually benefit, as you'd see manufacturing move back to the US due to the entire East/South-East Asia region being a war zone.

The Chinese economy is a house of cards built upon the export of cheep goods and curacy manipulation. Even if other people were willing to trade with a China that started a world war (unlikely) and China could survive not having access to US markets (it can't) it would still have to face the problem of trying to run an export based economy though an active war zone.

The Chinese military could roll over one of Chinas neighbours and end up in a state of war with US, within a few months the Chinese economy would crash and China's military would have its hands full stopping China splitting apart and being overrun by riots. Even if order could be maintained they Chinese military would be bogged down within China, and that's assuming the military doesn't fall apart due to strikes and riots cutting of their supply chain.

edited 1st Dec '14 7:39:42 PM by SilasW

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran

Silas and Teufel beat me to it. Basically, China has no real economic incentive to engage in actual war, either regional or across the Pacific against the US. Global network economics is perhaps one of the main reasons if not THE reason why we haven't seen post-Cold-War bushfire wars spread beyond a regional, asymmetrical level. This doesn't mean that China cannot and does not support Pacific conflicts by proxy (again, the bit about North Korea and Vietnam), but at this point it would be bad for business.

edited 1st Dec '14 7:57:38 PM by Aprilla

When you’re putting battalions against entire divisions, something definitely has gone wrong with the course of the battle; command is either batshit insane or frighteningly desperate. The problem with all these confident analogies to the Korean War that the current Chinese military can be put into place based on experiences of a conflict more than five decades old (during which the PLA has vastly improved and reformed) is that they assume the Chinese haven’t learned or adapted to near anything from Korea and that the somehow superior and exceptional forces of the Free World are bound to keep them in check . . . again . . after sixty or so years of a time lapse.

Plus, the opportunity for an otherwise decently competent Philippine army battalion and a PLA division nowadays would be after the latter manages to land on the beaches of Luzon – any armed conflict between the Philippines and China is going to place their respective navies and air forces at the forefront, and Manila’s navy has utterly decayed to the point where its largest combat vessel is a coast guard cutter, while Beijing’s is now more than capable of operating aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines. The Philippine Air Force consisting of light counter-insurgency aircraft and only a handful of multi-role trainer jets also is simply no match for the People's Liberation Army Air Force and its large fleet of dedicated (and domestically produced no less, the Philippines must rely on foreign imports of top grade equipment) interceptors and stealth fighters.

edited 1st Dec '14 8:13:31 PM by FluffyMcChicken

But that still brings us back to China's biggest weakness: Historically, logistics have always been a great burden for them. That's why the Vietnamese were able to thrash them so badly in the Sino-Vietnamese war of 1979, the Chinese simply wasn't able to mobilize the PLA to bring enough of their forces to bear on Vietnam. The entirety of Vietnam became a No Fly Zone for the PLAAF due to a combination of the VPAF and of course their famous Anti-Air system which cause the USAF and Navair no shortage of headaches a few years previously.

Then again, as mentioned just above, many of the Asian countries lack those two big advantages the Vietnamese had in '79. Which is why China likes to do its posturing games with the Philippine military and not the Japanese Self Defense Forces or the Russians.

Well, not having an aversion to killing our own kind kinda works against ensuring the continuity of the species in the long term.

Dehumanization, IIRC. Train recruits to see The Enemy as something less than human, for one reason or the other.

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Ah no, we're trained to shoot at man-sized targets. We're trained to be professional, even with all the Blood Knight boasting in cadence and training slides.

But the laws and customs of war still apply.

Some armies use this, like North Korea. And they are just as popular as North Korea.

All night at the computer, cuz people ain't that great. I keep to myself so I won't be a case on The First 48

There are degrees of dehumanization. Most "civilized" militaries are content with teaching their soldiers to only dehumanize their enemies to the extent that is sufficient to allow them to kill them when necessary without emotionally traumatizing themselves into nervous wrecks out of guilt.

The likes of North Korea and many a terrorist organization, however, go for full dehumanization, allowing for their troops to go as far as to commit horrible crimes against humanity without so much as an ounce of sympathy.

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/114979/gazmin-edca-deterrent-but-doesnt-assure-us-help/

Big debate in the Senate on whether the EDCA treaty is still worth it because of possibility that American military forces may not help Philippine military in case of war versus China.

"Exit muna si Polgas. Ang kailangan dito ay si Dobermaxx!"

... That treaty was just signed early this year, and now they're debating whether it's worth the paper it's written on?

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Unfortunately, yes. Critics are considering it against the Philippine Constitution since it has the potential of being a loophole around a clause that doesn't allow non-Filipino troops and bases. Even the Visiting Forces Agreement is dragged into this.

"Exit muna si Polgas. Ang kailangan dito ay si Dobermaxx!"

Hey, anything's better than doing real work when you're a politician.

"Yup. That tasted purple."

True that. That's the line used by the critics against the critics of Edca.

Some of the politicians who are challenging its legality were also the ones who supported a resolution to remove them after the end of the Cold War.

"Exit muna si Polgas. Ang kailangan dito ay si Dobermaxx!"

I'll add that there is no officially controllable metric by which we can dehumanize enemy combats without causing psychological harm and severe moral disruption. There obviously isn't a knob on the side of your head you can adjust so you only dehumanize enemies this much or that much. Human psychology doesn't work that way because observations on human behavior tend to be imprecise and variable from person to person despite a more or less standard understanding of violence as a social and political activity. This is why some soldiers will dehumanize their targets unnecessarily and in excess despite their training and conditioning.

Personally I'm pissed we didn't make an assurance to defend the Philippines,according to some poll I read your actually one of the few countries left that actually likes the US,and that alone is worth at least a decent discount on defense purchases, plus shared history, and us kind of owing you guys after fucking things up right after independence. And I suppose the argument could be made that any treaty made with the US without an explicit assurance of armed defense could make you guys more of a target,with China using it as an opportunity to humiliate America at the expense of the Philipines,still it seems like quite a gamble to take,not that our congress isn't known for blinding fits of idiocy as well.

I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.

So I looked it up and apparently the United States has a higher approval rating in the Phillipines than anywhere else in the world.

Also Greece hates us apparently.

"War without fire is like sausages without mustard." - Jean Juvénal des Ursins

The world tends to be "meh" about the USA's leadership, regardless of what left and right will tell you. Most people either don't have an opinion or lean towards mild approval. People tend to situate their political concerns with their own leadership, rather than attributing everything to the US-led global order.

But here's a real brain-teaser. The Philippines is the most pro-US country in Asia. South Korea is second. Bet you won't guess who's third.

'Nam

edited 2nd Dec '14 3:13:46 PM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei

It's because we buy all their shirts

Oh really when?