In practice that is not how it is going to go. The military disagrees also, and while they are not oracles about how combat goes, they do usually have a good idea of the timeframe of conflict. If anything, they'd tend to underestimate the length of conflicts, and they seem to have arrived on the 3-6 month figure.
In practice that is not how it is going to go. The military disagrees also, and while they are not oracles about how combat goes, they do usually have a good idea of the timeframe of conflict. If anything, they'd tend to underestimate the length of conflicts, and they seem to have arrived on the 3-6 month figure.
At the outer edge of that, all prewar stocks are essentially fired off and you're relying on your industrial base to replenish.
By 10 minutes, I was referring to a nuclear exchange. The military war games every imaginable scenario. But do you really think that the U.S. (and allies?) and China would, or could, fight a protracted, conventional war? Without it escalating into a nuclear exchange? what I hear it's cyberwar time anyway. Guns are passe and obsolete for the big boys. All that shit---tanks, F-16s, ships, subs, etc.---those are just toys we get in exchange from the defense contractor welfare queens for keeping them on the dole.
The Chinese want a nuclear exchange as little as we do. Assuming foreign powers will go nuclear instantaneously is a wrong assumption. The US counterforce is well-attested, based upon SSBNs that can't be knocked out in any reasonable first strike. A single SSBN surviving is enough to reduce China to ruin.
No, they'll go conventional and try to win that way with fait accompli that are too hard to undo. And what they want is not that complicated. They want a band of Finlandized or occupied states along their borders to the maximum extent possible.
I won't debate you, or anyone else here, on their forecasts of hypothetical future events, probable action plans, or what certain people with whom I'm not at all familiar, are planning on doing, thinking of doing, etc. in the future---especially the combined military high command of the Great Powers on Earth. I'll leave that to you and the senior analysts at the Rand Corporation.
In a real wargame, there's something called the white cell that controls the scenario. You will almost never see a white cell assume nuclear exchange. There's a good reason for this - it's not likely to happen. Nuclear weapons are under national command authorities and are not delegated to commanders on the ground because leaders around the world understand the implications of the use of even tactical weapons. No one wants to have their country wiped out. Anyone who blithely assumes nuclear weapon release is not thinking realistically and logically. Deterrence means not using your nuclear arms.
This is why I never understood backpack nukes, nuclear torpedoes, nuclear penetrator bombs and nuclear artillery shells. The step from that to a full strategic exchange barely exists.
What's the difference between a "real" war game and a "fake" war game? The fake war game has a white cell but no scenario? Or it has both white cell and scenario but the white cell has no control over the scenario? Or it has a scenario but no white cell to control it? Or it has neither white cell nor scenario, in which case the generals leave the room and go have a drink?
In practice that is not how it is going to go. The military disagrees also, and while they are not oracles about how combat goes, they do usually have a good idea of the timeframe of conflict. If anything, they'd tend to underestimate the length of conflicts, and they seem to have arrived on the 3-6 month figure.
At the outer edge of that, all prewar stocks are essentially fired off and you're relying on your industrial base to replenish.
By 10 minutes, I was referring to a nuclear exchange. The military war games every imaginable scenario. But do you really think that the U.S. (and allies?) and China would, or could, fight a protracted, conventional war? Without it escalating into a nuclear exchange? what I hear it's cyberwar time anyway. Guns are passe and obsolete for the big boys. All that shit---tanks, F-16s, ships, subs, etc.---those are just toys we get in exchange from the defense contractor welfare queens for keeping them on the dole.
The Chinese want a nuclear exchange as little as we do. Assuming foreign powers will go nuclear instantaneously is a wrong assumption. The US counterforce is well-attested, based upon SSBNs that can't be knocked out in any reasonable first strike. A single SSBN surviving is enough to reduce China to ruin.
No, they'll go conventional and try to win that way with fait accompli that are too hard to undo. And what they want is not that complicated. They want a band of Finlandized or occupied states along their borders to the maximum extent possible.
I won't debate you, or anyone else here, on their forecasts of hypothetical future events, probable action plans, or what certain people with whom I'm not at all familiar, are planning on doing, thinking of doing, etc. in the future---especially the combined military high command of the Great Powers on Earth. I'll leave that to you and the senior analysts at the Rand Corporation.
That's not what Larry WIlkerson (and I don't have reasons to doubt him on this) says. Every war game proceeds to nuclear pretty rapidly.
In a real wargame, there's something called the white cell that controls the scenario. You will almost never see a white cell assume nuclear exchange. There's a good reason for this - it's not likely to happen. Nuclear weapons are under national command authorities and are not delegated to commanders on the ground because leaders around the world understand the implications of the use of even tactical weapons. No one wants to have their country wiped out. Anyone who blithely assumes nuclear weapon release is not thinking realistically and logically. Deterrence means not using your nuclear arms.
This is why I never understood backpack nukes, nuclear torpedoes, nuclear penetrator bombs and nuclear artillery shells. The step from that to a full strategic exchange barely exists.
What's the difference between a "real" war game and a "fake" war game? The fake war game has a white cell but no scenario? Or it has both white cell and scenario but the white cell has no control over the scenario? Or it has a scenario but no white cell to control it? Or it has neither white cell nor scenario, in which case the generals leave the room and go have a drink?
A fake wargame is run at a game store or in a basement. A real wargame is part of a military exercise.