+- Rogue-Nation Discussion Board (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb)
+-- Forum: General and Breaking News Events (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=43)
+--- Forum: War, Peace or Inbetween (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=46)
+--- Thread: I want to de-construct some statements I've made recently (/showthread.php?tid=2880)
I want to de-construct some statements I've made recently - FCD - 06-22-2025
I'd like to take this opportunity to 'de-construct' the theme of some statements I've made lately. ...
I have been severely critical of the USN and USAF for their ability to respond to smaller threats, and only responding by building bigger and more expensive naval and air assets. I stand firmly by these statements.
Now, that said, what we have just seen happen in Iran are examples of exactly the opposite. They are examples of heavy, and expensive, firepower. I readily acknowledge this. As we move forward, we are likely to see more of the same, up to and including carrier task forces moving up near, if not into, the Persian Gulf. Let's examine this. ...
The heaviest boat the Iranian "Navy" has is FAR smaller than the smallest fleet capable USN asset. What this means is, in order to defend these massive USN assets, you have to put other massive (and expensive) US assets out there to run interference (i.e. billion dollar destroyers, frigates, etc). At best, the Iranian "navy" is patrol boats, BUT...they have LOTS of them, AND, they're expendable. Not so with a US Naval asset, even the smallest ones.
Now, if the 'Rules of Engagement' weren't filled with all sorts of "touchy-feely feel good conditions" this might be a different post. Then, the mantra might be to give notice, and then...."If it moves, even a little bit, then blow it to the F'king MOON from 50 miles away (i.e. over the horizon)!" But those aren't the rules of engagement, and instead there are all these rules (which our enemies LOVE BTW (and hide behind), about preventing collateral civilian damage). So, now we have billion dollar assets trying to defend themselves against fishing launches and small gunboats. Where the odds should be decidedly lopsided, now they are even, or even in the enemy's favor (because our hands are tied 16 ways from Sunday).
Some small boats would fix this problem. Engage, and if they resist, mark them, and then...BOOM! Buh-bye!
So, just to be clear; I was never pooping on heavy military assets (nor do I think I have ever suggested such). I was only 'pooping' on our failure to size threat responses appropriately.
Thank you.
That is all.
RE: I want to de-construct some statements I've made recently - F2d5thCav - 06-23-2025
There are a few threads woven into this topic.
One thing FCD brings up is the apparent fixation with very expensive hardware. If we peel back the layers of that acquisition approach, a lot of it revolves around the desire for very accurate ordnance.
And why ? Well, a lot of that was the wringer other countries dragged the USA through because of what was seen as indiscriminate use of ordnance in the Vietnam War. And many of the complainers were not those targeted, it was the USA's fair weather allies like Germany who gleefully kicked the USA in the backside to promote their own agendas.
Thus stung, the USA opted for the hugely expensive option of using guided weapons: missiles, glide bombs, and now even 2.75-inch folding fin aerial rockets.
The other part went back to the Korean War, when our former fair weather allies, the Chinese, used human wave attacks that were difficult to defeat with standard infantry weaponry. This led to the desire for more explosive weapons, along with specialties like cannister rounds, that could shred massed troops before they were able to close with defending forces.
Note, the USA could have taken out Fordow by landing troops and close assaulting the facility with a finishing touch of detonating it sky high using combat engineering techniques.
But that implies casualties, something no Western military wants to deal with anymore -- a critical weakness in the warfighting mentality of the West, by the way. "War means fighting, and fighting means killing" (N. B. Forrest) ... the political legacy of the 1968 generation's unrest drives much of this approach.
The upshot is that we try not to engage with ground forces and that we use highly accurate ordnance that can often be shot from a safe distance away. It is a financially costly way to wage war, and makes for an interesting comparison with regimes like that of Putin, who can cynically burn through hundreds of thousands of central Asian boys in order to bring Ukraine to heel in classic Muscovian style.
RE: I want to de-construct some statements I've made recently - FCD - 06-23-2025
F2d5thCav - Thanks for pointing out the human element and angle of the equation.
That brings up an even more fundamental point. Define 'winning'(?) The underpinning objective is changing with all this new technology. Winning is now becoming more of a..."who can break more of the other guy's stuff". Which, if translated, means..."he who has the biggest wallet wins". I can accept that, but if this is now the rules, then let's take ALL of the warriors out of the fight, and just have wars be a 'war of stuff'. And if we're going to go there, then why even go that far? In that world, who needs a military machine at all? If the name of the game is to spend the other guy into the poorhouse, then why not just send everyone to a casino? A caged death match of roulette to the last man (or woman) standing.
RE: I want to de-construct some statements I've made recently - F2d5thCav - 06-23-2025
"Winning" is a key item to define, isn't it ?
The "trouble" for the USA in these countries is that their populace tends to believe they "won" if the crusaders/great satans/non-believers didn't occupy their land and wipe them out in the style of Rome wrapping up the Punic Wars.
All that goes back to the poor bloody infantry occupying turf with bayonet fixed to their rifle. And that leads back to the desire to avoid casualties ... gee, isn't it fun to blow up things and people if we don't bleed while doing it ? Ugh. While I understand the political imperative underlying this approach, in another sense, it is a betrayal of ancient chivalric traditions in warfare. While anyone can push a button to blow something or someone up, it takes a special kind of person to engage in close-quarters combat.
I also wanted to mention I fully agree with FCD's take on making -everything- too damned expensive. For unmanned systems, we should be able to build low cost devices by the hundreds of thousands (reborn arsenal of democracy) instead of falling prey to the disease of "German design" -- size queen fixation and grossly exaggerated complexity of systems.