It occurs to me decades in foreign entanglements with terrorists and regional powers has produced a military that is excessively specialized in finding and eliminating specialized threats.
Can that be turned around to an advantage at the outset of a conventional war? Could the US effectively use the tools it's built fighting terrorism in order to engage in a campaign of misdirection, distraction, and surgical strikes to win the war with a much smaller and less costly force?
For example, China decides to forcibly take Taiwan and the Philippines and spams out hundreds of missile boats in the area and soldiers making any large scale conflict costly.
The US would set up a defensive position in the pacific near Australia and begin small-scale harassment operations. They would then, E.G. Because they are used to dodging Iraqi's to get to a compound and knock out the leadership, they would also be very apt at sneaking into a position near a hydro dam with specialized anti-tank weapons and destroying it. Other missions might include a Grab & Bag or Sweep & Clear of Civil R&D, engineering or executive staff at the same time to make rebuilding the damn difficult, and scuttling fleets of construction equipment at construction yards. While the Chinese were distracted by solving a logistical nightmare, we'd begin hitting railways, bridges, comms stations, data centers, fiber lines, and so forth.
The net effect would be to cripple the combat effectiveness of the Chinese Military in order to force unfavorable conflicts.
All of the COIN experience we've had would probably help with being able to carry out targeted killings on the enemy's command structure, but I'm not sure if the US would want to set the precedent of assassinating the leaders of state-level actors.
Christian Reed
You're basically asking what the effect of SOCOM would be in a conventional war, since their COIN operations would assumedly be useless. >sneaking into a position near a hydro dam with specialized anti-tank weapons and destroying it. That's ridiculous Vietnam shit. Guided munitions would be used for this. >blackbag guys Limited use but SOF is adept at it, really nothing special since shit like this has been conducted for a long time. >hitting railways, bridges, comms stations, data centers, fiber lines Also guided munitions. These would all happen at the same time as the dam.
SOCOM could retain its current posture, but it would be pretty fucking lame. A more interesting question is how SOCOM would adapt to the challenges of facing an actual military, that is, no-fly zones, the risk of interception, anti-air, and a competent intelligence network.
Realistically the 75th would be back to doing light infantry shit, seizing airfields if they can, Delta would be handling collections, the Green Berets would keep training insurgents, and the big boy branches would finally have another chance to win a conflict while infantry mostly just sits around and occupies territory, contracts STDs, and leaks classified info to flip ladyboys. SOFfags would be mad as fuck since their budget got slashed and redirected to the pockets of the congressmen who voted yes on the war.
Ethan Torres
State-sponsored assassinations are illegal because of EO 12333. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12333 As long as as it was kept to strictly military targets it would be okay.
Jace Taylor
>State-sponsored assassinations are illegal >US >caring about legality, even if it wrote the law itself
Hudson Russell
Sounds pretty badass, it would be interesting to see how the branches would cooperate or conflict with each other in this scenario. I imagine it would be like a more slow going Gulf war
Jason Cook
Right, I was referring to military leaders. Establishing a precedent of explicitly targeting the enemy’s high command would probably be seen poorly by the international community as a whole.
Carter Adams
What you're asking is can special forces do exactly what they're supposed to do
Noah Ortiz
To be fair, that's not an entirely unreasonable question. The US has spent so much time focused on re-aligning for counter-insurgency ops that some wonder if they're still maintaining the capabilities necessary for conventional warfare.
Ian Butler
Have you ever fucking looked at the US military
Jonathan Baker
What kind of a high command isn't a military leader? At the end of the day war is an extension of politics. Religious leaders? We call that a theocracratic government, and therefore its head is legitimate target.
Aiden Price
if the US and the Chinks throw down, fuck what anyone else thinks
Wyatt Moore
We finna kill yo gods
Parker Lopez
Thread OP here.
So I think what I'm talking about is the transition from conventional warfare to total warfare.
In conventional warfare we consider an opponents R&D, Domestic operations, and civillian population centers as non-targets as we are hoping either to capture them or repurpose them after the war. "May the best country win" is the mentality.
In Total warfare, those targets are open to exploitation. Our main objective is to eliminate our opponent, with the only definate targets of that being the command and control staff of the enemy.
And when you think of historical examples, such as killing Hitler and his cabinete before the war started, I don't think a single infantryman wasn't thinking about shooting that guy. That's the problem with war, there are often no borders.
Remember we won our War for Independance largely by shooting the Captians and Luitenants of the Brittish army first then hiding behind tree's while firing. You knock out the top brass on a non-democratic state, which I'll remind everyone here the US has done that before with Saddam and others, you have a serious command and control problem. It's a critical weakness.
The international community is going to think of whatever is in their best interest.
Lucas Morgan
Infantry is always a crucial piece in any type of warfare. Conventional, unconventional, etc
Logan Torres
Leadership are considered legitimate targets in an armed conflict.
Samuel Morales
>total war Now you're opening a whole new can of worms. A total war between two nuclear states will 100% result in nuclear weapons being used unless the war comes to a draw. Our three prime examples of total war - the U.S. Civil War, WW1, and WW2 - have resulted in complete annihilation for the losing sides, and record-breaking casualties in each conflict. The reason why modern war is largely asymmetric is because of nuclear development, it's nearly impossible to successfully invade a nuclear state with a significant force since they have the ability to cut your supply lines, permanently, with nuclear weapons and their fallout. Anybody who thinks that this is not going to be used immediately, as soon as it seems like one side will lose, is fooling themselves. Nobody wants to face complete annihilation, they will use the nukes, and if this doesn't hold back annihilation then they will nuke citizens as well. Basically, if a legitimate total war broke out between any two nuclear states, SoF would already be irrelevant, everything is irrelevant except the nukes, you can fight a ten year war but as soon as they start seriously thinking that they're in danger, you're getting nuked, they aren't just for display, they're designed to win wars.
Idk man, I honestly don’t think nukes would be used. Maybe I’m being optimistic, but I think the only nuclear strikes that could ever be approved by any nation would only be in retaliation for nuclear strikes. Either that, or special forces would disable the silos before they could launch, or the mobile launchers. Also the consequences for using nukes would be worse than holocaust tier. In world war 2 no one said shit to the United States because it finally ended the war and the actual holocaust “happened”. In a modern war, this would not be the case
Jace Cox
That's just to stop the CIA from randomly killing heads of state without permission.
Daniel Richardson
CIA can’t really pull that off anymore. Their budgets have been raped since the Cold War. That would explain their poor performance in preventing terror attacks and finding terror cell leaders. The Cold War is over, and high level assassinations are damn near impossible
Leo Martin
>the only nuclear strikes that could ever be approved by any nation would only be in retaliation for nuclear strikes Yeah, we sure have a lot of precedent for that. Oh wait.
Jordan Anderson
All the more reason to explicitly ban such an act. Secretly killing a head of state sounds like the perfect way to get more budget.
Daniel Cruz
That’s the thing, the only precedent for nuclear weapons was during the Cold War, and only as a reaction to a glitch saying that the United States launched multiple icbms. That’s it, there’s no past example so everyone would be scared shitless to do it. I mean, why risk annihilation when you can just have your troops keep shooting
Nathan Rodriguez
Yeah bc war itself is a very logical act...and fighting in a war is even more logical.
Josiah James
True. But then again, it’s a very short term solution in terms of budget. If the whole thing leads to the nation turning into another Somalia, the only long term result will be the government cutting the budget of the CIA and giving more to the FBI or NSA as punishment. That’s not even the worst part, the worst is the brain drain that occurs when your heads are replaced and others are fired/leave due to shittier budget
Levi Edwards
Why do you think that we just sit around and watch sandniggers kill each other all the time? There have been dozens of books written about strategic and tactical nuclear doctrine, they're a real weapon, not some make-believe shit, they have been utilized before and nobody will hesitate to use them again.
Nuclear weapons vs supply lines would not draw much international aggression, you just end up with an undersupplied army in your borders and a radioactive barrier between your territory and theirs. If this isn't enough to force an end to the war, it will escalate to nuking enemy command targets, likely followed by enemy infrastructure/industry, and if necessary, enemy civilians.
In an actual total war scenario, this is what's necessary for your nation to avoid the fate of Germany in both postwar periods, and the fate of Japan after WW2. The question of completely automating the system is already in discussion, to eliminate the "human element" and ensure that deterrent is built on something real.
A country does what it needs to do in war, if you're willing to stack up 20,000,000 of your own young men then you're willing to nuke your enemies, that's an absolute fact, regardless of what the international community thinks. If you don't pull that trigger, your country is dead, that's how total wars end for the loser.
and that's why we haven't had a total war since WW2 ended.
Yeah War is chaotic as fuck, but it’s mainly a monkey see monkey do type shit. I mean for fucks sake, two nuclear powers were firing salvos at each other a month or two ago, and no nukes were used, despite the utter hatred the two have for each other
Gavin Brown
>the only precedent for nuclear weapons was during the Cold War Do you not know that we have dropped 2 nukes on human targets.
Hudson Sanchez
Idk man, I think the optics of nuclear exchange of any kind is too much to be politically approved, even if it militarily “viable” I don’t know if I would count those. The situation was radically different to any now, especially since all major threats to our country have nuclear weapons as well. The japs couldn’t do shit, but nowadays China or Russia or some shit could equally wreak havoc
Ryder Long
India and Pakistan had no skin in the game. Take out 1million soldiers on both sides, level their three largest cities, 4-5 million civ casualties and then the nukes will come out. The citizens will be screaming to use them. I'm not familiar on their wind patterns over there though. It might be impractical for a neighbor to nuke it's neighbor. Russia or China vs USA different story though...
Blake Murphy
I don’t think citizens would cry for them to be used. On either side, there is such a stigma from almost any people I’ve ever talked to, from any background. It’s this instinctual fear, i think most of not all people would rather fight with their hands and rifle than with nukes in any circumstance
Grayson Clark
Maybe people think that, because they don't know about war. When a total war breaks out, they won't be fighting with their rifles, them and their buddies are going to die by artillery, not by gunshot wounds. A lot of people envision this modern battlefield with a bunch of guys running around and tanks beside them and helicopters in the sky. Their attitudes will change when they see a whole platoon melt away under indirect fire, reality check.
Jackson White
But enough to justify what in many people’s minds is extinction? I wouldn’t go that far
Ayden Robinson
Till there's no where to live, no food, and entire generation's have been wiped out. Maybe you're right though. The world (at least here in the west) is a softer kinder gentler place then days of old
Elijah Jenkins
You right. No safe place for anyone in a total modern war. You live underground bc you could be wiped out in a sec by a drone or missile
Adrian Gutierrez
I don’t even think it’s possible to stir our people into such a rage anymore. Unless actual nukes are used against us, we could never go into such a blind rage
Wyatt Roberts
Though the advancements in anti-missile and Anti-drone defense systems would be interesting to see develop in such a conflict. That’s the thing about war, it’s equal parts innovation as well as destruction
Nicholas Fisher
Again no food no shelter destroyed generations. They don't get angry it's about survival
John Sanders
I completely disagree. Not only would people accept the use of nukes, they would be baying for it.
But even setting the thoughts of 'the people' aside. We're talking about China. If their leaders want to use nukes then nukes will be used. They're an autocracy. And why wouldn't the Chinese leadership want to use nukes? They've seen what has happened to deposed regimes in Iraq, Libya and Nazi Germany. I'd gladly turn the borderlands of my nation into a nuclear wasteland if I saw it as a way to avoid sodomisation with a bayonet.
Isaiah Cox
>they would also be very apt at sneaking into a position near a hydro dam with specialized anti-tank weapons and destroying it I can only assume you're talking about the three gorges dam. Destroying ot would be a massive blow to both Chinese industry and morale, but would be no easy task; in a shooting war between China and any well armed nation, you could expect the dam to be one of the most heavily defended structures on earth. This is not to say that eliminating, or at least crippling it would be impossible. The point is that inserting special forces into such an area in such a conflict would be incredibly difficult, and the task would be better left to some other approach. Personally, I'm a fan of spamming the thing with MOPs, but that's just me.
The real benefit the US has here is what we've learned in supplying and aiding rebellious forces. Fortunately for us, China has it's own oppressed Muslim issue with the Uyghurs, giving the US a prime opportunity to sew unrest. Better still, China has practically no experience dealing with an insurgency (not that they have much experience dealing with anything).
Asher White
Yeah, spec ops would be pointless for something like that. Cruise missile barrage would be much less risky.
Mason Moore
Both sides wouldn't use nukes unless it were to be a final assault. It is known on both sides that any nuclear weapons even if tactical would spell the end for the world. The only situation I could see nukes being launched in is if the US is able to seize large areas of Chinese territory or in the event of an assault on Beijing. This is unlikely since the US is probably unwilling to loose the enormous number of troops needed to completely conquer China. Fighting would be largely in neighboring countries and South China Sea
Brayden King
The current US military would not be used to conduct actual terrorism. Rather the military would be used to achieve legitimate convential objectives. A specially created US task force or most likely the CIA would be used to conduct terrorism will the purpose of scaring Chinese troops and China supporters
Brody Williams
Jesus, I felt my brain beginning to liquify from reading this garbage.
You clearly haven't read any books about strategic and tactical nuclear doctrine. Let alone Grasping how deference and escalation works.
