National Power Projection

[GoodSarmatian]

So our military should only plan for completely predictable threats?

You can only 'plan' for 'predictable' threats, that's what the words plan and predictable imply.
We were takling about a ridiculous France vs UK scenario. Do you think the UK should prepare to take over France's overseas territories in case a war breaks out ?
Or that Poland should fortify their western borders in case Germany decides to be Germany again ? That would be a waste of money and such a public display of distrust would just put a strain international relations,
Trying to be prepared for everything is impossible.
All Western countries are basically untouchable through their alliances, thheir economic interdependancy, and their military strength.

 

[Ayn Rand]

You can only 'plan' for 'predictable' threats, that's what the words plan and predictable imply.
We were takling about a ridiculous France vs UK scenario. Do you think the UK should prepare to take over France's overseas territories in case a war breaks out ?
Or that Poland should fortify their western borders in case Germany decides to be Germany again ? That would be a waste of money and such a public display of distrust would just put a strain international relations,
Trying to be prepared for everything is impossible.
All Western countries are basically untouchable through their alliances, thheir economic interdependancy, and their military strength.

I was talking about whether power projection is outdated, not about a UK-France conflict. As I pointed out, in every period of prolonged peace, people convince themselves there is no threat and run down the military. War will always return.

 

[Winner]

Readiness to do what exactly ?
There is no threat today, and any weapon we build now to counter some hypothetical crisis in 30 years will be obsolete when we need it.

The US and China are quite intent on fighting each other at some point in the future, so it makes sense they are preparing for it. They won't say that publicly, of course.

As for Europe, we don't have any enemies worth spending the kind of money on defence the US does. Let's not get dragged into any funny business in East Asia/Pacific region, that's my advice.

 

[Flying Pig]

All Western countries are basically untouchable through their alliances, thheir economic interdependancy, and their military strength.

I'm waiting for Dachs to come along and tear that to shreds, but in the meantime may I ask you what the generation of 1914 thought the surest guarantors of peace?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I'm waiting for Dachs to come along and tear that to shreds...

He's welcome to try, but I think he'll agree with me that WW1 isn't an appropriate historical example.

but in the meantime may I ask you what the generation of 1914 thought the surest guarantors of peace?

That's the precedent people love to use and I have been guilty of it in the past, after all economic interdependece was very high shortly before the outbreak of WW 1.
But the political situation today is completely different.
There's no inscrutable alliance system to keep a balance of power in Europe, there's no declining empire that's losing it's grasp on rebellious provinces. I don't think there's currently a region in he world that's remotely as likely to trigger a conflic between major powers as the Balkans of the early 20th century, and the situation in Europe was made worse by the fact that all the parties in the conflict were on the same continent and shared borders with each other.
Taiwan ? Kashmir ? Even if there's an escalation, let the Asians deal with it. The USA might feel compelled to interfere, but we in Europe can just sit back and sell arms to all sides.
The middle east ? This one could be nastier if 'the West' is willing to go to war over Israel and Russia is willing to go to war over Iran, but I dare say that we are now generally more reluctant to let things escalate into open large scale warfare than a hundred years ago because our weapons have become much more destructive and expensive and because mass media makes the horrors of war more apparent to people who are hundreds of kilometers away from the frontlines.

Now I don't say there won't be a war between China and the USA, I'm just saying Europe will be smart enough to keep out of it.

And if you want to bring Thukydides up, America is not Athens and we are not Melos.

 

[Dachs]

He's welcome to try, but I think he'll agree with me that WW1 isn't an appropriate historical example.

It is an appropriate historical example if all you were talking about were "alliances, economic interdependancy [sic], and military strength".

But the reality is that military strength has very little to do with whether countries go to war with each other. Alliances can either promote stability or give extra cause to expand a conflict. And economic interdependence has never stopped anybody from fighting before.

There are valid reasons that a global war is not likely now, and you touched on a few of them in your follow-up post. But none of them come anywhere close to guaranteeing "untouchable" status to anybody.

 

[Winner]

That's the precedent people love to use and I have been guilty of it in the past, after all economic interdependece was very high shortly before the outbreak of WW 1.
But the political situation today is completely different.
There's no inscrutable alliance system to keep a balance of power in Europe, there's no declining empire that's losing it's grasp on rebellious provinces. I don't think there's currently a region in he world that's remotely as likely to trigger a conflic between major powers as the Balkans of the early 20th century, and the situation in Europe was made worse by the fact that all the parties in the conflict were on the same continent and shared borders with each other.

On top of all that, the European mindset concerning the utility of war has been profoundly changed by the experiences of WW1 and WW2. This generation of Europeans is psychologically incapable of waging war against each other, the very idea is widely considered laughable. Massive brainwashing would be required, and I don't see that on the horizon.

Taiwan ? Kashmir ? Even if there's an escalation, let the Asians deal with it. The USA might feel compelled to interfere, but we in Europe can just sit back and sell arms to all sides.

(...)

Now I don't say there won't be a war between China and the USA, I'm just saying Europe will be smart enough to keep out of it.

Exactly what I am saying. Europe is now in the best position ever to steer clear of conflict and focus on peaceful, sustainable development. Let's not ruin it. If the Americans and the Chinese and the Indians and others want to play soldiers, let's just watch them and "enjoy".

 

[Flying Pig]

And if you want to bring Thukydides up, America is not Athens and we are not Melos.

Funnily enough, General Hackett (once VCDS, amongst many other things), in his later life as a University Chancellor, once saw several of his students protesting against nuclear weapons, with the argument that any war would be so destructive that nobody would contemplate engaging in one. He (a Classics graduate) gently suggested that they read History of the Peloponnesian War before concluding that such concerns ever stopped anybody.

 

[Dachs]

That's a rather silly thing to suggest, because no Greek before either Peloponnesian War ever thought that war between Athens and Sparta was impossible to imagine. One might think that Hackett himself ought to have read the History more closely.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Funnily enough, General Hackett (once VCDS, amongst many other things), in his later life as a University Chancellor, once saw several of his students protesting against nuclear weapons, with the argument that any war would be so destructive that nobody would contemplate engaging in one. He (a Classics graduate) gently suggested that they read History of the Peloponnesian War before concluding that such concerns ever stopped anybody.

Yes, I can't wait until someone resurrects the argument for destroying an entire city, although with nuclear weapons this time [having said that, Fallujah was something of a reincarnation already].

 

[Flying Pig]

That's a rather silly thing to suggest, because no Greek before either Peloponnesian War ever thought that war between Athens and Sparta was impossible to imagine. One might think that Hackett himself ought to have read the History more closely.

I think his point was more that nobody could have thought it would end well and yet they still went ahead with it.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Is it okay if, for the purposes of making this conversation more interesting, I imagine Mr. Hackett is an Admiral instead of a General?

 

[Dachs]

I think his point was more that nobody could have thought it would end well and yet they still went ahead with it.

While the overarching lesson is true - many governments go to war in spite of the effect it is likely to have on their countries, not because of it - that's not actually something that Thoukydides pushed in his history. Actually, he seems to have approved of the various disastrous decisions Perikles, one of the key hawks, took that brought Athens into the war.

I mean, if Hackett were going to pick an example of countries fighting wars they knew they couldn't win, and went on to fight anyway, he could've picked other examples of a more modern and perhaps relevant nature that didn't just sound like a cantankerous old man irritably trying to endow the ancient texts he was forced to read as a boy with some mystical, transcendent, immortal meaning and lesson for the ages.

Not that my opinion of all this has been clouded by anything in particular.

Is it okay if, for the purposes of making this conversation more interesting, I imagine Mr. Hackett is an Admiral instead of a General?

Go for it. Although General Hackett did give us some of the more entertaining military fiction of the 1980s.

 

[Farm Boy]

Now I don't say there won't be a war between China and the USA, I'm just saying Europe will be smart enough to keep out of it.

Let us very much hope that there is not. There is enough firepower around to globe to make the references to make WWI look like bad memories of an unpleasant skeet outing.

I doubt the truth of the 2nd statement. The doctrine of "limited war" has been tested...some... but I won't put too much faith in it. Once "it hits the fan" between developed countries there is always the elephant in the room.

Maybe NATO countries could stay out of a proxy war between the US and China, if it became a war proper? I doubt it.

 

[Winner]

Maybe NATO countries could stay out of a proxy war between the US and China, if it became a war proper? I doubt it.

US has what it considers "vital interests" in the East Asia/Pacific region. Europe doesn't, there is no reason for countries like Germany or France to get involved. Britain might out of some misguided loyalty to the Americans and the need to scrap old navy ships without having to pay for it.

If a s***storm like a "proper" China-US war erupted, Europe should stay the hell out of it and maintain friendly neutrality with the US. That is, I don't think it will ever come to an all out war similar to the World Wars; it would be more like a limited conflict over a certain issue. No matter who'd win, a period of "cold war"-like relations would follow between the two powers.

 

[imperialman]

Britain might out of some misguided loyalty to the Americans and the need to scrap old navy ships without having to pay for it.

I can see Britain getting involved due to the the FPDA (Five Power Defence Arrangements) between Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Malaysia. I don't see us being involved in a matter solely between the US and China no but if those other states were involved I believe British involvement to be a real possibility.

 

[Patroklos]

US has what it considers "vital interests" in the East Asia/Pacific region. Europe doesn't, there is no reason for countries like Germany or France to get involved. Britain might out of some misguided loyalty to the Americans and the need to scrap old navy ships without having to pay for it.

If a s***storm like a "proper" China-US war erupted, Europe should stay the hell out of it and maintain friendly neutrality with the US. That is, I don't think it will ever come to an all out war similar to the World Wars; it would be more like a limited conflict over a certain issue. No matter who'd win, a period of "cold war"-like relations would follow between the two powers.

Are you seriously ignorant of the how much of the European economy is linked to South East Asia?

Not to mention Europe choosing to be a non player in the most important event in this century will not only make you irrelevant to the outcome, it will prove once and for all the fact that Europe is second string.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Are you seriously ignorant of the how much of the European economy is linked to South East Asia?

Not to mention Europe choosing to be a non player in the most important event in this century will not only make you irrelevant to the outcome, it will prove once and for all the fact that Europe is second string.

I don't think he is ignorant, he is just stating a very real aspect of the modern European mindset - that if America gets into a big war, mainland Europe will do everything it can to stay out of it. Remember that America stayed out of early entry in both World War One and Two and gained considerably by doing so, arguably at Europe's expense.

 

[Patroklos]

No, America gained nothing from remaining out of WWI and WWII. What exactly do you think the benefits were?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

No, America gained nothing from remaining out of WWI and WWII. What exactly do you think the benefits were?

Less losses for the USA and the destruction of all that European infrastructure which left your industry without serious competition for the following years ?