Generational Dynamics World View News

Discussion of Web Log and Analysis topics from the Generational Dynamics web site.
John
Posts: 11478
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by John »

Tom Mazanec wrote: > As we've been saying for six years and is finally being increasing
> recognized by Western countries, every Huawei device, including
> iPhones and routers, contains a "backdoor" that permits the
> Chinese military to spy on it, collect data, and even control it
> when necessary.

> I have an iPhone, but I am not the POTUS, just a nobody. Should I
> be worried, and if so about what?
You should feel honored and flattered that your name, along with
personal information from your iPhone, merged with any information
about you that could be hacked from hotel, airline, medical and other
databases, is stored as a record in the Chinese military Huawei cloud
database. Doesn't that make you feel special, rather than just being
a nobody?

Guest

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Guest »

It would be fun to see China send in commandos to rescue this chick from Canada. What a bunch whack jobs. If they tried it, the mask would slip off completely and the West would unite to crash China's economy completely. Maybe they will try to intercept the plane flying her to America? Or maybe they will seize the Canadian Embassy and offer to exchange her for the diplomatic staff? Either way, it would be a declaration of war against the West.

I look forward to seeing this Chinese chick wearing an orange jumpsuit and hand cuffs in an American court room. I bet she'll sing like a canary.

Navigator
Posts: 901
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:15 pm

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Navigator »

Burner Prime wrote:Despite the loss of life and treasure, the US has been honing her fighting skills since Gulf War I. Prior to that there were a lot of shortcomings that were only uncovered by field operations and actual combat. Now our armor, weapons, tactics and electronic coordination, drone use, etc. is superior to any adversary. There are major problems with our Navy but those issues are known and being addressed.
Burner,

While our individual Soldiers are brave and competent, we will be in big trouble in a real war. We are only experienced at fighting counter insurgency, and we did a pretty bad job at that. Our Army is very over-reliant on electronics, and the Chinese will know how to exploit this. Our military is infantry deficient, and over reliant on AirForce ground support. Support the Army probably won't have, as the F35 is such a lemon, we won't have Air Superiority over the battlefield for the first time since 1942. Our force on force tactics have not changed much since WW2, and are very "broad front" centric. And the Navy is not addressing the disaster of the LCS's and over-reliance on extremely vulnerable CV battlegroups.

This is in large part based on my experience as a 30 year Army Officer and my secondary career as a military simulation creator/publisher.

Burner Prime

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Burner Prime »

Navigator wrote:
Burner Prime wrote:Despite the loss of life and treasure, the US has been honing her fighting skills since Gulf War I. Prior to that there were a lot of shortcomings that were only uncovered by field operations and actual combat. Now our armor, weapons, tactics and electronic coordination, drone use, etc. is superior to any adversary. There are major problems with our Navy but those issues are known and being addressed.
Burner,

While our individual Soldiers are brave and competent, we will be in big trouble in a real war. We are only experienced at fighting counter insurgency, and we did a pretty bad job at that. Our Army is very over-reliant on electronics, and the Chinese will know how to exploit this. Our military is infantry deficient, and over reliant on AirForce ground support. Support the Army probably won't have, as the F35 is such a lemon, we won't have Air Superiority over the battlefield for the first time since 1942. Our force on force tactics have not changed much since WW2, and are very "broad front" centric. And the Navy is not addressing the disaster of the LCS's and over-reliance on extremely vulnerable CV battlegroups.

This is in large part based on my experience as a 30 year Army Officer and my secondary career as a military simulation creator/publisher.
Navigator,
I don't dispute anything you wrote. I have watched many hours of Afghanistan combat footage and the default is "call in air strike", where a squad of US infantry can easily get pinned down by 2-3 well-hidden shooters. I would mention that despite that, China has zero combat experience and as shown throughout history, experienced troops and commanders nearly always beat inexperienced counterparts. You should also note that every deficiency you mentioned has been exposed by actual combat operations. China likely has as many or more deficiencies that no one, not even their own leaders know about. They won't show up until tested in battle. For example maybe their SAM systems underperform against the F-35 stealthy lemon. Aside from that a world war would not be fought the way US forces have in the Gulf - as a counter insurgency. It would be all-out brutal maximized carnage without the care to protect life as there is now. Soldiers will be expected to engage much more aggressively and the extreme care to protect civilians would vanish. I think John has brought up this point many times. Battles are fought differently depending on the era.

Burner Prime

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Burner Prime »

Navigator wrote:
Burner Prime wrote:Despite the loss of life and treasure, the US has been honing her fighting skills since Gulf War I. Prior to that there were a lot of shortcomings that were only uncovered by field operations and actual combat. Now our armor, weapons, tactics and electronic coordination, drone use, etc. is superior to any adversary. There are major problems with our Navy but those issues are known and being addressed.
Burner,

While our individual Soldiers are brave and competent, we will be in big trouble in a real war. We are only experienced at fighting counter insurgency, and we did a pretty bad job at that. Our Army is very over-reliant on electronics, and the Chinese will know how to exploit this. Our military is infantry deficient, and over reliant on AirForce ground support. Support the Army probably won't have, as the F35 is such a lemon, we won't have Air Superiority over the battlefield for the first time since 1942. Our force on force tactics have not changed much since WW2, and are very "broad front" centric. And the Navy is not addressing the disaster of the LCS's and over-reliance on extremely vulnerable CV battlegroups.

This is in large part based on my experience as a 30 year Army Officer and my secondary career as a military simulation creator/publisher.
Navigator, actually I would dispute one point: "We are only experienced at fighting counter insurgency"
I don't believe this is correct. Gulf War I was no counter-insurgency. Major head-to-head tank battles took place without the benefit of air support. The US commanders, crews and equipment performed brilliantly. That is only one example. It's true Iraq had old Soviet era tanks and used outdated tactics, but they had recent experience fighting the Iranians. This did not help them. Since then our armor and equipment reliability has improved, and learned lessons applied.

John
Posts: 11478
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by John »

One question that I have is: How would American ground
troops be introduced into the war?

In WW II, the troops massed in Britain, and were sent across
the English Channel to Europe.

What would be the analogous scenario in the next war?

Navigator
Posts: 901
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:15 pm

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Navigator »

Burner Prime wrote:
Navigator, actually I would dispute one point: "We are only experienced at fighting counter insurgency"
I don't believe this is correct. Gulf War I was no counter-insurgency. Major head-to-head tank battles took place without the benefit of air support. The US commanders, crews and equipment performed brilliantly. That is only one example. It's true Iraq had old Soviet era tanks and used outdated tactics, but they had recent experience fighting the Iranians. This did not help them. Since then our armor and equipment reliability has improved, and learned lessons applied.
Burner,

The Gulf War was completely one sided because the Iraqi forces were below incompetent. I cannot stress this too strongly. There has not been a force on force conventional conflict where both sides were competent since 1973 Yom Kippur war.

Our forces learned nothing from the Iraq war regarding conventional warfare, because it was so completely one-sided. Our tanks are from 1982, and our tactics/operational execution is a high tech version of 1944.

I believe the Chinese will have the same kind of success initially that they had when they entered the Korean War in late 1950. They will overwhelm whatever we send, though they will suffer high casualties.

Navigator
Posts: 901
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:15 pm

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Navigator »

John wrote:One question that I have is: How would American ground
troops be introduced into the war?

In WW II, the troops massed in Britain, and were sent across
the English Channel to Europe.

What would be the analogous scenario in the next war?
This is a rough response, but I think you would like some thoughts right away.

I believe that ground wise the Chinese have 3 directions they will attempt to go initially.
1 - Cross over to Taiwan. They will need to eliminate USN ability to intervene, so they will tac nuke the USN carrier groups at sea, and possibly those at Pacific ports. However, they do not have the ability to sea lift their entire Army, so only a portion of it will go this route.

2 - Move through North Korea into South Korea, so as to threaten, if not attempt to invade Japan. Their Army would try to time things so as to be through South Korea by the time the sea lift capability used in invading Taiwan would again be available, this time for invading Japan.

3 - Through Vietnam to get towards Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia. The idea here would be to punish the Vietnamese, and to be able to support/elevate Chinese minorities in SE Asia.

The Chinese will not be able to contain their "offensive spirit" and, I believe, they will also engage India. This will happen both in SE Asia (Thailand/Burma) and across the Himalayas, though across the mountains is nearly impossible logistically.

In response, the American ground forces will attempt to deploy to Taiwan and South Korea. We would first send the Marines, and then the Army. 2 Divisions of Marines and maybe 4-6 Army Divisions. These forces are woefully inadequate to deal with the overwhelming masses the Chinese will employ, and they will probably suffer the same fate as "Task Force Smith" from the early days of the Korean War.

South Korea will fall. I think there is about a 70% chance that Taiwan would too. Attacking Taiwan, and dissipating their strength into SE Asia would give the US the time to mobilize somewhat and do what it could to assist Japan.

Secondary Chinese thrusts could be from Taiwan towards the Philippines, or more likely, from Malaysia into Indonesia.

The Philippines would be a good staging area for Americans looking to get into China, as would Japan.

Tactically, the war will be much more like WW1, where defensive weapons and tactics are ascendant, than WW2. Meaning that once forces become majorly engaged, tactically it becomes a stalemate for quite a while.

Invading China would eventually be attempted, probably at the northern peninsulas of either Liaoyang (think Port Arthur) or Shandong (think German Tsing-tao) and South at Hainan island followed by the peninsula just north of that island.

However, moving into the heart of China would be beyond problematic. Much better to go for a combination of starving China and creating internal divisions.

John
Posts: 11478
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by John »

Navigator wrote: > However, moving into the heart of China would be beyond
> problematic. Much better to go for a combination of starving China
> and creating internal divisions.
A major complicating factor for China is that there will also be an
internal generational crisis civil war along the South-North fault
line. This was the fault line for the last two civil wars -- the
Taiping Rebellion (1850-64) and Mao's Communist Revolution (1934-49).

When the Sino-Japanese war began in 1937, the Nationalist government
had become sufficiently unpopular that Mao was able to use the "United
Front" program to unite numerous factions in support of his communist
party, while leaving the Nationalists to fight the Japanese. The
result was that the Nationalists were weakened, and Mao won the civil
war in 1949.

There are many reasons besides generational theory to believe that
there will be a new civil war. One is that the number of "mass
incidents" has been increasing exponentially since the 1990s. Another
is the CCP has become increasingly paranoid and desperate about
rebellions from Christians, Buddhists and Muslims. Another is that
it's widely believed that the general public in China is not rebelling
against the CCP is because most Chinese are still well fed, and a
recesion would cause much of the public to turn against the CCP.

The other thing I wonder about is that the population that fled to
Formosa/Taiwan in 1949 was from China's south, and they may not be
sympathetic at all to a CCP invasion of their cousins in Taiwan.

The Nationalists were unpopular during the last civil war, and the CCP
will be unpopular during the next civil war, meaning that it's the
CCP's opponents that might be able to use a "United Front" concept to
unite factions against the CCP. However, there's no doubt that all
Chinese will be united against the Japanese.

Vietnam won the last war against China, and they're certainly prepared
to fight a new war. The Indians lost their last war against China,
but they're certainly prepared to fight. The Taiwanese claim that
they can beat mainland China. The Japanese are more than prepared to
fight China.

In Central Asia, China has made lots of enemies by exterminaing the
Uighurs and Kazakhs. Russia will support much of Central Asia, as it
was part of the Soviet Union, and Putin still thinks they should be
part of the Russian empire.

Pakistan, Cambodia and Laos would be on China's side. Britain would
be on the West's side.

So you were talking in an earlier message about 1982 tanks and 1944
tactics. OK. But with so many of China's neighbors at war with
China, and with China itself in a civil war, at what point would
American tanks be at war with China's tanks, and how would they get
there?

jwfid
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:10 pm

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by jwfid »

I wanted add to Navigator's comments:
I believe that ground wise the Chinese have 3 directions they will attempt to go initially.
1 - Cross over to Taiwan. They will need to eliminate USN ability to intervene, so they will tac nuke the USN carrier groups at sea, and possibly those at Pacific ports. However, they do not have the ability to sea lift their entire Army, so only a portion of it will go this route.

2 - Move through North Korea into South Korea, so as to threaten, if not attempt to invade Japan. Their Army would try to time things so as to be through South Korea by the time the sea lift capability used in invading Taiwan would again be available, this time for invading Japan.

3 - Through Vietnam to get towards Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia. The idea here would be to punish the Vietnamese, and to be able to support/elevate Chinese minorities in SE Asia.
I get the feeling that the Chinese will start the war on several fronts at once too. They seem to be over-confident and that will do them in. If they divide and conquer like Hitler and Napoleon, their chances will be better in the beginning.

Joe

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests