by NoOneImportant » Tue May 20, 2014 10:52 pm
As I read the segments of today's post I reflected on how truly fortunate we are to have access to this kind of reporting and analysis. Agree, or disagree there are few other sources that cover and distill the events contained herein, and as I might add, have been passed over by the MSM as either politically undesirable, or unworthy of their "divine" attention.
Trevor wrote:
When I looked up China's military capabilities and the forces in opposition to them around the Pacific, it doesn't fill me with a lot of optimism. If the war broke out today, they would rapidly be able to overrun Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, and the Senkakus, even considering the forces we've got over there. That's not including being able to shoot down most of our military satellites. They'd likely sustain heavy casualties, but they don't give a damn about that. With over 1.4 billion people and 110 more young males than young females, they can more than afford the cost.
All great observations. Once you get a handle on the absolute numbers situation, population speaking, the prospect of Chinese conflict in Asia leads to very few possible "good" outcomes.
The US military likes to think in terms of "force multipliers." That is, weapon systems that permit the military to be much more effective, and able to do more, or much more with fewer and fewer people. While the concept of "force multiplier" is not lost upon the Chinese, the Chinese still remember well the experience of the Korean War where the battle-hardened, sophisticated, and well armed American military was driven from North Korea when they were successfully overwhelmed by waves of poorly armed, and poorly equipped Chinese soldiers. Absent those force multiplier smart weapon, or just a large part of the force multiplier arsenal, and America is relegated to the position of a grossly undermanned combatant who must either confront military defeat, or escalate to nuclear conflict; with a salivating Russia watching from the wings. So just how do you eliminate such a significant technical weaponry advantage?
Much of America's conventional capability is embodied in, and dependent upon the constellation of GPS satellites. Absent GPS and the significant arsenal of American smart weapons - the list is impressive and long - America's expensive wonder weaponry becomes instantly transformed into: unguided "bottle rockets" for the tactical missiles, and "dumb gravity bombs" for the GPS guided ordnance (stand-off GPS guided missiles, and GPS guided gravity bombs). The only thing that can be assured of working are the laser guided weapons. Virtually all GPS navigational tools cease to function, with the exception of compasses, and sextants.
The strategic impact of the absence of GPS brings into serious question the extremely sensitive, and for obvious reasons classified question of the guidance of the strategic weapons in our nuclear arsenal. Originally all US strategic missiles used inertial guidance - essentially unjammable guidance. The inertial systems were upgraded to inertial with additional star fixing for accuracy, some testing was done using GPS guidance but was discarded as being considered unreliable. GPS provides a significant cost advantage, should those weapon systems have been "updated" to take advantage of GPS (cost), the crucial question then becomes: absent GPS (if present in the guidance systems of those strategic missiles) what guides those strategic missiles, and where will they deliver their payload - how accurate are they? In the current context of the senior officer purge at the DOD this year, and the last several years these are all valid questions bringing into question the viability of the current, and future American nuclear deterrent.
It is interesting to note that China's recent actions have conditioned the world to think in terms of a single point of conflict, or theater of action; it is the "kill a chicken to scare a monkey" approach that has gained much attention as a small, well contained war (if there is any such thing) to scare American forces from the Asian Pacific theater. The world presumes that approach is China's intent. It might be noted that on December 7, 1941 the Japanese attacked not just Pearl Harbor, but in coordinated action attacked the Philippines, Guam, Wake Island, Hong Kong, Malaya culminating in the eventual fall of Singapore, and Pearl Harbor. With the exception of South Korea (perpetually armed), and possibly a nuclear India all of the prospective Chinese antagonists represent what might be construed as "soft" targets. If any impediment to Chinese aggression on this scale exists it is the absence of the logistical support, and the experience necessary to maintain any such significant Chinese military adventures. Were such an action to take place the measured approach currently being taken by the Russians, and Chinese would need to be abandoned, as it could no longer provide cover for their naked aggression; but at some point that approach will have to be abandoned anyway.
To reiterate, in the final analysis the questions of interest are: absent the lion's share of the US's "force multiplier" weaponry what position does the US find itself in? What is our exposure in a conventional conflict? What is our exposure should a conventional conflict escalate into a strategic nuclear exchange? Are there other alternatives?
As I read the segments of today's post I reflected on how truly fortunate we are to have access to this kind of reporting and analysis. Agree, or disagree there are few other sources that cover and distill the events contained herein, and as I might add, have been passed over by the MSM as either politically undesirable, or unworthy of their "divine" attention.
Trevor wrote:
[quote]When I looked up China's military capabilities and the forces in opposition to them around the Pacific, it doesn't fill me with a lot of optimism. If the war broke out today, they would rapidly be able to overrun Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, and the Senkakus, even considering the forces we've got over there. That's not including being able to shoot down most of our military satellites. They'd likely sustain heavy casualties, but they don't give a damn about that. With over 1.4 billion people and 110 more young males than young females, they can more than afford the cost. [/quote]
All great observations. Once you get a handle on the absolute numbers situation, population speaking, the prospect of Chinese conflict in Asia leads to very few possible "good" outcomes.
The US military likes to think in terms of "force multipliers." That is, weapon systems that permit the military to be much more effective, and able to do more, or much more with fewer and fewer people. While the concept of "force multiplier" is not lost upon the Chinese, the Chinese still remember well the experience of the Korean War where the battle-hardened, sophisticated, and well armed American military was driven from North Korea when they were successfully overwhelmed by waves of poorly armed, and poorly equipped Chinese soldiers. Absent those force multiplier smart weapon, or just a large part of the force multiplier arsenal, and America is relegated to the position of a grossly undermanned combatant who must either confront military defeat, or escalate to nuclear conflict; with a salivating Russia watching from the wings. So just how do you eliminate such a significant technical weaponry advantage?
Much of America's conventional capability is embodied in, and dependent upon the constellation of GPS satellites. Absent GPS and the significant arsenal of American smart weapons - the list is impressive and long - America's expensive wonder weaponry becomes instantly transformed into: unguided "bottle rockets" for the tactical missiles, and "dumb gravity bombs" for the GPS guided ordnance (stand-off GPS guided missiles, and GPS guided gravity bombs). The only thing that can be assured of working are the laser guided weapons. Virtually all GPS navigational tools cease to function, with the exception of compasses, and sextants.
The strategic impact of the absence of GPS brings into serious question the extremely sensitive, and for obvious reasons classified question of the guidance of the strategic weapons in our nuclear arsenal. Originally all US strategic missiles used inertial guidance - essentially unjammable guidance. The inertial systems were upgraded to inertial with additional star fixing for accuracy, some testing was done using GPS guidance but was discarded as being considered unreliable. GPS provides a significant cost advantage, should those weapon systems have been "updated" to take advantage of GPS (cost), the crucial question then becomes: absent GPS (if present in the guidance systems of those strategic missiles) what guides those strategic missiles, and where will they deliver their payload - how accurate are they? In the current context of the senior officer purge at the DOD this year, and the last several years these are all valid questions bringing into question the viability of the current, and future American nuclear deterrent.
It is interesting to note that China's recent actions have conditioned the world to think in terms of a single point of conflict, or theater of action; it is the "kill a chicken to scare a monkey" approach that has gained much attention as a small, well contained war (if there is any such thing) to scare American forces from the Asian Pacific theater. The world presumes that approach is China's intent. It might be noted that on December 7, 1941 the Japanese attacked not just Pearl Harbor, but in coordinated action attacked the Philippines, Guam, Wake Island, Hong Kong, Malaya culminating in the eventual fall of Singapore, and Pearl Harbor. With the exception of South Korea (perpetually armed), and possibly a nuclear India all of the prospective Chinese antagonists represent what might be construed as "soft" targets. If any impediment to Chinese aggression on this scale exists it is the absence of the logistical support, and the experience necessary to maintain any such significant Chinese military adventures. Were such an action to take place the measured approach currently being taken by the Russians, and Chinese would need to be abandoned, as it could no longer provide cover for their naked aggression; but at some point that approach will have to be abandoned anyway.
To reiterate, in the final analysis the questions of interest are: absent the lion's share of the US's "force multiplier" weaponry what position does the US find itself in? What is our exposure in a conventional conflict? What is our exposure should a conventional conflict escalate into a strategic nuclear exchange? Are there other alternatives?