USAF explains 'Cope India' Results

Good. Now, go read Sun Tzu as punishment. You never tell the enemy what you can do to them. You show them only when you have to, and you only show them long enough to kill them.

Especially when I describe the combat system: to activate it, you have to stick in a quarter

Nowadays, of course, you'd have to put in a 65-cent coin. Which you just paid LockMart $25 to make for you.

(Sorry, had a conference with LockMart contract folks today and I'm still p.o.'ed.)

You know way too much for your own good...way too much...

Which translation? I have both Samuel Griffin and Ralph D. Sawyer.

Maybe they go with a some sort of massive Mariel armada.

Amphibious assaults are not a pickup game of basketball.

You are right. Amphibious assault is certainly a Marine speciality, one that our Marines do better than anyone else in history. I am not sure that that implies that there aren't other means to the same end, but me not being sure doesn't mean a lot in the greater scheme of things. Surprises happen: even the very experienced Japanese Imperial Marines were surprised at Tarawa by our LTVs.

I do agree with you that China has no chance of pulling off the highly complex maneuvers that we call amphibious assault, and if they did try, it would most likely be a turkey shoot for the defenders of Taiwan.

Maybe they use a lot of big commercial aircraft like a big Red Ball Express in the air

Boeing would love it! They sell lots of expensive airplanes to the PRC...and then get to sell the replacement for the PRC a bunch of expensive airplanes to replace the ones shot down during the failed invasion attempt!

Maybe. China is developing its indigenous aircraft industry, and of course, France's Airbus would certainly be happy enough to oblige. That's the nature of war: it does make your economy run feverishly (well, unless it is being destroyed more quickly than it is growing.) Look at our pickup from the malaise of the 1930s to the strong wartime economy of the 1940s.

And we ourselves have used, for instance, gliders in WWII. Sometimes accepted items start out as unconventional gimmicks that work in practice. Sometimes gimmicks don't work out; gliders certainly didn't supplant parachutes.

Since they have a lot of people, it will likely be a big wave of some sort.

Human wave attacks have had one distinguishing feature since 1914:

They are bloodily unsuccessful.

The way I read history, the Russians used superior numbers in WWII to defeat the Germans, not superior equipment or better trained forces. Maybe you see it differently, and certainly there are people who also point out that the Russians had an advantage in the bitter weather.

For that matter, the Chinese themselves have a history since 1914 of using human waves successfully (well, as "successful" as Chinese troops go; it's not exactly a distinguished history unless you are really impressed with long walks.) In Korea, I cannot think of anything else that the Chinese used against us that worked. Their doctrine is oriented toward using overwhelming force.

The population overmatch is their biggest advantage with respect to the U.S., and I don't discount China's ability to make use of their greatest asset.

They can take all of that industrial wealth that we have so obligingly placed there -- and while currently they do a lot of shipping to us, they can run their economy without that shipping, certainly as a wartime economy.

And when the oil runs out--and it will run out in a matter of a couple weeks--how are they going to get more oil? There's going to be ZERO shipping into Shanghai or Hong Kong.

You are right on the mark that this is a crucial point. As the world's 6th largest oil producing nation, China produces about 3.5 million barrels of oil per day, about the same as Iran. And like everyone else, they have to have oil to run their war machine. And if we are serious about making hot war, we will go after their production and storage facilities, which they have been madly filling, though it is apparently less than our strategic reserve, or Japan's 90 day reserve. But going after storage on the mainland is a serious escalation from just stopping the Chinese in the water and air.

As a command economy, it is easier for them to redirect their resources to war-time needs, so their native production of 3.5 million barrels per day isn't insignificant -- but it is quite vulnerable, with a lot of it located offshore presently. Destroying it early in a hot war would be one of our keys in a full-scale war with China, but again, it is a big escalation from just stopping China on the water and in the air in a bid for Taiwan.

They can use their little puppet Kim to take our minds off the Taiwan front.

Congratulations, the ROK Army is now on the Yalu, and Kim Jong-Il was eaten by his guards. (That is the likely scenario of a Korean war at K+14.)

If North Korea went that far in making trouble instead of just playing footsie at the DMZ and with missile launches, and as well as activating their fifth column resources, then my guess (for all it is worth) is that they shelled Seoul instead, and there are a few hundred thousand dead South Koreans, and a shattered South Korean economy. And instead of North Koreans retreating across the Yalu River, we might well be looking at Chinese troops across the DMZ. But just to take Taiwan, I think North Korea will be ornery but not making full-scale war. The point for China would be to divert our attention and our troops, not to engage on a two-front war. At least that's my guess -- it is arguable that maybe they would go after all of the marbles if they did decide to try for Taiwan and try to take on South Korea simultaneously. But as you point out, that would be a bigger undertaking, and one where the ROK forces became a significant plus on our side.

They run the Panama Canal, and can close it.

The Panamanian government, loathe to lose the revenue from the Canal, tells them "Open the f***ing Canal before we start hacking your dependents to pieces with machetes, maricons." The US government, meanwhile, chops XVIII Airborne Corps to SOUTHCOM, and we reprise Operation Just Cause.

I hope so. You are right that that is exactly what we would like to do, and we have plans to that effect which were bruited when the final turnover was made. But do you think we have enough spare folks -- it was, what, about 28,000 men that went in with Just Cause (a lot of people jumped in for Just Cause, and this time we don't have any folks already on the ground) -- to pull that off right now? Especially if we are engaged with the Chinese?

The whole point of China causing a ruckus in Panama is to stretch our forces thin, and such a diversion of troops sounds to me like they would be succeeding.

As for the government of Panama making noises, I wouldn't guess that their plaints alone would be enough; even threatening to terminate the contract probably wouldn't mean much in that case.

It is certainly possible that Russia will come down on China's side.

China claims that Russia stole Siberia.

Yes. Japan has claims in the Kurils. China claims Taiwan. Lot of claims going on around Asia. It wouldn't shock me if Russian didn't do a quid pro quo over Taiwan.

If China tries to take Taiwan, Russia will understand that they are next in line, and they will act very decisively. Putin's likely to launch a "limited" nuclear strike that kills 20,000,000 Chinese outright, and kills another 780,000,000 in six weeks because the transportation infrastructure will be destroyed. (The food in China is grown away from where it is consumed; without a rail net, China's people will starve very quickly.)

Okay, that's an interesting scenario. My wild guess would instead be that Putin would rather deal on this issue than just summarily nuke China. But it would certainly make things simpler for us if he did so. And who knows what the Bear will do? We plan for the worst and hope for the best.

But the upshot of all of this is who takes which side in a conflict over Taiwan. Russia? Given a quid pro quo, I wouldn't be surprised if they support China. India? My guess is quiet support for China. Japan? Might ask us to leave Japan if things got too far out of hand, but then again, if China were stupid enough to go directly after them (and China has been notably klutzy with respect to Japan), Japan might join us, but it would extraordinarily painful with respect to oil. That 90 day reserve will disappear quickly indeed. Singapore? I think that they will support China. Australia? Who knows after the recent noises from Canberra. Britain? Yes, my guess is that we can count on them, but I think that their self-interest is limited and so would be their support. As for the rest of our allies, Pakistan will be on China's side in this one. NATO? Well, let's just say that I don't see Germany giving us big support on this.

China is not a nation run by crazies. In fact, the Chinese are much more pragmatic than we are. They know that the deciding factor over Taiwan is will. Bush has it, Kerry does not.

Senator Kerry's foreign policy would unquestionably be a disaster, and maybe even worse than President Carter's or President Clinton's -- that was certainly the indication from the debate, with Kerry's nonsense about "global tests" and further appeasement of the North Koreans.

President Bush has done a fine job in responding to one of the hardest scenarios, a war with a shadowy enemy spread around the globe. I think we will re-elect him, and that it might well be in a landslide.

But I think China is indeed run by crazies, at least by our definition of crazy. These are the same folks that slaughtered tens of millions of their population in the Cultural Revolution, and they are the heirs of 4,000 years of bad to worse governments. What some see as pragmatic behavior by China currently is just the stairstep to us losing our industrial capacity to a rapacious monster, not just simple trade between peaceful countries.

I have no doubt that Bush would light up China like a torch if he had to, to defend Taiwan.

You don't think anguished calls from our industrial leaders might not have some effect on such a decision? I think most Americans would support such a decision from the President to defend Taiwan -- I believe that none of us want to see a fellow democracy lost to the totalitarian Chinese -- but those companies with all of that heavy investment in China would see it differently. And from a national perspective, I think our President would have to weigh our interests which have been so heavily tied to China's goodwill. I would hope that he would find the weight on Taiwan's side, but I don't think that our "One China" policy and our "engagement" with China point that way.

You must understand that our military is no longer about protracted warfare.

We don't always get to choose our wars, much less our battles. I personally think that we need to be able fight a protracted war, and the old plan of being able to do it on two fronts (or at least one and half) was the right plan.

I don't think that we can just safely assume that we can ignore the possibility of protracted war. You are right that our history with invasions of small countries in the last twenty years has indeed shown that our forces are overwhelmingly superior to those we have faced. The Iraqi Army, for all of its obvious weaknesses, was indeed reasonably supplied with okay to good equipment from Russia, and our equipment and doctrine has more than proven itself twice against Iraq's forces.

If you take us on, we are going to obliterate you. We no longer depend on the U.N. for anything at all. When you are alone in the forest with only your knife to protect you, you use that knife and ask questions later.

That's clearly the right way; none of this nonsense that we saw in Fallujah with limited campaigns with limited objectives. And I hope that you are right that we will do so with Taiwan; you are definitely right that I am pessimistic about it occuring.

Let me be optimistic for a moment: I hope that we will all realize before things have gone too far that China is not just another country wanting to escape an ugly past to find a new future as a wealthy and democratic country. It is still a vile totalitarian state with ambitions to at least take Taiwan, if not too more adventurous activities, such as directly confronting Japan over oil and gas rights.

Maybe we will realize that "engagement" is exactly the wrong thing to do with such states, and that we have not gone past the tipping point -- that we will remove our industry and stop indebting ourselves to China's communist government.

Huh?????

The way I read history, the Russians used superior numbers in WWII to defeat the Germans, not superior equipment or better trained forces. Maybe you see it differently, and certainly there are people who also point out that the Russians had an advantage in the bitter weather.

The key to understanding the Eastern Front of WW2 is that Russia could trade space for time. However, it was a damn near thing for Russia--had Hitler been a wee bit more competent in 1941, the German Army would've taken Moscow, and that would have given them the central position in European Russia (every major rail line passed through Moscow, making for a spectacular single-point-of-failure scenario).

A human wave assault across a large body of water is a defender's dream: many of the troops needed for a "successful" human wave assault would be shark chow before they ever engaged.

Also, the PLA is downsizing sharply--they're cutting half of their troops. China cannot afford to equip 2.5 million troops with modern weapons and equipment--so they're cutting their forces down to 1.2 million. The problem is that they cannot afford human wave attacks with only 1.2 million troops, especially since they're also going to have to modernize their force structure and increase the ratio of support troops to combat arms personnel within that 1.2 million.

You are right on the mark that this is a crucial point. As the world's 6th largest oil producing nation, China produces about 3.5 million barrels of oil per day, about the same as Iran.

And they import a s**tload more. 3.5M bbls/day is a drop in the bucket relative to their wartime needs.

And if we are serious about making hot war, we will go after their production and storage facilities, which they have been madly filling, though it is apparently less than our strategic reserve, or Japan's 90 day reserve. But going after storage on the mainland is a serious escalation from just stopping the Chinese in the water and air.

So what? We have absolute escalation dominance (i.e., we can escalate to attacks on their homeland, and there ain't jack-s**t the ChiComs can do about it except commit national suicide by shooting nukes at us.)

If North Korea went that far in making trouble instead of just playing footsie at the DMZ and with missile launches, and as well as activating their fifth column resources, then my guess (for all it is worth) is that they shelled Seoul instead, and there are a few hundred thousand dead South Koreans, and a shattered South Korean economy.

Followed by the ROK Army exacting a very bloody revenge on the DPRK. Also, you're assuming that those guns will be completely unmolested during the days it would take to do that.

We're pulling our forces out of Korea because they are entirely unnecessary to South Korean security. For the past 15 years or so, they've been there to restrain the South Korean government from trying to invade North Korea, not the other way around.

And instead of North Koreans retreating across the Yalu River, we might well be looking at Chinese troops across the DMZ.

ChiCom troops invading South Korea and Taiwan?

One or the other, but not both, grasshopper, unless they really do want to lose both wars.

I hope so. You are right that that is exactly what we would like to do, and we have plans to that effect which were bruited when the final turnover was made. But do you think we have enough spare folks -- it was, what, about 28,000 men that went in with Just Cause (a lot of people jumped in for Just Cause, and this time we don't have any folks already on the ground) -- to pull that off right now? Especially if we are engaged with the Chinese?

We wouldn't need 28,000 men; one Marine Expeditionary Unit and the alert battalion of the 82nd Airborne would suffice.

The whole point of China causing a ruckus in Panama is to stretch our forces thin, and such a diversion of troops sounds to me like they would be succeeding.

Kindly leave the military analysis to those of us who actually know what we're talking about, OK, sweetie? We needed 28K for Just Cause because we were fighting against the Panamanian government; this time, we'd be there at the request of the Panamanian government.

As for the government of Panama making noises, I wouldn't guess that their plaints alone would be enough; even threatening to terminate the contract probably wouldn't mean much in that case.

Did you read the threat? "Re-open the f***ing Canal, or we'll start hacking your wives and kids apart with machetes" makes a wonderful attention-gainer.

Yes. Japan has claims in the Kurils. China claims Taiwan. Lot of claims going on around Asia. It wouldn't shock me if Russian didn't do a quid pro quo over Taiwan.

It would shock the Russian General Staff, provoke them into storming the Kremlin to execute the traitor responsible for giving away Russian territory, and then nuking China.

Okay, that's an interesting scenario. My wild guess would instead be that Putin would rather deal on this issue than just summarily nuke China.

Putin merely hopes that the issue doesn't come up; if it does, he's likely to act ruthlessly and preemptively. He doesn't fancy getting put up against a wall and shot by his own generals.

But the upshot of all of this is who takes which side in a conflict over Taiwan.

All we'd have to do is freeze all foreign assets in the US, and announce that if anybody doesn't enthusiastically support us against China, we will make our currency nonconvertible with theirs.

Russia? Given a quid pro quo, I wouldn't be surprised if they support China.

The quid pro quo would be unacceptable to the Russian military, which would quickly become the new government of Russia.

India? My guess is quiet support for China.

You would guess wrong--they have a 42-year-old grudge, and China getting their a$$es kicked would provide an opportunity for settling it.

Japan? Might ask us to leave Japan if things got too far out of hand, but then again, if China were stupid enough to go directly after them (and China has been notably klutzy with respect to Japan), Japan might join us, but it would extraordinarily painful with respect to oil.

And going against us would ensure that we'd never

That 90 day reserve will disappear quickly indeed.

And we'd keep the sea lanes to Japan open.

Singapore? I think that they will support China.

And go bankrupt in thirty seconds.

Australia? Who knows after the recent noises from Canberra.

Chinese maps laying claim to Australia as part of "Greater China" are a continual annoyance to the Australians.

Britain? Yes, my guess is that we can count on them, but I think that their self-interest is limited and so would be their support.

And it wouldn't be needed.

As for the rest of our allies, Pakistan will be on China's side in this one.

No, Musharraf understands that we're perfectly willing to let India overrun Pakistan if he pi$$es us off enough.

NATO? Well, let's just say that I don't see Germany giving us big support on this.

And they won't need to, anyway.

China's position vs. Taiwan is extraordinarily weak, and will remain so for a very long time; and China's heading towards a very bloody and messy civil war before they'll be ready to take Taiwan.

Don't get me started on LockMart. I used to have to deal with them. Yuck.

I have both Samuel Griffin and Ralph D. Sawyer.

Good man. Have you seen the Roger Ames translation? It is awesome.

RE: Ames translation

Wu Ch'i said: Horse-borne drums, ordinary drums, bells and bells with clappers are used to impress the ears and flags, banners, streamers and pennants to impress the eyes.

I have enough whistles and bells in my collection now :-)

I'm sure this comes as a shock to that yob who was claiming that our F-15's lost because we outsourced the software to India. [chuckle]

What everyone seems to forget is that the only reason the two were having war games is because they are friends -- I don't see the USAF inviting the Chinese PLA Airforce to practise with us.

Well simulating the PLAAF was the whole point of this exercise,but when people think with their egos instead of their heads,you cannot expect too much .

As I said in the earlier posting, if we did take out Iran, I personally think that it might cool China's jets a bit also

A best case scenario would be if the Persian students overthrow the Ayatollahs (and latest polls indicate that anything from 75% to 90% of the population loathe the theocratic state), then the US would be happy, India would be happy (a stronger ally in a fight against the Pakis) and the Persians would be happy.

I'll tell you this much, not one of those Indian pilots believes today that they can take on an Eagle in combat, and expect to live long enough to see their families again.

I'll tell you this much, not one of those Indian pilots would EVER take on an Eagle in combat -- we're not and never going to war with India, we have no point at which such a situation could arise.

They inherited a good tradition from the UK and unlike many former colonial posessions didn't get in a snit about it and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

WEll, to be fair, the Indians had a stronge marital tradition that was co-opted to a large extent by the BRits -- so BRitish tradition is more like Anglo-Indian tradition

Does anyone know if India allows Muslims to fly lethally armed jets? Does India trust such people in a war with Pakistan? Or with sensitive secrets on India order of battle, anti aircraft missile command and control.

Don't forget that the reason we have fewer air-to-air combat is because we go in first, destroy the enemies radar, rendering them blind. THen, we destroy their airforce while the planes are still on the ground. THEN, we send in our fly-boys. We respect our pilots' lives too much not to try and make things as easy for them as possible. ANd this is GOOD. however, that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep them practising for the eventuality that in one way, the destroy-radars first plan doesn't work

Korea was the last time you had two forces that could remotely be considered evenly-matched.

well, last major war at least. the Arab-Israeli conflich was one where the Israelies were outnumbered but had superior technology (and tactics). The Indo-Pak conflicts were pretty even as India had to keep a large chunk of it's military ensuring that the Chinese didn't get any ideas. However, they still dismembered Pakistan and hived off Bangladesh as a separate nation.