If the Javelin thing was actually correct it would make even less sense — 'America now in the position of someone who has just been defeated with modern American technology.'
I agree that anyone who compares Ukraine and Taiwan or drones and aircraft carriers is an idiot. But that doesn't make the denial of the changes occurring in warfare any more plausible.
Drones are a continuation of the precision revolution in warfare, bringing this precision to the platoon/squad level (due to their low cost and mass production). This is a change on the same scale as the changes of the 1970s.
This radically changes warfare, but it doesn't mean that old systems have become irrelevant. Rather, the problem is that this development is reorganizing the battlefield in such a way that even regular troops are beginning to use methods previously reserved for guerrillas.
Obviously, this is radically disadvantageous for powerful players like America—because it pushes them out of the comfortable bubble of destroying the enemy with superior forces through rapid maneuvers, essentially into a permanent counterinsurgency operation, but one that occurs across the entire front line.
America has lost every counterinsurgency war it has waged in recent history. Remember the impact IEDs had on combat tactics and doctrine in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the shock they caused. Now imagine flying IEDs.
>It's just that it was poorly equipped to rapidly respond to the shock induced by the German mechanized maneuver.
It's precisely the shock that will be caused when the current American army clashes with an enemy that has truly mastered drone warfare. The same feeling the French felt when they simply couldn't understand how the enemy appeared behind them will be felt by any army that faces an enemy that has mastered drone warfare.
Although I must say right away that I highly doubt China understands drone warfare—they're more likely to be cosplaying.
Idiotic, but at least it's better than the Harper's piece from a few months back (which argued that America's military sucks because our soldiers aren't manly and buff, like Russia's).
Carriers are useless in a Taiwan scenario though. They can’t operate within the Second Island Chain and the combat radius of their strike aircraft is too short to be relevant in that scenario (even with air to air refueling).
If the Javelin thing was actually correct it would make even less sense — 'America now in the position of someone who has just been defeated with modern American technology.'
We have to innovate so our innovations don't render our innovations obsolete. You wouldn't get it.
I agree that anyone who compares Ukraine and Taiwan or drones and aircraft carriers is an idiot. But that doesn't make the denial of the changes occurring in warfare any more plausible.
Drones are a continuation of the precision revolution in warfare, bringing this precision to the platoon/squad level (due to their low cost and mass production). This is a change on the same scale as the changes of the 1970s.
This radically changes warfare, but it doesn't mean that old systems have become irrelevant. Rather, the problem is that this development is reorganizing the battlefield in such a way that even regular troops are beginning to use methods previously reserved for guerrillas.
Obviously, this is radically disadvantageous for powerful players like America—because it pushes them out of the comfortable bubble of destroying the enemy with superior forces through rapid maneuvers, essentially into a permanent counterinsurgency operation, but one that occurs across the entire front line.
America has lost every counterinsurgency war it has waged in recent history. Remember the impact IEDs had on combat tactics and doctrine in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the shock they caused. Now imagine flying IEDs.
>It's just that it was poorly equipped to rapidly respond to the shock induced by the German mechanized maneuver.
It's precisely the shock that will be caused when the current American army clashes with an enemy that has truly mastered drone warfare. The same feeling the French felt when they simply couldn't understand how the enemy appeared behind them will be felt by any army that faces an enemy that has mastered drone warfare.
Although I must say right away that I highly doubt China understands drone warfare—they're more likely to be cosplaying.
Idiotic, but at least it's better than the Harper's piece from a few months back (which argued that America's military sucks because our soldiers aren't manly and buff, like Russia's).
Oh my god, it's some good ol' reformerism!
Carriers are useless in a Taiwan scenario though. They can’t operate within the Second Island Chain and the combat radius of their strike aircraft is too short to be relevant in that scenario (even with air to air refueling).
I mean I have a hard time seeing how enabling the flow of strike aircraft into theatre would not be relevant to a conventional fight in the Pacific
Utterly unclear how to enable that without glassing half of mainland China’s coast to eliminate the (mobile) anti-ship cruise missile launchers