The next war

Teufel

Force Recon
Verified SOF
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
4,499
Location
Tun Tavern
#2
God help us. Fuck it though, I’ll raise my hand. I’m good for one more. Not two mind you, but I got one more war in me.
 

CQB

Australian SOF
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
2,029
Location
The Peoples Republic of Anzacistan
#3
The article does paint a realist view that nations states take. We’re dealing with a rampant China here & in the Pacific & for my money that’s my pick of the two.
Reception centres have been built on the China side of the China/Nth. Korea border for potential refugees so there’s a certain accuracy with the articles claims IMO.
One interesting argument to emerge out of the Ukraine is that such agreements such as the Geneva Convention look a little quaint. For example, it deals with armies, but not a mixture of regular army personnel and militia, which was what occurred there, and is a grey area that the article alludes to but does not specify and looks to be outside the conventions parameters, plus it has nothing to say on electronic warfare, which will be a major factor.
 

Teufel

Force Recon
Verified SOF
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
4,499
Location
Tun Tavern
#4
No one wants to go to war. All it takes is a strategic mis-step in the South China Sea or in the Baltic States though and hello WWIII.
 

CQB

Australian SOF
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
2,029
Location
The Peoples Republic of Anzacistan
#5
Absolutely, & we’ve come close twice with nukes (maybe more, but that’s way above my pay grade to know with certainty); once with Cuba and again with Pakistan & India, which was a close run thing apparently & wiser heads prevailed in both cases. Hopefully they will again. Warfare is not a certainty but the current risks have been identified in the article.
 

DA SWO

SOWT
Verified SOF
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
8,549
Location
San Antonio Texas
#6
Absolutely, & we’ve come close twice with nukes (maybe more, but that’s way above my pay grade to know with certainty); once with Cuba and again with Pakistan & India, which was a close run thing apparently & wiser heads prevailed in both cases. Hopefully they will again. Warfare is not a certainty but the current risks have been identified in the article.
Add a couple of near misses between NATO/US and Russia.
 

AWP

Formerly Known as Freefalling
Administrator
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
13,837
Location
Not Afghanistan
#7
We've had (and continue to have) some sporting moments over Syria and Iraq.

I wouldn't discount PK becoming a problem, especially as ties to China deepen while we work more with India.

While I think a "big war" between the US and another country has a low probability, I think the odds are greater than at any time since the Cold War. Everything is cyclical.
 

CQB

Australian SOF
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
2,029
Location
The Peoples Republic of Anzacistan
#10
This pretty much sums it up for me:
“The best guarantor of world peace is a strong America. Fortunately, it still enjoys advantages. It has rich and capable allies, still by far the world’s most powerful armed forces, unrivalled war-fighting experience, the best systems engineers and the world’s leading tech firms. Yet those advantages could all too easily be squandered. Without America’s commitment to the international order and the hard power to defend it against determined and able challengers, the dangers will grow. If they do, the future of war could be closer than you think.”
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2017
Messages
922
Location
Midwest
#11
We live in a unprecedented age of globalism and inter connectivity, which raises the question, do any of the major powers want a global full scale war?


I don't have any secondary education in regards to military strategy, intelligence, international diplomatic relations etc. I'm just a guy who has a lot of interest in this field so take what I say with as much salt as you want.


China and Russia have steadily become close allies through Moscow trading it's vast energy resources to Beijing in return for help to bolster its (Russia) stagnating economy due to the economic sanctions levied in '14. This raises the question though of how strong Russia actually is, and whether or not the power moves in Syria, Ukraine, and various other places are just Moscow beating it's chest in an attempt to cover up and hide potential weaknesses it may have. Because even though Russia may have seen a resurgence in its economy, a minor one at that, it's offloading it's debt to foreign entities (China, etc.) and much like the oil princes in the ME, Moscow lives and dies on its oil exports. All it takes is a negative impact on the price of crude oil, and Russia is back to trying and crawl it's way out of a recession.

The other half of the coin, being China, is led by what appears to be the second coming of Mao.

America May Encounter Another Mao in China

Somewhat joking aside (but not really joking), this is disconcerting, a strongly led and powerful China is dangerous especially one that is taking hard line Nationalistic verging into Jingoistic stances. The silver lining however is that, as a result of China's meteoric economic growth (an almost 7% increase for almost every quarter since 2015), we have become each other's number one trading partner.

Do we or Beijing want to lose this lucrative trade? I know the phrase goes money doesn't buy happiness, however it sure goes a hell of a long way to make you forget your problems or grievances.

I believe that Beijing and Moscow have enough sway over Pyonyang to prevent a nuclear launch regardless of the grandstanding that takes place, and deep down I believe Kim Jung Un understands how much of a mistake it would be to start a nuclear conflict.

What I think will happen is more of these "lesser" conflicts where minor states are fighting one another with support from the major state actors. Largely reminiscent of the Cold War or maybe even The Great Game. What will happen for sure though an even larger shift towards cyber and economic warfare.

Who knows though, as stated previously all it takes is one misstep and a war the likes of which no one has ever seen will kick off.


Apologies if this seems incoherent at times
 

CQB

Australian SOF
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
2,029
Location
The Peoples Republic of Anzacistan
#12
Not incoherent, very much on point. China of the two will be problematic one way or the other this century due to their One Belt One Road (OBOR) & also their First & Second Island Chain strategies, combined with their serious penchant for buying or building critical infrastructure in other nations. As you point out as trading partners, the US/China is symbiotic and the conflict China engages in in SE Asia is just below the threshold of open conflict. The question then is; continuing trade with potentially limited conflict?
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2017
Messages
922
Location
Midwest
#13
I don't think China is willing to initiate open conflict at this point, and instead like you said aim to continue their economic policies and over arching goals with OBOR and the Island Chains. China itself is in a great position in terms that they've spearheaded and are light years ahead of everyone else in the economic and cyber warfare landscape (as far as I'm aware) and they'll only continue to snowball until the same practices are levied against them with the same or better effect.

What will be interesting is as you stated if China can continue buying/building key infrastructure in foreign countries, since that is currently one of the core reasons that is allowing China to succeed with its vision currently. Or, if other countries decide enough is enough and start leveling sanctions against them for it and escalating from there.

I agree though, atleast for the foreseeable future (15-20 years) it will be continued trade with limited conflict.
 

256

SWAT
Verified Military
Joined
Jan 22, 2018
Messages
253
Location
pert near Lake Erie
#14

AWP

Formerly Known as Freefalling
Administrator
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
13,837
Location
Not Afghanistan
#15
Thanks, that’s some really impressive stuff. I guess that’s who you “clear air” with before using indirect fire. That’s a hell of an important role those Airman/women play.
Every gallon of gas pumped, every bomb dropped, every arty/ HIMARS round fired in CENTCOM goes through that facility.
 

Devildoc

Verified Military
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
2,915
Location
Durham, NC
#16
This pretty much sums it up for me:
“The best guarantor of world peace is a strong America. Fortunately, it still enjoys advantages. It has rich and capable allies, still by far the world’s most powerful armed forces, unrivalled war-fighting experience, the best systems engineers and the world’s leading tech firms. Yet those advantages could all too easily be squandered. Without America’s commitment to the international order and the hard power to defend it against determined and able challengers, the dangers will grow. If they do, the future of war could be closer than you think.”
It is a very delicate balance: The US is like Australia in that we are isolated. We can enjoy life without worrying about the borders (jokes about Mexico not withstanding). We should be committed to international order, but not be the world's policeman, and use military might only as leverage to diplomacy and economic strength.
 

Marauder06

Intel Enabler
Moderator
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
9,275
Location
CONUS
#17
I don't mind so much being the world's policeman. We benefit a lot from the way the world is structured, and big wars or epidemics or famines interfere with trade and cost us money and cause us other problems. I'd just like us to be up front about it, and not try to run around solving ALL of the world's problems, just the ones that are most likely to affect our interests.
 

CQB

Australian SOF
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
2,029
Location
The Peoples Republic of Anzacistan
#18
The US created the system & it should uphold it, but not alone.
On another slightly divergent matter, the creation of a conventional force to take on China & Russia is being thrashed out. The Chinese question is apparently solvable with maritime & air power with Russia being somewhat different. Army and marines in both are to be support elements. Gen. Paul Selva will be the guy in the big chair.

The Pentagon is planning for war with China and Russia — can it handle both?
 

Marauder06

Intel Enabler
Moderator
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
9,275
Location
CONUS
#19
The US created the system & it should uphold it, but not alone.
I agree. Unfortunately there's a lot of free riding in (and complaining about) the Pax Americana system. I think that's one of the things President Trump was focused on early in his presidency.
 
Top