Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   U.S. model for a future war designed by 91-year-old Andrew Marshall. Military experts unsure about the heavy reliance on the cavalry   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 54
    More: Interesting, U.S., war fan, small office, china, military officials, Alarmism, U.S. model  
•       •       •

2417 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Aug 2012 at 12:58 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



54 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-03 09:30:42 AM  
Why? We've used soldiers on horseback quite recently, and by all accounts to good effect.
 
2012-08-03 09:42:26 AM  
And yet for some reason that spearman in Neo Tokyo still defeats my tank.
 
2012-08-03 01:01:41 PM  

dittybopper: Why? We've used soldiers on horseback quite recently, and by all accounts to good effect.


...because horses can't swim all the way to China?
 
2012-08-03 01:07:37 PM  
We each stand on opposite sides of the earth and fire lasers at each other?
 
2012-08-03 01:08:31 PM  
I dunno why everyone is so worried, I could stop most of the Chinese air force pretty easily.

videogamecritic.net
 
2012-08-03 01:10:44 PM  
"You have horses! What were you thinking?! You have horses!"
eugolino.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-08-03 01:16:13 PM  
Planning for war based only on previous experience and ignoring the fact that things have changed? Surely such a thing has never happened in the past 98 100 years.
 
2012-08-03 01:16:24 PM  
This angers the Chinese military because the Chinese military knows how crappy their equipment is and how poorly trained their military is.

If the US kept quiet about our plans for the Pacific, China could keep making little plans and doing nothing with them because they don't have the gear or training.

By calling out the Chinese the Chinese are insulted and have to posture more.
 
2012-08-03 01:19:53 PM  

clovis69: This angers the Chinese military because the Chinese military knows how crappy their equipment is and how poorly trained their military is.

If the US kept quiet about our plans for the Pacific, China could keep making little plans and doing nothing with them because they don't have the gear or training.

By calling out the Chinese the Chinese are insulted and have to posture more.


The 1 Billion Chinese posturing coupled with their overt disregard for the environment as a means to an end and the willingness to basically lease their citizenry to corporations is pretty effective as posturing goes.
 
2012-08-03 01:23:32 PM  
encrypted-tbn2.google.com

An artist's rendering of what a Future War might look like.
 
2012-08-03 01:23:38 PM  
We put 1.5 million military into Iraq. And China would fight our conventional forces the same way Iraq did.

Booo hhhoooo haaaa haaaaa. A land war in Asia? The only reason we beat Japan is because they were invaders in much of Asia as well.
 
2012-08-03 01:24:47 PM  
What worries me about this is the Money running interference for their "trading partner" China and leaving of us exposed. I do not want my kids living in a world ruled by racist, penis compensating Communists who forcibly abort babies as a national policy. This is an evil regime in China, make no mistake.

What influence do you think Wal-Mart's lobbyists will try to have on our national security policies concerning their Chicom buddy if given a chance?
 
2012-08-03 01:28:35 PM  
How about never invading China because it would be near impossible due to the large population, large size of China, and an abundant amount of places in which soldiers and key personnel may be hidden. War has changed you don't just march in and take a city and its done you have to constantly fight hidden forces that strike unannounced and then disappear, you would have thought that Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan had taught us this.
 
2012-08-03 01:30:47 PM  
I have an idea: instead of hitting them head-on, simply bomb their Haber-Bosch plants, sit back and watch as they return to eating children and fetus soup.
 
2012-08-03 01:35:23 PM  
The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you.
 
2012-08-03 01:39:08 PM  

Captain_Ballbeard: What worries me about this is the Money running interference for their "trading partner" China and leaving of us exposed. I do not want my kids living in a world ruled by racist, penis compensating Communists who forcibly abort babies as a national policy. This is an evil regime in China, make no mistake.

What influence do you think Wal-Mart's lobbyists will try to have on our national security policies concerning their Chicom buddy if given a chance?


Captain_Ballbeard: I have an idea: instead of hitting them head-on, simply bomb their Haber-Bosch plants, sit back and watch as they return to eating children and fetus soup.


You sound tired.
 
2012-08-03 01:42:59 PM  

Anenu: How about never invading China because it would be near impossible due to the large population, large size of China, and an abundant amount of places in which soldiers and key personnel may be hidden. War has changed you don't just march in and take a city and its done you have to constantly fight hidden forces that strike unannounced and then disappear, you would have thought that Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan had taught us this.


That's not how Korea works!
 
2012-08-03 01:43:09 PM  

dittybopper: Why? We've used soldiers on horseback quite recently, and by all accounts to good effect.


The Winged Hussars were never defeated on the feild of battle, it's time to go back to proven winners like them
 
2012-08-03 01:53:58 PM  
It worked well for the Mongols



usastruck.files.wordpress.com

Would agree though
 
2012-08-03 01:56:37 PM  
Hey, coaling stations are important!
 
2012-08-03 01:58:50 PM  

Anenu: How about never invading China because it would be near impossible due to the large population, large size of China, and an abundant amount of places in which soldiers and key personnel may be hidden. War has changed you don't just march in and take a city and its done you have to constantly fight hidden forces that strike unannounced and then disappear, you would have thought that Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan had taught us this.


I disagree with this to a certain extent. You can easily use military force and just destroy a few key cities and leave. The issue is whether we care enough about what happens afterward to try and influence political and social outcomes of the likely toppled regime.
If we bombed and crippled most of China's major industrial and communication systems, then the current regime would be set far behind, and likely of little threat for years to come. The thing is if we did this, then we would be leaving behind chaos we could not predict and something worse could arise (and likely would). So you are right in that we cannot occupy China, but we could certainly invade and destroy the current regime if we so wanted, but then we'd have to pick up and leave right away.
Honestly we would likely be able to destroy China through financial means if we truly wanted to. Conventional warfare is largely impractical between major world players anymore. The warfare of the future will be economic, cyber-terrorism, and plus other cold war techniques between the big boys.
 
2012-08-03 02:02:48 PM  
www.kdhnews.com

Would like a word, subby.
 
2012-08-03 02:09:09 PM  
www.opinion-maker.org

Horses may be outdated
 
2012-08-03 02:10:24 PM  

Scipio: The warfare of the future will be economic, cyber-terrorism,


You mean the two forms of warfare the Chicom makes its business these days?
 
2012-08-03 02:10:51 PM  

Anenu: How about never invading China because it would be near impossible due to the large population, large size of China, and an abundant amount of places in which soldiers and key personnel may be hidden. War has changed you don't just march in and take a city and its done you have to constantly fight hidden forces that strike unannounced and then disappear, you would have thought that Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan had taught us this.


You could "probably" do it but you'd have to use tactics that would make Hitler blush to pull it off. Think neutron bombs along with poisoning farm land and water supplies en mass. I don't think the rest of the world would be ok with condemning over a billion people to a horrible death through starvation though. So it's not really pratical to even consider.
 
2012-08-03 02:15:31 PM  

Fail in Human Form: I don't think the rest of the world would be ok with condemning over a billion people to a horrible death through starvation though.


If they get hungry, they'll go along with anything.
 
2012-08-03 02:21:53 PM  

Captain_Ballbeard: Fail in Human Form: I don't think the rest of the world would be ok with condemning over a billion people to a horrible death through starvation though.

If they get hungry, they'll go along with anything.


I'm sure the people who you just forced to eat their neighbors in order to survive will be just thrilled to go along with you.
 
2012-08-03 02:30:29 PM  
Hey, if we nuke each other hard enough a guy with a pointy stick on horseback will be the height of military tech.
 
2012-08-03 02:31:54 PM  

Fail in Human Form: Captain_Ballbeard: Fail in Human Form: I don't think the rest of the world would be ok with condemning over a billion people to a horrible death through starvation though.

If they get hungry, they'll go along with anything.

I'm sure the people who you just forced to eat their neighbors in order to survive will be just thrilled to go along with you.


I would never force anybody, each man has to make that decision for himself after a little while on the lifeboat. The Chinese culture embraced cannibalism as a culture, not as an individual.
 
2012-08-03 02:38:14 PM  
Being a futurist when you are 91 has to be pretty easy.
 
2012-08-03 02:38:52 PM  
img812.imageshack.us

Pubgoons 4 lyfe, yo.
 
2012-08-03 02:43:43 PM  
Any word on whether wars of the future will be fought on mountains with robots?
 
2012-08-03 03:04:23 PM  
Nothing like reading half an article before hitting a paywall to reinforce what a piece of shiat the Washington Post is.
 
2012-08-03 03:05:03 PM  

t3knomanser: [encrypted-tbn2.google.com image 271x186]

An artist's rendering of what a Future War might look like.


Suddenly I have the urge to fill my house with hundreds of empty boxes.
 
2012-08-03 03:12:24 PM  

clovis69: This angers the Chinese military because the Chinese military knows how crappy their equipment is and how poorly trained their military is.

If the US kept quiet about our plans for the Pacific, China could keep making little plans and doing nothing with them because they don't have the gear or training.

By calling out the Chinese the Chinese are insulted and have to posture more.


Thereby causing them to spend more money...
 
2012-08-03 03:13:17 PM  

Sgt Otter: [www.kdhnews.com image 300x440]

Would like a word, subby.


You know, I still have you farkied as "ponyless".
 
2012-08-03 03:26:41 PM  

brukmann: Nothing like reading half an article before hitting a paywall to reinforce what a piece of shiat the Washington Post is.


It read like it was written by a DailyFail writer.
 
2012-08-03 03:31:15 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com

"I say we let him go!"
 
2012-08-03 03:41:14 PM  

Boudica's War Tampon: We put 1.5 million military into Iraq. And China would fight our conventional forces the same way Iraq did.

Booo hhhoooo haaaa haaaaa. A land war in Asia? The only reason we beat Japan is because they were invaders in much of Asia as well.


Iraq would have been easily defeated if we had no ethical standards whatsoever. Instead we pretended to give a shiat about civilian casualties, which meant that we killed just enough people to piss everyone off and drive many into the insurgency, but not enough to frighten them into submission. War with China would be serious, the consequences of defeat unthinkable, so there would be little to no lip service paid to humanitarianism; if partisan groups attacked our forces, we would kill every man, woman and child in a wide area. It's much like what the Nazis did on the Eastern Front, but we could do it much more successfully; we have so many more tools at our disposal. Of course it's a moot point anyway, because China and the U.S. are very unlikely to go to war any time soon, and if we did it would go nuclear pretty early on.
 
2012-08-03 03:48:24 PM  

malaktaus: Instead we pretended to give a shiat about civilian casualties, which meant that we killed just enough people to piss everyone off and drive many into the insurgency, but not enough to frighten them into submission.


www.sfmuseum.net
Does not approve, needs whisky.
 
2012-08-03 03:49:57 PM  
pbfcomics.com
 
2012-08-03 03:54:09 PM  

ImpendingCynic: Planning for war based only on previous experience and ignoring the fact that things have changed? Surely such a thing has never happened in the past 98 100 10 years.


FTFY
 
2012-08-03 04:05:26 PM  

Anenu: How about never invading China because it would be near impossible due to the large population, large size of China, and an abundant amount of places in which soldiers and key personnel may be hidden. War has changed you don't just march in and take a city and its done you have to constantly fight hidden forces that strike unannounced and then disappear, you would have thought that Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan had taught us this.


From reading tfa, I gather that the plan wouldn't be to invade them, but to knock out their navy, air, and missile forces and isolate them.
 
2012-08-03 04:12:57 PM  
Shut up! 4 legged battle droids sporting anti-air missiles, anti-tank phased 40 watt masers, and anti-personnel 90000 rounds a second rail guns are the wave of the future.
 
2012-08-03 05:03:26 PM  

Fail in Human Form: Anenu: How about never invading China because it would be near impossible due to the large population, large size of China, and an abundant amount of places in which soldiers and key personnel may be hidden. War has changed you don't just march in and take a city and its done you have to constantly fight hidden forces that strike unannounced and then disappear, you would have thought that Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan had taught us this.

You could "probably" do it but you'd have to use tactics that would make Hitler blush to pull it off. Think neutron bombs along with poisoning farm land and water supplies en mass. I don't think the rest of the world would be ok with condemning over a billion people to a horrible death through starvation though. So it's not really pratical to even consider.


It depends on reading the actual population. In some places people just don't care who's in charge. If you get rid of one government and replace it with another, they simply punch the clock in the morning and keep at it. One king is as good as the rest.
I suspect China (because of its history) is that kind of place.

/The real trick is getting rid of the old king when he still has numbers on his side.
/You'll need a bulldozer blade on your tanks just to plow through the conscripts.
 
2012-08-03 05:40:38 PM  

Scipio: Conventional warfare is largely impractical between major world players anymore. The warfare of the future will be economic, cyber-terrorism, and plus other cold war techniques between the big boys


No. The next 'Pearl Harbor' could quite possibly be an effective economic or cyber attack, but any such event would lead to a real shooting war.

The ONLY thing different about today vs 1914 or 1939 is our ability to watch in real time. People aren't any different at all.
 
2012-08-03 07:13:38 PM  
My orders came through - my squadron ships out tomorrow. We're bombing the storage depots at Daiquiri at 1800 hours. We're coming in from the north, below their radar.

'When will you be back?'

I can't tell you that, it's classified.

^

IMMEDIATELY came to mind.
 
2012-08-03 09:09:13 PM  

way south: Fail in Human Form: Anenu: How about never invading China because it would be near impossible due to the large population, large size of China, and an abundant amount of places in which soldiers and key personnel may be hidden. War has changed you don't just march in and take a city and its done you have to constantly fight hidden forces that strike unannounced and then disappear, you would have thought that Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan had taught us this.

You could "probably" do it but you'd have to use tactics that would make Hitler blush to pull it off. Think neutron bombs along with poisoning farm land and water supplies en mass. I don't think the rest of the world would be ok with condemning over a billion people to a horrible death through starvation though. So it's not really pratical to even consider.

It depends on reading the actual population. In some places people just don't care who's in charge. If you get rid of one government and replace it with another, they simply punch the clock in the morning and keep at it. One king is as good as the rest.
I suspect China (because of its history) is that kind of place.

/The real trick is getting rid of the old king when he still has numbers on his side.
/You'll need a bulldozer blade on your tanks just to plow through the conscripts.


You would be wrong re the population caring. An invaded population ALWAYS fights the invader, regardless of how awful their government is. It's the one thing Americans consistently--over the last 150 years--fail to realize about our military interventions. It's why the Iraqis didn't greet us as "liberators" any more than the Vietnamese did, or the Somalis or the Guatemalans or the Samoans (that goes back quite a ways). No matter how benign the intentions, invaders are by definition the enemy. An invading force has to be very cautious if their intentions are good not to alienate the people they're supposedly assisting.

China has never minded INTERNAL changes in top dog, as when Mao took over from Chiang Kai-Shek; but they fought like demons against Japan during WWII. Same is true for any other country. Almost nobody is happy to see someone come in from outside to enact a regime change, except the leaders in exile who presume they will be taking over after the occupation (looking at you, Chalabi). One reason why, I suspect, our President is so wary of supporting the rebels in Syria, and why such restraint was used in Libya.
 
2012-08-03 09:25:51 PM  
I say we just get the combatants together, and make them play a game of HORSE. WE got the black guy for president, so all is good.
 
2012-08-03 09:31:08 PM  

Harry_Seldon: I say we just get the combatants together, and make them play a game of HORSE. WE got the black guy for president, so all is good.


HE'S A TERRIBLE FREE THROW SHOOTER

/wasis
 
Displayed 50 of 54 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report