# The next war



## CQB (Jan 31, 2018)

The growing danger of great-power conflict


----------



## Teufel (Jan 31, 2018)

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 (Jan 31, 2018)

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 (Jan 31, 2018)

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 (Jan 31, 2018)

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 (Jan 31, 2018)

CQB said:


> 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 (Jan 31, 2018)

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.


----------



## 256 (Jan 31, 2018)

AWP said:


> We've had (and continue to have) some sporting moments over Syria and Iraq.



I was really worried of a Russian CAS mission misidentifing US troops. How they kept that battlespace deconflicted is beyond me.


----------



## AWP (Jan 31, 2018)

256 said:


> I was really worried of a Russian CAS mission misidentifing US troops. How they kept that battlespace deconflicted is beyond me.



Deployed air control equipment upgraded > U.S. Air Forces Central Command > 380AEW Article Display

727 Expeditionary Air Control Squadron (ACC) > Air Force Historical Research Agency > Display


----------



## CQB (Jan 31, 2018)

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.”


----------



## SaintKP (Jan 31, 2018)

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 (Feb 1, 2018)

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?


----------



## SaintKP (Feb 1, 2018)

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 (Feb 1, 2018)

AWP said:


> Deployed air control equipment upgraded > U.S. Air Forces Central Command > 380AEW Article Display
> 
> 727 Expeditionary Air Control Squadron (ACC) > Air Force Historical Research Agency > Display



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.


----------



## AWP (Feb 1, 2018)

256 said:


> 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 (Feb 1, 2018)

CQB said:


> 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 (Feb 1, 2018)

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 (Feb 1, 2018)

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 (Feb 1, 2018)

CQB said:


> 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.


----------



## CQB (Feb 1, 2018)

Interesting point sir, hopefully he’ll assist in it’s preservation.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 2, 2018)

One more and than one more, and than one more....

Personally I'd like to sit on the front porch a bit...maybe laugh at some grand children.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 3, 2018)

I’m going to stop by the grocery store and buy some bottled water. 

Russian fighter jet is 'shot down' in north-west Syria  | Daily Mail Online

Rebel fighters in Syria have shot down a Russian plane using a handheld anti-aircraft missile and killed its pilot when he open fire on them while trying to resist capture.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 3, 2018)

I'm slightly optimistic that mutually assured destruction will continue to deter the nuclear option between the superpowers, as it did throughout the Cold War. Russia and the PRC were the top targets of our Single Integrated Operational Plan from the early 60's onward.

We are positioning back into that Cold War posture.

MAD also tends to dampen hawkish ideas of grand-scale conventional warfare between the US/Russia/PRC due to the risk of desperation launch as the conflict escalates.

I think proxy wars, limited warfare and subterfuge will continue to be the way the superpowers clash with one another simply because we all have too much to lose.


----------



## CQB (Feb 4, 2018)

The interesting point with that to my knowledge the PRC has kept their nukes in top order through quite a lot of changes. The Ruskies, not so much.


----------



## 256 (Feb 4, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I’m going to stop by the grocery store and buy some bottled water.
> 
> Russian fighter jet is 'shot down' in north-west Syria  | Daily Mail Online
> 
> Rebel fighters in Syria have shot down a Russian plane using a handheld anti-aircraft missile and killed its pilot when he open fire on them while trying to resist capture.



Anyone think the US attempted to get assets in the area to help? 

I guess that wouldn’t have helped with the whole collusion thing..

See, see Trump tried to help the Russian’s downed pilot!


----------



## AWP (Feb 4, 2018)

The near to mid-term future of war will be indirect stuff like cyber and to a lesser extent economic war. The latter carries issues though because of a global economy, but savvy countries will find a way to leverage economic policies that don't harm the host nation. "Large" Superpower involved wars will be regional conflicts kind of like Desert Storm. Rounds going downrange will fall on SOF and some light infantry types in the right place at the right time: Marines, 82nd, 101st, etc. Even a non-nuclear war between superpowers is a form of MAD.

The Syrians smoking the Russian Frogfoot is a non-event...unless you're a Syrian when the Russians show up in about 48 hours and turn your village into the opening scenes of Gladiator.


----------



## Kraut783 (Feb 4, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I’m going to stop by the grocery store and buy some bottled water.
> 
> Russian fighter jet is 'shot down' in north-west Syria  | Daily Mail Online
> 
> Rebel fighters in Syria have shot down a Russian plane using a handheld anti-aircraft missile and killed its pilot when he open fire on them while trying to resist capture.



Rest in Peace to the Russian Pilot....I can see where he would not want to be captured, and went out fighting.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 4, 2018)

Kraut783 said:


> I can see where he would not want to be captured, and went out fighting.



Any pilot who remembers the "caged fire" video would not let themselves be captured.


----------



## AWP (Feb 4, 2018)

Regardless of how men arrive at "the moment", their actions can transcend nations, ideology, religion....anything. At some point, none of that matters and we're all just people giving the best account of our lives in the worst of times. 

Blue Skies, Black Death.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 5, 2018)

Regarding the Pilot. Damn, I guess I didn’t know fighter pilots carry grenades in the cockpit?  

Russian pilot kills himself to avoid capture in Syria | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Poccington (Feb 5, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Any pilot who remembers the "caged fire" video would not let themselves be captured.



Very true, that was a horrific way to go out.

RIP to the Russian pilot, he went out on his shield.


----------



## digrar (Feb 5, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I didn’t know fighter pilots carry grenades in the cockpit?



Probably not the worst SOP after the Jordanian was burned alive in a cage.


----------



## CDG (Feb 12, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Regarding the Pilot. Damn, I guess I didn’t know fighter pilots carry grenades in the cockpit?
> 
> Russian pilot kills himself to avoid capture in Syria | Daily Mail Online



I mean, it is the Russians.  Not that surprising.  And to echo @digrar, I would much rather go out that way than being burned alive on camera.


----------

