History Repeats Itself

[ngatimozart]

Good analogy.

OK, China plays Germany. Korea will play the part of Spain, where new concepts get tried out before the main event. Poor Russia gets to be itself (Russian paranoia is not an accident of history). Japan gets to role of Britain. Iran gets to play Japan in the Persian Gulf. Syria, Lebanon, and possibly Turkey are Italy.

Any more casting suggestions for the farce?:rel

They created the League of Nations at the end of WWI, and the United Nations after WWII. What do you think they will call the next one?

I have to agree. It is definitely the 1930's again militarily / politically with China and Iran in the lead roles to which I add two more, the USA and India. So we have four lead actors with supporting roles from North Korea, Russia, Pakistan and maybe Indonesia. Why Russia as a supporting actor? Well unfortunately it is in the same position it was in in early 1939. It's military has been significantly downgraded, it has two hostile powers on it's southern borders but this time around politically and economically it is in better shape. It doesn't have Stalin or Beria and the NKVD executing its way through the Stavka but it does have significant health problems with its conscripts. Iran sees Russia as the Lesser Satan, and if it could, to be conquered and converted in the name of Allah. China sees Russia as a source of wealth in oil and resources. But as Napoleon and Hitler learnt Russia is not easily conquered.

India is building I think two SSBN's plus at least 1 possibly 2 CV(N?)'s as well as wanting to project it's naval power into the Pacific. India's main enemy is China followed by Pakistan. But why build SSBN's and secondly why project force into the Pacific Ocean when you haven't done before? India, like Russia, must also be concerned with a possible allying of Pakistan and Iran and by de facto China since China supports both countries. Indonesia is the worlds largest Muslim nation and if Iran and Pakistan are at war with non Muslin nations then it will be pressured by it's population to take the Muslim side. That creates a very large problem for Australia and New Zealand and by de facto the USA. The second tenant of New Zealand defence policy is that if Australia is attacked NZ will automatically go to Australia's aid treating that attack as if it is an attack on NZ itself. Australia has a mutual defence treaty with the USA. So an intricate weave of alliances are woven and nations can be pulled into an ever widening war more easily than happened in 1939 - 45.

And what do we in the west do. We sit with our heads in the sand cutting defence ( in NZ's case castrating the Air Force) and hoping it is all a bad dream. We do not have seemed to have learned the lessons of the inter war years from 1919 - 1939 and because of that we appear to be doomed to repeat those mistakes

 

[Feanor]

I have to agree. It is definitely the 1930's again militarily / politically with China and Iran in the lead roles to which I add two more, the USA and India. So we have four lead actors with supporting roles from North Korea, Russia, Pakistan and maybe Indonesia. Why Russia as a supporting actor? Well unfortunately it is in the same position it was in in early 1939. It's military has been significantly downgraded, it has two hostile powers on it's southern borders but this time around politically and economically it is in better shape. It doesn't have Stalin or Beria and the NKVD executing its way through the Stavka but it does have significant health problems with its conscripts. Iran sees Russia as the Lesser Satan, and if it could, to be conquered and converted in the name of Allah. China sees Russia as a source of wealth in oil and resources. But as Napoleon and Hitler learnt Russia is not easily conquered.

Russia is in much worse condition then 1939 right now.

 

[luccloud]

Good analogy.

OK, China plays Germany. Korea will play the part of Spain, where new concepts get tried out before the main event. Poor Russia gets to be itself (Russian paranoia is not an accident of history). Japan gets to role of Britain. Iran gets to play Japan in the Persian Gulf. Syria, Lebanon, and possibly Turkey are Italy.

Any more casting suggestions for the farce?:rel

Are you kidding me? Even with the so called "budget cuts", US military spending are still going up, not down. Even if the rest of the world somehow formed an alliance tmr and engage in a war with US. I still bet US will win.

 

[My2Cents]

I have to agree. It is definitely the 1930's again militarily / politically with China and Iran in the lead roles to which I add two more, the USA and India. So we have four lead actors with supporting roles from North Korea, Russia, Pakistan and maybe Indonesia. Why Russia as a supporting actor? Well unfortunately it is in the same position it was in in early 1939. It's military has been significantly downgraded, it has two hostile powers on it's southern borders but this time around politically and economically it is in better shape. It doesn't have Stalin or Beria and the NKVD executing its way through the Stavka but it does have significant health problems with its conscripts. Iran sees Russia as the Lesser Satan, and if it could, to be conquered and converted in the name of Allah. China sees Russia as a source of wealth in oil and resources. But as Napoleon and Hitler learnt Russia is not easily conquered.

Russia – Russia cannot help but be a major player because they will be THE major battlefield. China wants the Siberian resources, but would rather not have the Russians.

Napoleon and Hitler invaded from the west, the Mongols and Tartars invaded from the east. Very different results. The Chinese will be coming from the east, and will probably be content to stop at the Ural Mountains. The Chinese read their history, and because of the distances and logistics limitations will probably expect the war last over a year. China also, unlike Napoleon and Hitler, have experience operating in the winter in Mongolia, which is even colder than Russia, so do not expect the winter to a big ally for the Russians

Pakistan and Indonesia as significant players – maybe, but it does not seem right. Iran will be trying to take over the Persian Gulf states, not head north to invade Russia or the ‘stans. This will be packaged locally as a Shia vs. Sunni religious war, but, unless Iran actually invades Pakistan, the Pakistanis will remain focused on India. The will be a steady flow of volunteers from Pakistan and Indonesia in support of the Sunni side, but that is probably the limit of their impact in that area.

North Korea – The most this country can do is play the part of Serbia in WWI, i.e. they can kick the whole thing off if everyone is not careful, but beyond that . . . forget about them.

India is building I think two SSBN's plus at least 1 possibly 2 CV(N?)'s as well as wanting to project it's naval power into the Pacific. India's main enemy is China followed by Pakistan. But why build SSBN's and secondly why project force into the Pacific Ocean when you haven't done before? India, like Russia, must also be concerned with a possible allying of Pakistan and Iran and by de facto China since China supports both countries. Indonesia is the worlds largest Muslim nation and if Iran and Pakistan are at war with non Muslin nations then it will be pressured by it's population to take the Muslim side. That creates a very large problem for Australia and New Zealand and by de facto the USA. The second tenant of New Zealand defence policy is that if Australia is attacked NZ will automatically go to Australia's aid treating that attack as if it is an attack on NZ itself. Australia has a mutual defence treaty with the USA. So an intricate weave of alliances are woven and nations can be pulled into an ever widening war more easily than happened in 1939 - 45.

I agree, why should India want to project force in the Pacific Ocean? What is the payoff?

But the force mix you describe makes sense. The SSBNs would provide them with a secure retaliatory capacity against Pakistan and China, that’s important. The CVs would give them the ability to keep China out of the Indian Ocean and blockade the sea routes to China or Pakistan in event of war with India. That is where the payoff is.

 

[ngatimozart]

Are you kidding me? Even with the so called "budget cuts", US military spending are still going up, not down. Even if the rest of the world somehow formed an alliance tmr and engage in a war with US. I still bet US will win.

I don't think so. The US is tired because it has been at war for 8 years. It is not in a position to take on China in a conventional war because the Chinese will just swamp it by sheer numbers. Remember they place a different value on human life to what we in the west do. Despite going high tech gear war ultimately comes down to people on the ground, physically holding that ground. So it is a soldier with a rifle, bayonet, grenades and shear courage. Standing behind that soldier there has to be an armed force and a nation with the military, economic and political will to support that soldier. If one of those 3 pillars is not present then that soldier is placed further into harms way and the mission has a greater chance of failure. As a Kiwi I do not place supreme faith in the ability of the US Armed Forces to withstand all attacks. Whilst I admire the bravery of some, I do not admire the foolishness and stupidity of others. And that goes for politicians too.

 

[alexsa]

doesnt always repeat itself, look at the RAAF

1980
Mirage III - fighter interceptor
Canberra - Bomber
F-111 - Strategic bomber
A4 skyhawk - ground attack

2020
F-35 - Multirole Stealth Fighter
F18 E/F - multirole Fighter

we have changed alot

Overstating it a bit. Canberra was used for photographic survey in small numbers and the Skyhawk was RAN and withdrawn from service with Hawk govt decision to scrap HMAS Melborne. The RAAF had only two main combat aircraft. It is more pertinent to note the the 'intention' is to reduce to onw type.... the F-35. How this pans out is another thing all together.

 

[JoeMcFriday]

Australia has a mutual defence treaty with the USA.

Just a quick question.
ANZUS isn't a binding defence treaty so what "mutual defence treaty" exists between Australia and the USA?

Cheers,
Mac

 

[ngatimozart]

Just a quick question.
ANZUS isn't a binding defence treaty so what "mutual defence treaty" exists between Australia and the USA?

Cheers,
Mac

ANZUS was a defence pact between the three countries where each of the member countries agreed to come to the aid of the other two if they were threatened with aggression or invasion. (King M: 2003, The Penguin History of New Zealand, Penguin Books (NZ) Ltd, Auckland 1310, New Zealand. p426). Since 1985 the ANZUS Council ceased at the insistence of the Regan administration because of New Zealands anti nuclear legislation, so now each year there are bilateral talks between the US and Australia. So Australia and the US still have the same pact except without New Zealand.

 

[Feanor]

I don't think so. The US is tired because it has been at war for 8 years. It is not in a position to take on China in a conventional war because the Chinese will just swamp it by sheer numbers. Remember they place a different value on human life to what we in the west do. Despite going high tech gear war ultimately comes down to people on the ground, physically holding that ground. So it is a soldier with a rifle, bayonet, grenades and shear courage.

Especially the bayonet part. Never mind you know that the Chinese soldiers need food, water, ammo, etc. to keep fighting. No. They will just magically overrun everything. With bayonets. Especially all those fighter jets, and tanks, and APCs. They'll bayonet them.

Standing behind that soldier there has to be an armed force and a nation with the military, economic and political will to support that soldier. If one of those 3 pillars is not present then that soldier is placed further into harms way and the mission has a greater chance of failure. As a Kiwi I do not place supreme faith in the ability of the US Armed Forces to withstand all attacks. Whilst I admire the bravery of some, I do not admire the foolishness and stupidity of others. And that goes for politicians too.

Sure. But this in no way proves your previous point.

 

[ngatimozart]

Especially the bayonet part. Never mind you know that the Chinese soldiers need food, water, ammo, etc. to keep fighting. No. They will just magically overrun everything. With bayonets. Especially all those fighter jets, and tanks, and APCs. They'll bayonet them.



Sure. But this in no way proves your previous point.

You quote numbers. Do you know the inventory of the Chinese? I don't, but at some point vast numbers must outweigh quality in a conventional war where the combatants have similar weapons systems, i.e., ships aircraft tanks etc. Remember Vietnam for all the US technological advantage the North Vietnamese won in the end. The US are not all powerful. I quote what some of our WW2 veterans used to say. "When the Luftwaffe bombed we took cover. When the Royal Air Force bombed the Germans took cover. When the Americans bombed everybody took cover." Some of those veterans were very highly decorated.

 

[Feanor]

Extremely simplistic. If the side with the technological advantage can destroy command and logistic structures of the side with the numerical advantage, then those numbers will be useless. As for inventory, we do know approximate numbers. There's also the saturation question. You can only put so many things in a finite space.

At the end of the day if VLO platforms with stand-off jamming support effectively penetrate Chinese airspace, knock out major fuel dumps, railroad stations, ammo dumps, and generally wreak havoc on the transportation network then all those Mig-21 knock offs aren't much good. Or the early-gen Flankers for that matter.

 

[ngatimozart]

Extremely simplistic. If the side with the technological advantage can destroy command and logistic structures of the side with the numerical advantage, then those numbers will be useless. As for inventory, we do know approximate numbers. There's also the saturation question. You can only put so many things in a finite space.

At the end of the day if VLO platforms with stand-off jamming support effectively penetrate Chinese airspace, knock out major fuel dumps, railroad stations, ammo dumps, and generally wreak havoc on the transportation network then all those Mig-21 knock offs aren't much good. Or the early-gen Flankers for that matter.

I don't think so simplistic, just looking at it from another angle. There is a lot of merit in what you say and that would most likely be the US game plan. But we are seeing defence cuts across the western world and it will happen in the US in some way. Be it through the cancellation of new programs or some other method. However it is done the politicians will get their way. And they will cut everything else before they even look at restricting their own perks. But in China you have an economy that is leaping ahead with double digit growth. You also have an unique military which has it's own economic empire so if the Generals want something and the government says no then they just go do it out of their own funds. And that raises another question. Who fully controls the PLA? The Politburo or the Generals? Finally a third and more scary question. Who controls the nukes?

Another thing to consider. In the US politicians think in election cycles of four years. In NZ it's three years. So here there is a built in bias against looking at a long term goal or picture. Because of China's political system they don't have that problem and they are patient, very patient. How much does the US owe China? I think some one recently said US$1 trillion. Maybe China doesn't have to use main force to beat the US. What if it called in all of its debt at the same time in full? That's one strategy in the Sun Tzu Ping Fa. There is more than one way of killing an alley cat besides stuffing cream buns up its arse.

There are many ways of looking at this issue and I note that some US Republicans Congress members are calling for a cold war against China. Methinks that would be a stupid idea at the moment with the present condition of the US economy vis a vis the Chinese economy. This world does not need another cold war. We need to focus on a far more urgent and potentially fatal problem and that is climate change. By fatal I mean for a populations living in low lying areas close to a coast.

 

[Feanor]

I'm not going to get into the political discussion here. However if you want, we can talk about this in the Intros and Off-Topic.

 

[ngatimozart]

I'm not going to get into the political discussion here. However if you want, we can talk about this in the Intros and Off-Topic.

Nah mate lets just leave it at that. I have enjoyed the conversation but I have let my science interest interfere.

 

[JoeMcFriday]

ANZUS was a defence pact between the three countries where each of the member countries agreed to come to the aid of the other two if they were threatened with aggression or invasion. (King M: 2003, The Penguin History of New Zealand, Penguin Books (NZ) Ltd, Auckland 1310, New Zealand. p426). Since 1985 the ANZUS Council ceased at the insistence of the Regan administration because of New Zealands anti nuclear legislation, so now each year there are bilateral talks between the US and Australia. So Australia and the US still have the same pact except without New Zealand.

ANZUS is so limited it can't be considered a "mutual defence treaty" by any stretch of the imagination, public hyperbole or wishful thinking,
The USA is committed only to consultation and possible limited support, naval and air.. not troops, should it [unilaterally] decide to assist militarily.
It isn't bound to automatically come to our assistance, which is what a mutual defence treaty would incorporate.
Malcolm Fraser in a Melbourne interview [The Age, I think] recently made this very clear, very recently.
Here is a link to the actual treaty:-
ANZUS Treaty - Full Text of the Security Treaty between Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America
It was a trade off for Aus and NZ agreeing [stop resistance] to a USA proposed treaty with Japan post WW2 and has not been substantially altered or upgraded since, Much to the chagrin of many who thought we [Aus-NZ] were deserving of better treatment, it was all the USA would offer and not voluntarily.
Agreements by representatives are fleeting things, not binding unequivocal treaties of guaranteed action.
I guess volunteer "deputy sheriffs" don't rate much more than a "we'll get back to you on that" commitment.
Cheers,
Mac