Will there ever be a heavy-weight military clash?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Sun Tzu has always espoused the asymetric form of fighting. The force multipliers. The western world, and the US in particular, is migrating towards a more and more centralized form of C3I. While we don't have our head in the sand with respect to threat analyses and risk mitigation, I worry that our might is increasingly putting reliance upon infrastructure that is not historically military in nature.

Look what a few guys did to our economy in 2001. Denial of service threats that do not result in ANY casualties (civilian nor military) can be absolutely catastrophic to our nation. And risk mitigation strategies are inordinately expensive to implement. An entity that coordinates their attacks on a national infrastructure, coupled with military agression is liable to inflict some serious hurt.

I hope someone smarter than I am has this all figured out.
 
the lancaster kicks ass said:
our standards don't matter though, it's obviously good enough for them so they're obviously using it in their military.........
Click to expand...

Is it really though? What happens when a ship is built using sub-grade material? How powerful will armor on a MBT or other AFV be if it is of very poor quality. If they're using substandard steel in building not just military equipment, but infrastructure, it can have serious effects down the future, not just in the aspect that mil equip may be very subpar by western standards...

I was actually asking if anyone else had heard or knows anything regarding chinese steel output. That stat may have been old and may now be outdated. I for sure do not know.
 
I don't have any stats, but do know that China is pouring over the world markets for steel and raw ore to make their own. I hadn't heard that it was substandard, but rather that their economy is going such gangbusters that they are dying for more energy sources to power their steel mills (huge energy sinks).

Thus recently you have seen the Chinese in the middle east and central europe (energy) and in Africa (raw materials).
 
im only gonna say.
No peace is forewer, no war is for ever, its forewer
 
Udet, took me a while to get back to you on your post. Been kicking it around, trying to figure out the details. There is very little good information on what a high tech, info war would be like. A large one hasn't been fought, the only one that has occured is the Gulf War of 2003. In that, there were some interesting operations/trends. I am not an expert in any way, shape or form on this stuff so what I say must be taken with a grain of salt. Doubtless there are others who know more (probably on this board) and they'll weight in.

Blue Force Tracker is a good representative of computer enhancement of the battlefield. This is a computer program/lan/operational system that keeps track of all your assets on a battlefield (Blue), the enemy (Red) and unknown (I think green or grey). It produces a common battlefield picture in real time that all units engaged in the operation can use. Takes inputs from assets (Land, Air, Sea, Sattelite, ect) and feeds them into a screen readout like a video game.

It seems to work pretty well. During the Gulf War it was very helpful in reducing the number of Blue on Blue engagements (also known as friendly fire).

Another operation that is big in informational warfare is getting inside the enemies decision process. This is done by disrupting, denying or falsifying their communications from as many sources as possible. In some cases, it means jamming communications. In others, it means allowing information through, still, in others it means sending false messages or delaying the message a couple of hours so when it gets there it is already well out of date. This seems to have been very effective in the Gulf War. So much so that the Iraqis were down to the level of climbing telephone poles to take a look around and see what was happening.

Also, the method and types of worms/viruses has changed. There are still DOS (denial of service) attacks, aggressive takeovers of computers, zombie attacks, ect. They will always be there as they are more of the shock effect. If you want to shut down an electronic grid or civilian infrastructure, that is the way it will be done. Same with a military grid, although they are typically much harder to break into. But a more recent development in the computer attack scenario involves not so much taking over the computer but introducing a program into the system that degrades the data. Only by a little bit. It is a quiet, in the backround kind of thing that will disrupt the targeting systems for high tech weaponry. A GPS guided bomb that misses the target by 100 yards or so. Very suttle but very effective.

That is some of the little I know or have heard about info war. There is other stuff but it is in dribs and drabs. Definitely quiet stuff. Much like the Blitzkrieg was in the 30s, there have been testing grounds (like Spain was to the Blitzkrieg) but all the associated parts have not come together in one large operation. But is definitely part of the process now.

As for which society would be at greater risk to a info war attack, it is an interesting question that produces more questions than answers. On a country like the US, you have a lot more systems that are run using computers and networks than in most other countries. That makes them more vunerable to attack. But you also have a populace that is more tech savy, and, as a consequence, knows methods (and generally has experience) with responding to the attack. Most of us have been hacked, wormed or had a virus. We know how to respond. Secondly, the support needed to fix those attacks and bugs lies in the US. The defenses are homegrown. That being said (and somebody else alluded to it in a earlier post), the ability to create havoc using an asymetric threat on the information infrastructure is far greater in the US due to our dependence on computer based systems.

On the other hand...the Chinese have a less specialized and less computer based system. These is changing fast but they still have a ways to go. But much like the Wermacht in WW2, not as many Chinese will have experience with computers as you would find in the US. In WW2, almost every American kid had a driver's liscense and knew how to get a car going. Whereas in Germany, the frequency of that type of skill was much lower. I think the same is probably true with China at present.

Long and short, info war will hurt the US faster and cost more, but the recovery will be faster as well. It will do less damage in China but the damage will be longer lasting and more difficult to fix. Again, this is an IMHO call, all things being equal in the attack (which they won't be). But ya' gotta start somewhere.
 
But the fact is though, that if you are relying on electronic methods of keeping up with what is going on, on the battlefield, then you could find that the enemy jamming you with sophisticated or non-sophisticated GPS jammers as well as signal jamming disruption. Therefore the US and other NATO forces are more susceptible to this type of jamming in theory...
 
Yeah, very true. Here's a quote about it that I am sure somebody on this board will spot.

"The more complicated the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the pipes"

Who said it? (may not be an exact quote but it is as close as I can remember it)
 
Timshats, thanks for the comments. Very interesting indeed.

I agree when you say the population of the U.S.A. is more tech savy when compared with the chinese (by far), so the ability to recover and respond to emergency is indeed there, and should be a plus when confronting emergency.

i can understand the parts where you explain the procedures the USA can follow to mess and screw the decision process of the enemy regarding military issues (screwing or jamming their communications, causing their weapon systems to fail, etc.)

Still if the bulk of the chinese population does not rely on technology to carry on with their lives, they can not receive -at least- direct damage from the sort of electronic warfare we are trying to discuss here. So if there can not be damage there is nothing to recover from.

It seems quite clear the USA might have an advantage to directly damage China´s military by means of electronic warfare, and only after that the chinese populace can get affected.

Relying heavily upon technology and information can certainly produce a population that is more prone to panic. The people of the U.S.A. is accustomed to timely and up-to-date information only; so as you commented, the sudden lack of such ingredients can cause a severe shock.

In case of war the U.S.A. would have to deal with both the foreign enemy and the population demanding information; whether the Chinese become capable of damaging or "crippling" the technology and information elements of the U.S.A. (military and civilian alike) is irrelevant. The U.S.A. would appear to have two fronts: (i) external -the enemy-, and (ii) internal (population). A situation that can certainly become a nightmare.

The Chinese, well, they do not need to inform or report to the populace, so only the enemy will count.
 
There is one factor that I think inhibits any large military action between the PRC and the US, and that's the near total dependance of the PRC on easy access to the US markets. Take that away and the PRC is going to be hurting fast.

Scenario's I see where the PRC and the US would be fighting each other for brief periods before things get totally out of hand:

- China vs ASEAN over the Spratleys, in which the sealanes are put at risk. The US and Japan ally themselves to ASEAN.
- Rogue military/economic interests in the PRC get themselves involved with a terror group who does something really really nasty in which we retaliate.
- Russia vs PRC over Siberia. The US gets sucked into the fight by the PRC.

Other scenario's:
- Pakistan vs India
- India vs PRC
- NATO/US vs PRC in middle east (with Russia staying out).
- Arabs vs Iran

Another possibility: Iran or N Korea uses a nuke on a US city and we hold Russia and PRC both responsible and we nuke one of their cities to even the score.

As for the PRC's military..... they are still two generations behind the west. Their attempts at economic damage to the US via cyber warfare would backfire horribly for them when the rest of the world isolates them from the internet. When money is involved, the whole world listens and reacts. Just remember we have as many tech savy computer and telecom enginners and hackers who know just how to inflict as pain on the PRC.
 
timshatz said:
Blue Force Tracker is a good representative of computer enhancement of the battlefield. This is a computer program/lan/operational system that keeps track of all your assets on a battlefield (Blue), the enemy (Red) and unknown (I think green or grey). It produces a common battlefield picture in real time that all units engaged in the operation can use. Takes inputs from assets (Land, Air, Sea, Sattelite, ect) and feeds them into a screen readout like a video game.

It seems to work pretty well. During the Gulf War it was very helpful in reducing the number of Blue on Blue engagements (also known as friendly fire).
Click to expand...

No it does not work very well. It needs to be refined and improved before it will be worth a damn. We hated the fricken thing in Iraq. All it did was take up valuable space in our aircraft and was of little or no use at all. It was allways failing and going offline and the messages would not even arrive half the time that we sent to ground forces or to our home camp.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
No it does not work very well. It needs to be refined and improved before it will be worth a damn. We hated the fricken thing in Iraq. All it did was take up valuable space in our aircraft and was of little or no use at all. It was allways failing and going offline and the messages would not even arrive half the time that we sent to ground forces or to our home camp.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the internet! Well, at least around here on a Friday afternoon. :evil:

Always better to hear from somebody who has direct experience with it. How long ago did you use it in A-stan? My understanding is it was fairly new (Star Wars type stuff) back in the 2003 invasion.

The same problem happened back when they brought up Aegis back in the 80s. Well, not the exact same problem but there were plenty of gaps in it. What you trained for is not what you saw. I understand it improved immensely since then. Remember the warning of Russian Missle Radar Locks going off in the Delaware River in the Early 80s. Like you said, refining was needed.
 
That's good news. Figure they have so much invested in it, it will work after they get the wrinkles fixed. The early stuff never works well and the crews/users inevitable have plenty of problems with it (M16, AIM9, AIM7,ect). But they iron them out after a while. Usually (Sgt. York System no withstanding).
 
That quote was by Scotty Montgomery of Startrek, Engineer on the Enterprise NCC-1701A. I see a China vs Russia and the US situation not occurring because China wouldn't like to be in a situation where its opponent has twice the nuclear arsennal. Don't forget that it is unknown where all Russian nuclear weapons are. Did the Russian government hide some to aim at China in a troubled situation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Best brand marketing on a postwar military aircraft?
Replies
1
Views
577
ThomasP
T
A
And then there was one. How could the IDF destroy Iran's nuclear research bunker?
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
Dimlee
Dimlee
Venomstick121
US Military Aircraft Names
Replies
15
Views
1K
Venomstick121
Venomstick121
T
B-52 to be in service for over 100 years
Replies
11
Views
1K
MIflyer
M
syscom3
A Vietnam War pilot vanished over 50 years ago. His remains have just been found and identified
Replies
9
Views
845
fubar57
fubar57
Back