I don't even know if it's that, I'd have to see what exactly they're defining ww3 as, what are the goals?
Like yeah, I could see the US suffering heavy losses around china due to area of denial and some pretty advanced anti-ship missiles, but if we define the conflict as the US protecting countries outside of their area of denial I fail to see how the US would suffer heavy losses.
Likewise for Russia, if we attempt to push in and invade Russia, yeah, you're looking at heavy losses. If the objective is to prevent Russia from taking one god damn step into mainstream Europe then I don't see the US suffering heavy losses unless Russia decides to use nukes, which just means the US uses them back.
Rand doesn't do bad wargames from what I understand, but they seem to have different outcomes than the marines do:
What's especially strange is the tiny 3% of the budget they want increased to justify force growth, to allegedly tip the scale.
If it's that bad that we're gona all die in ww3 shouldn't the military be shuttering any non essential contracts and opening bids for more equipment fabrication?
I don't think it's pet project tbh, like I said RAND is fairly credible when it comes to wargames, but I find it suspect they got different outcomes than the marines did.
I suspect it's because the marines made sacrifices:
As there was not enough American combat power to fight and win three simultaneous major conflicts, hard strategic choices were unavoidable. The American team quickly decided that losing Taiwan was not an existential threat to the United States, and except for a token Marine Corps force, Taiwan was left to fend for itself on the ground while substantial American air and naval assets challenged China’s access. The U.S. players viewed Taiwan as an economy of force effort that would be reinforced with ground troops once the big fight (Russia) was won. In the meantime, Team America opted to defend Taiwan with air and naval power, which continuously plagued Chinese attempts to reinforce their troops on the island. Similarly, South Korea, while viewed as crucial to long-term U.S. security, was also responsible for its own defense, although the American 2nd and 25th Infantry Divisions arrived in force early-on, as did two regiments of American Marines. Still, the bulk of the fighting was left to South Korean forces.
Believing that China and North Korea had no military ambitions beyond their immediate objectives, the U.S. team adopted for a “Europe First” policy, similar to the strategic decisions the nation made during the Second World War. Consequently, eight American Army divisions, most of the Marine Corps, and significant air assets made their way to Europe. Interestingly, the U.S. team decided to send almost all of its naval assets to the Pacific, which made the GIUK gap vulnerable. The scenario allowed for a lengthy strategic build-up in Europe. But because the conflicts in the Pacific were more opportunist, they were mostly “come as you are” affairs.
Wouldnt be surprised if its accurate, the US has the worst spending for the military usually goes like this:
US ARMY "We desperately need cyberwarfare funding and less tanks we already have them sitting in lots unused, heres a report on the subject."
Congress "Yeah but there is a tank manufacturing plant in my constituency and not a cyberwarefare plant and so factoring in donations you get 5000 new tanks"
Trump: "Jared knows alot about the cyber and he says we are fine, SpAcE FoRcE"
Or we've spent two plus decades gearing for COIN operations while Russia and especially China have been pouring increasingly vast sums into peer adversary capabilities?
Analysts say it would take just $24billion to improve outcomes - which is about three percent of the $750billion defense budget President Donald Trump will propose for 2020.
yeah, we're doing well but we have to face Iraqi elite republican guard... yeah, these guys are 10 ft tall, they never lost a battle, they shit bullets... and after 2 months of continuous carpet bombing... they went from elite republican guard to republican guard to... republicans made this shit up
Historically the military stacks the deck super hard in favor of the theoretical opposition so they can get a bunch more funding and then then don't let the details get released as long as possible to hide the obvious "the people we might be fighting get literally perfect everything and the simulations assume all the US tech stuff is run by crayon eaters" so they can get more funding.
My favorite part of OG Fallout is in the opening cinematic newscast when we annex Canada and execute a dissenter. Honestly any future that involves US boots on the ground in Toronto is one that is be willing to live to see.
31 comments
2 Pipewrecker 2019-10-10
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Development aka the meat grinder wants more meat.
4 professorshillphd 2019-10-10
I don't even know if it's that, I'd have to see what exactly they're defining ww3 as, what are the goals?
Like yeah, I could see the US suffering heavy losses around china due to area of denial and some pretty advanced anti-ship missiles, but if we define the conflict as the US protecting countries outside of their area of denial I fail to see how the US would suffer heavy losses.
Likewise for Russia, if we attempt to push in and invade Russia, yeah, you're looking at heavy losses. If the objective is to prevent Russia from taking one god damn step into mainstream Europe then I don't see the US suffering heavy losses unless Russia decides to use nukes, which just means the US uses them back.
Rand doesn't do bad wargames from what I understand, but they seem to have different outcomes than the marines do:
2 Pipewrecker 2019-10-10
What's especially strange is the tiny 3% of the budget they want increased to justify force growth, to allegedly tip the scale.
If it's that bad that we're gona all die in ww3 shouldn't the military be shuttering any non essential contracts and opening bids for more equipment fabrication?
It smells like pet project funding bullshit.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-10
I don't think it's pet project tbh, like I said RAND is fairly credible when it comes to wargames, but I find it suspect they got different outcomes than the marines did.
I suspect it's because the marines made sacrifices:
2 newcomer_ts 2019-10-10
That's like saying L.A. Police is fairly credible when it comes to justifying killing black people.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-10
They run a few credible wargames.
2 newcomer_ts 2019-10-10
I heard you the 1st time and even 2nd time I still conclude you're full of shit.
1 professorshillphd 2019-10-10
Lol, go over to credible defense if you want to look into this.
1 ImHereForTheBussy 2019-10-10
When did you turn into a neocon, Pizza?
1 Redactor0 2019-10-10
RAND isn't neocons. Foundation for Defense of Democracies is their main think tank now, and I think the AEI still if I remember right.
0 LongPostBot 2019-10-10
This is a really long way of saying you don't fuck.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 mayoslide 2019-10-10
say you’re sorry to the professor, robot 😡
2 allendrio 2019-10-10
Wouldnt be surprised if its accurate, the US has the worst spending for the military usually goes like this:
US ARMY "We desperately need cyberwarfare funding and less tanks we already have them sitting in lots unused, heres a report on the subject."
Congress "Yeah but there is a tank manufacturing plant in my constituency and not a cyberwarefare plant and so factoring in donations you get 5000 new tanks"
Trump: "Jared knows alot about the cyber and he says we are fine, SpAcE FoRcE"
1 SJCards 2019-10-10
Or we've spent two plus decades gearing for COIN operations while Russia and especially China have been pouring increasingly vast sums into peer adversary capabilities?
1 allendrio 2019-10-10
That too, nobody sane is saying desert Vietnam doubles was a good idea.
1 Warbring3r 2019-10-10
Or this study is BS meant to get more funding. “We only need $24B more to win!”
Hmmmmm...
2 boyoyoyoyong 2019-10-10
They hired these guys to get more money.
Analysts say it would take just $24billion to improve outcomes - which is about three percent of the $750billion defense budget President Donald Trump will propose for 2020.
1 chimpan_z 2019-10-10
J U S T
1 ImHereForTheBussy 2019-10-10
$750 billion, we lose WWIII
$774 billion, we win
Makes sense
1 tHeSiD 2019-10-10
Clearly you haven't played any RTS where minor upgrades like +1armor make a huge difference in battles.
1 gunowner63 2019-10-10
I'm sure building a few less f35s and tanks and redistributing some of the fortune they get every year isn't an option.
2 newcomer_ts 2019-10-10
~ Bill Hicks explains American war effort
1 BussyShillBot 2019-10-10
His test results were 100% fagginosis, and a partial Tardination of the Brain Ganglia. The boards verdict is repeated quadrasperg alignments.
Outlines:
I am a bot for posting Outline.com links. github / Contact for info or issues
1 SnapshillBot 2019-10-10
Hahaha, you were so butthurt you reported all my posts to the moderators too.
You win this one, I'm not allowed to make fun of you anymore. Enjoy living your internet life every day, goodbye.
Snapshots:
I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers
1 princess_y_fronts 2019-10-10
In conclusion, we need more funding.
3 TaysSecondGussy 2019-10-10
reads to last paragraphs
Son of a bitch. A crummy request for money?
At least explain how more money would improve shit.
1 ImHereForTheBussy 2019-10-10
In breaking news, think tank funded by the military industrial complex says more money needs to go into the military industrial complex.
1 respaaaaaj 2019-10-10
Historically the military stacks the deck super hard in favor of the theoretical opposition so they can get a bunch more funding and then then don't let the details get released as long as possible to hide the obvious "the people we might be fighting get literally perfect everything and the simulations assume all the US tech stuff is run by crayon eaters" so they can get more funding.
1 hungarianmeatslammer 2019-10-10
They also didn't factor in that we will cuck Canada, Australia, and Western Europe into fighting on our behalf.
1 respaaaaaj 2019-10-10
And most of eastern Europe, most of south east asia and even half of the middle east. Probably India too.
1 TrailerParkRide 2019-10-10
My favorite part of OG Fallout is in the opening cinematic newscast when we annex Canada and execute a dissenter. Honestly any future that involves US boots on the ground in Toronto is one that is be willing to live to see.