tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3293152265787061341.post6300699211051176517..comments2024-03-03T05:11:57.603-05:00Comments on Wings Over Iraq: Next-War-itisStarbuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02013102906896853767noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3293152265787061341.post-67418460310847217492010-10-07T09:47:02.515-04:002010-10-07T09:47:02.515-04:00The next (and in some places current) wars:
Drug ...The next (and in some places current) wars:<br /><br />Drug Wars - international militarized, well-funded criminal cartels versus military-backed law enforcement agencies. This war will have all the elements of 'regular' war - sea, air, land, cyber, dark ops, etc.<br /><br />Water Wars - conflict between countries and/or groups over access to water resources. <br /><br />Inter-Islam Wars - Christian society had a renaissance, a reformation and series of anti-church Enlightenment-based secular revolutions and I believe the Muslim world could well face the same type of thing.<br /><br />"Ohhh, great warrior! Wars not make one great." -Master YodaEl Goyitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08794867770198842232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3293152265787061341.post-24243306106911504772010-10-06T06:39:07.419-04:002010-10-06T06:39:07.419-04:00Thus, the Royal Navy predicted, understandably, th...<em>Thus, the Royal Navy predicted, understandably, that in a coming war, aircraft carriers would be useless; ground-based aircraft could provide sufficient air cover.</em><br /><br />The <em>Royal Air Force</em>. The whole debate about the CVA01 carrier project was driven by the Navy insisting on the carriers and the RAF promising it could cover the Navy anywhere in the world for cheap (as long as they got the aircraft they wanted). The reductio ad absurdum of this was the infamous map the RAF produced for a briefing which moved Australia 300 miles NW. Eventually, in the context of the 1968 emergency defence cuts, the RAF won and the Navy didn't get CVA01. <em>Victorious</em> and <em>Ark Royal</em> were allowed to expire without replacement, <em>Hermes</em> transitioned to the LPH role.<br /><br />They did, however, sneak through the <em>Invincible</em> class by designating them "through deck command cruisers" rather than "aircraft carriers". Later on, they were able to get the Sea Harrier buy to go on them.<br /><br />Conservative Defence Secretary John Nott wanted to sell <em>Invincible</em> and possibly also the two LPDs, but events happened and 'Vince is still in the fleet today.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3293152265787061341.post-53892381014433644562010-10-05T11:33:41.693-04:002010-10-05T11:33:41.693-04:00Good post.
Seriously, you bloody Yanks were causi...Good post.<br /><br />Seriously, you bloody Yanks were causing trouble even back then!Aitorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13215800815367830447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3293152265787061341.post-48995241056816367012010-10-05T07:46:28.429-04:002010-10-05T07:46:28.429-04:00"We often base our foreign policy models on t..."We often base our foreign policy models on theories of rational actors, national interests, and a well-designed national security strategy. But nations--indeed, people--do not always act rationally."<br /><br />Aha...but they do act rationally...at least it is rational from their point of view.<br /><br />Another great philosopher said "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." <br /><br />Rationality is a subjective, not objective, judgement. According to Gharajedaghi, it rational judgement are the confluence of perceived self-interest, emotion, and culture (Systems Thinking, Managing Chaos and Complexity, 2006). Funny how these correspond to another gentleman named Thucydides who posited that nations go to war generally out of fear, honor, or interest.<br /><br />In short, Everyone acts in what they think is their own best interests. We (Americans) err in assuming that everyone thinks like us. When we are surprised by the "unpredictable" behavior of others, we dismiss the behavior as irrational (a kind of enthocentric cognitive dissonance). In fact, if you try to understand the subjective interests of other people and nations, you reduce your chances of being surprised considerably.M.L.http://irondice.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3293152265787061341.post-86452907613805339572010-10-05T02:04:47.190-04:002010-10-05T02:04:47.190-04:00Enjoyed the essay. And the whale video. That was f...Enjoyed the essay. And the whale video. That was funky. Remind me not to be reincarnated as a seal.<br /><br />Adding to the difficulty of prediction is that training and equipment for the war that never is, may still exert a deterrent effect by ensuring it doesn't happen. <br /><br />The US Navy put massive resources (e.g., F-14 Tomcat/Phoenix, AEGIS, etc.) into defending carrier from mass Soviet bomber attack in the Battle of the Atlantic. While Aegis continues to be useful, the Tomcat's main reason for existence (a few Libyan encounters aside) was doing its bit for recruitment in movie Top Gun. But did the huge commitment to fleet area defense help exert a deterrent effect on the USSR, by convincing them they couldn't easily stop the carriers and by implication their escort of convoy reinforcements to Europe, thus making WWIII less likely? <br /><br />Dunno.DPnoreply@blogger.com