We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor • Hacker News Board

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#221

Post by Dah00n » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 4:47 PM UTC

stevehawk wrote: post #196

geenew wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a kind of spooky comment that could be made in a future where war has already broken out. Not to be melodramatic, but we should all keep in mind how terrible a war would be.

it doesn't matter how terrible our side thinks it would be if the other side has decided it is going to happen.

But it does matter. It takes two to tango and many a wise man have backed down from a winnable fight with a bloody nose. The US isn't forced to go to war with China over Taiwan. IMO it's more that those that want to retaliate are never anywhere near the war. If generals and politicians were in the first wave in an attack to retaliate against China invading Taiwan, retaliation would never happen.

On the other hand if a war breaks out and the US gets in the middle of it because of power projection (like in the South Chinese sea) then the other side didn't start it, they escalated. You don't see PRC warships, army bases, etc. as a mainstay everywhere around US borders and coastal waters. If we did the US would instantly escalate to WW3.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#222

Post by Dah00n » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 5:07 PM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #165

lucas_membrane wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The new paradigm of China, the current naval rival of the US in the Pacific, is more akin to imitating ants than to imitating sharks. The Chinese are expanding their spheres of influence, power, and control (e.g. in the South China Sea) gradually by a plethora of means that each irritate, annoy and distress the Americans. There is no reason for China to want to sink an American carrier. Extrapolating ahead 20 or 30 y…

> I believe that the majority in the US would prefer naval disarmament to having Chinese ships and planes patrolling 13 miles off US shores the way US Navy ships have operated near China. If they are in international waters than nobody will care. But China doesn’t have the resources to build ships to routinely project power off the US coast. Ask yourself - why are they building empty skyscrapers? Couldn’t they build…

>If they are in international waters than nobody will care

If the USSR had put nukes everywhere around the US, even in international waters, we would not be here to discuss this today so yes people do care, a lot.

As to why they "build skyscrapers instead of warships", that's already explained in the comment you reply to. In short: because China isn't going the route of massive military to become top dog. It will become top dog without raising the part of its GDP it already spends today. Why spend a lot more on ships now when everything points to you being both richer, more technologically advanced and with better industrial capacity in 30 years than the US? Unless something significant happens China will win "the war" without firing a single shot while on the other hand the US will likely need ICBMs to "win".

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#223

Post by monocasa » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 5:13 PM UTC

Marazan wrote: post #191

monocasa wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was under the impression that the Millennium Challenge's red team was playing as Iran, not Iraq. A "tenacious and unconventional enemy willing to use elite troops in daring and near suicidal ways" particularly known for their use of speedboats blended with more traditional military material is the Revolutionary Guard's MO.

Yes, Red team played like peak Iran - but the actual purpose of the Millennium Challenge was to wargame Iraq no matter what might have publicly been said.

They never publicly said either way because that would have been a diplomatic nightmare. But it's clear the game only makes sense if red team was Iran.

> In 2002 the Pentagon ran an expensive wargame designed to simulate what a war with Iran would be like—and the U.S. lost heavily.

> That time a Marine general led a fictional Iran against the US military – and won

https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/that-time-a-marine-g...

> Learning Curve: Iranian Asymmetrical Warfare and Millennium Challenge 2002

https://cimsec.org/learning-curve-iranian-asymmetrical-warfa...

Iraq's military was set up completely different than what red team did, as Iraq tried to have a traditional, symmetric military. This is because, as a minority controlled nation, they were attracted to the added legitimacy it gave their regime to not have a focus on assymetric warfare. Tanks in columns make the state look stronger to the populace, even if you get trounced in an actual battle.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#224

Post by hef19898 » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 5:28 PM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #218

RugnirViking wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Missiles are not targeted at a location. They absolubtely do "lock on" and can track a moving target. They would simply not be able to function if that were not that case. Why even use a missile at all if it worked like that, just fire a big gun. Sure there are countermeasures, but manouvering a ship won't do anything on its own. The only way things like that help is when combined with chaff or heat signature dummies…

> Missiles are not targeted at a location. They absolubtely do "lock on" and can track a moving target. They would simply not be able to function if that were not that case. Why even use a missile at all if it worked like that, just fire a big gun. Sure there are countermeasures, but manouvering a ship won't do anything on its own. The only way things like that help is when combined with chaff or heat signature dummi…

Ballistic missiles are things like ICBMs, there it doesn't matter if you miss by a couple of miles. Hypersonic missiles are fast enough to make ship movement a negligible factor, ship are slow.

All other anti-ship missiles are guided. How bad that can end was shown in the Falkland war, the Royal Navy suffered quite a lot from Argentinian Exocets. Bought from France.

A F-35 is what, 35 million dollar plus, excluding the pilot and training cost? Missiles are cheaper, by order of magnitude.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#225

Post by RugnirViking » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 5:36 PM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #218

RugnirViking wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Missiles are not targeted at a location. They absolubtely do "lock on" and can track a moving target. They would simply not be able to function if that were not that case. Why even use a missile at all if it worked like that, just fire a big gun. Sure there are countermeasures, but manouvering a ship won't do anything on its own. The only way things like that help is when combined with chaff or heat signature dummies…

> Missiles are not targeted at a location. They absolubtely do "lock on" and can track a moving target. They would simply not be able to function if that were not that case. Why even use a missile at all if it worked like that, just fire a big gun. Sure there are countermeasures, but manouvering a ship won't do anything on its own. The only way things like that help is when combined with chaff or heat signature dummi…

Typically the way these kinds of missile emplacements work is that first the ships are spotted with a command/radar unit, which then tries to categorise the ships based on their radar "signature" - in this case signature is literal, in the sense that each class of ship and sometimes even within classes has a unique radar reflaction that can be detected. Most major millitaries over the years of shadowing each other have built up databases of each other's craft including radar signatures from every angle. This is then used to prioritise targets and decide on an attack profile - so it's unlikely it would accidentally be launched at say a destroyer. They then send this plan to their missiles which all start their attack independantly, using their onboard radars to follow the target. The usual countermeasures to this like I mentioned involve using chaff, which is little bits of metal foil that are launched into a cloud in the sky, which presents as a big cloud on the enemies radar behind which the missiles cannot see. This is where manouvering may be used, if the missile momentarily cannot see then you may be able to avoid it. However with swarm attacks, which is how these missiles will almost certainly be deployed at least against a target as valuble as a carrier, they come from several directions which makes deploying chaff and/or manouvering very difficult.

I don't claim it's some secret that only china has or anything like that - the US and several other countries have deployed them as well. Its just that the vulnerability of carrier groups to them necessitates a shift in naval strategy closer to "fleet in being" - essentially that capital ships are too valuble to risk losing so are restricted in where they can operate because they are more valuble as a deterrrent than they would be actually fighting - which reduces power projection ability of carriers, similar to what the early 20th century did to battleships

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#226

Post by stevehawk » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 6:29 PM UTC

Dah00n wrote: post #221

stevehawk wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it doesn't matter how terrible our side thinks it would be if the other side has decided it is going to happen.

But it does matter. It takes two to tango and many a wise man have backed down from a winnable fight with a bloody nose. The US isn't forced to go to war with China over Taiwan. IMO it's more that those that want to retaliate are never anywhere near the war. If generals and politicians were in the first wave in an attack to retaliate against China invading Taiwan, retaliation would never happen. On the other hand if…

We would? Because if we did that every time Russia did it then we'd be at WW200 by now.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#227

Post by hef19898 » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 7:12 PM UTC

sofixa wrote: post #187

hef19898 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sometimes get the impression that the last time "decisive" battles worked was during the Napoleonic Wars. And even then the Russian campaign played as much a role as did Waterloo. After that everybody trying to force decisive battles got wars of attrition wich were ultimately lost.

The person you're replying to literally gave you an example of a decisive battle, the Battle of Tsushima. And there are many others, depending on how decisive you mean. The battle of Sedan in the Franco-prussian war resulted in the loss of most of the French army, their emperor and government. A siege and a few more battles had to be fought before France surrendered, but it was a foregone conclusion. The battles of T…

Except Sedan, none of these battles were as decisive, or at least not in tye same sense, as the battles won and lost by Napoleon. The Pacific war just really started after Midway, After Bangration the Nazis didn't surrender. The Low Lands and Denmark fell early in the war. And as you said, despite being turning points, these battles were part of modern industrial wars. They didn't end the war, nor did they force parties to the negotiation table. Aiming for that, as part of a strategy, against a peer adversary stopped working in the mid 19th century. One could even argue that the British defeated Napoleon by forcing him into a decisive battle, Waterloo, they could afford to loose but he couldn't. It does work so against adversaries that cannot hope to win, or afford to loose. E.g. Denmark. If Denmark would have been the only country to be conquered that is.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#228

Post by sofixa » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 7:35 PM UTC

hef19898 wrote: post #227

sofixa wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person you're replying to literally gave you an example of a decisive battle, the Battle of Tsushima. And there are many others, depending on how decisive you mean. The battle of Sedan in the Franco-prussian war resulted in the loss of most of the French army, their emperor and government. A siege and a few more battles had to be fought before France surrendered, but it was a foregone conclusion. The battles of T…

Except Sedan, none of these battles were as decisive, or at least not in tye same sense, as the battles won and lost by Napoleon. The Pacific war just really started after Midway, After Bangration the Nazis didn't surrender. The Low Lands and Denmark fell early in the war. And as you said, despite being turning points, these battles were part of modern industrial wars. They didn't end the war, nor did they force part…

> They didn't end the war, nor did they force parties to the negotiation table

But they did. France, the low countries, Denmark, Norway all surrendered following said battles. The fight was kept on by allies of theirs, but the battles themselves were decisive with regards to the fate of the country that lost.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#229

Post by jabl » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 8:36 PM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #211

jabl wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First, how do you even locate the carrier groups? Perhaps by these SAR satellites China has been launching? SAR satellites have AFAIU been fairly effectively miniaturized recently, enabling a wannabe-superpower like China to send up hundreds or even thousands of them if they want to, making it infeasible to destroy them all cost-effectively at least with today's technology. I'm not sure what the current level of co…

> Perhaps by these SAR satellites China has been launching? SAR satellites have AFAIU been fairly effectively miniaturized recently, enabling a wannabe-superpower like China to send up hundreds or even thousands of them if they want to, making it infeasible to destroy them all cost-effectively at least with today's technology. Sure it's possible. I think it's challenging overall but it seems neither of us are complet…

> Sure it's possible. I think it's challenging overall but it seems neither of us are completely sure.

I have no idea about the exact capabilities of the Chinese military SAR satellites. But considering that a dinky little startup with a few tens of millions in funding like Iceeye is able to launch half a dozen smallsats with SAR's that have been used for, among others, tracking fishing vessels that have gone dark (shut down their AIS transponders), it seems almost obvious that a high-tech wannabe-superpower would be able to launch boatloads of similar things in order to track foreign naval surface vessels.

> Kind of. Ballistic missiles follow a predictable trajectory - the difference is these hypersonic missiles while mostly following predictable trajectories they can adjust a little bit more at the last second to hit a target.

I was thinking of this supposed Chinese anti-shipping ballistic missile (DF-21D) that has some mid/late course correction ability. The hypersonics everybody is excited about these days are of course a further step ahead of these kinds of things. But yes.

> They'd have to be hypersonic too b/c the U.S. is likely shooting down others that get too close to the CSG.

I think a stealthy subsonic (subsonic for fuel economy enabling long range without having to boost (almost) out of the atmosphere like a ballistic or hypersonic) missile could be an interesting design point - with a supersonic terminal stage. Not sure if such things are on the drawing board anywhere.

> But also, what if China goes and builds all these missiles for a war that never comes?

The same accusation can be leveled at all military spending. What if the US builds a dozen carriers and accompanying battle groups and a war never comes (not counting bombing some 3rd world tinpot dictator)? Oops, the US already did that. You can of course say they provide deterrence or whatever, but so can the Chinese.

> My bias here is not so much with carriers or the U.S. Navy but by overestimating these missiles and their effectiveness. Whenever I hear all of the armchair generals talking about something (myself included) I immediately have to wonder how we're wrong and why we're wrong. It's like everyone predicting the next market bubble - they latch on to a relatable idea (China has so many missiles they can blow up all of our ships) and stick to it and then barely question that assumption.

Fair enough. It's easy enough to get carried away speculating on the capabilities of weapons systems which are closely guarded state secrets.

Re: We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor

#230

Post by Dah00n » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 9:22 PM UTC

stevehawk wrote: post #226

Dah00n wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it does matter. It takes two to tango and many a wise man have backed down from a winnable fight with a bloody nose. The US isn't forced to go to war with China over Taiwan. IMO it's more that those that want to retaliate are never anywhere near the war. If generals and politicians were in the first wave in an attack to retaliate against China invading Taiwan, retaliation would never happen. On the other hand if…

We would? Because if we did that every time Russia did it then we'd be at WW200 by now.

Please be serious. The only time the USSR did anything like how the US does this was the Cuban missile crisis. There have never been a ring of Russian army bases, nuclear missiles, airfields with nuclear capable bombers, etc. around the US. It has happened once on a tiny scale in modern history by someone else than the US and it almost started WW3.