The Art of War. A discussion of the current form of the US military command staff.

Sad to say this but our military of today is mentally not what it used to be.

A country's military is only as good as the citizens that serve in it.

It's a real shame because they have more advanced training than when I was in and far superior weapons systems.

All that being said, US military is still a far superior force than the Chinese military is.

Doesn't mean China can't do some real damage before losing though.

What is not mentioned is that China has corporate America by the balls since the vast majority of our manufacturing is now done there.

China could cut off all manufacturing for US companies in a single day if they chose to. Then where would we be?

Last Edited by Strate8 on 05/26/2021 09:16 PM

You gotta understand man, that any notions you have of large scale destruction that the US can visit upon anyone, can be returned by a peer adversary such as China. Sure, what you said could occur, they could invade Taiwan and then the US could glass the island. But then what? China loses one or two army divisions (they can handle it) and the result is escalating the war to MAD protocols. Over a small island.

Adults in the room do not think that way.

The large concern people should have about US military 'wokeness' is the indirect rot it will have within the ranks. There will always be some adults in the room at the high levels, guys who are focused on winning, not what someone looks like or who they like to fuck. But they can't micromanage an entire military, that's not how it works. They give orders to others who then have to figure out the best way to execute them. The problem starts to become when these mid/low level commanders aren't 'adults in the room' and instead are spoilt children who are not fully mentality committed to victory. That is where things will start to unravel.

Understand that war is a game of aggregates. You have 10,000 men on both sides of a battle. Some of those men will be warriors without peer, but they can't defeat 10,000 men on their own. The other side will have these soldiers as well, which will balance out to a degree these perceived advantages. It will come down to the aggregate advantages/disadvantages each side has. Terrain, supplies, positioning, etc. This is the problem with the intellectual rot in the US military. If the aggregate mentality of mid/low ranked commanders shifts from WW2 GI-style 'get the job done' to millennial wokeness and mental weakness, that will cause an aggregate disadvantage in a war against a peer adversary. Theatre commanders can make all the strategic decisions they want, but if the men on the ground aren't capable of executing those orders then the war effort will quickly be lost.

Personally I think the situation is incredibly delicate because of the forces involved. Since WW2 human warfare has changed. All modern militaries have weapons available to them to cause total destruction. War previous was fought for territory and economic resources, but it always came down to a bunch of men on a field. Now days, that sort of battlefield engagement is no longer valid. Planes and helicopters can destroy entire battle formations from afar. Artillery has gone from cannons to cruise missiles. The artillery core now doesn't have to leave the homeland to engage the enemy. War has become an order of magnitude more destructive, and with that the attractiveness of large scale war diminishes to competent commanders.

It is why I believe the current rulers of the world (lizards, bloodlines, whoever it is sort of irrelevant WHO they are) no longer consider large scale war as a means of control. It has become too dangerous. They controllers, just like theatre commanders, can't micro-manage everything. Modern warfare has too many moving parts and those moving parts have too greater potential for total destruction. It simply isn't strategically desirable. War may inevitably happen because let's face it, old habits die hard. But it will be a new type of warfare that literally no living man has the proper capabilities and experience to fight. For these reasons I think that and future modern wars will be entered into very gingerly, with both sides exhausting literally every other option before resulting to kinetic warfare. No one wants to rule over ashes.

Am too tired right now to add my two cents, so am ing to come back to later with fresh eyes.

Am a student of Art of War tactics but am glad I am not in the thick of things like so many others serving. My father, an old Cold War warrior, agrees with me I would've washed out in boot camp given how I roll. Not in the SJW way but more along the lines of being raised old school ways. I am of the generation with one foot in the old and the foot in the new, plus being a female so chances are I would've ended up in the brig. Instead I chose to be a teacher.

Chaosisfreedom,

Your post is too long to quote but very good.

Modern warfare has reverted back to feudal warfare in many ways. Waged by mercenary proxies so it doesn't get out of hand with major players exchanging fire directly.

Syria is the face of modern warfare. State supported mercanaries battling with no laws of war in effect.

I have studied the Syrian conflict from the start and it is plain to see that if major players went head to head, it would be devastating to both sides.

No military on earth can safely say their forces, bases at home or critical infrastructure cannot be hit.

USA came out of WWII unscathed at home, that won't happen in the next WW.

Totally agree. Syria is a really good example of modern warfare. States involved have far too much to lose going into open conflict so proxy forces dominate the field. I can see similar situations going forward, potentially even in Taiwan. Modern states have become so large and powerful that it would take a pretty significant narrative to justify total war against one another. I don't think that is probable in the near future.