Putin vows 'arms race' response

[Starglider]

It's interesting that Shep advocates the 'minimal ground forces and legions of bombers ready to nuke anyone who messes with us' (aka TBOverse) strategy for the US, but apparently not the UK. The UK could easily have hit Argentina with a Polaris or two (or rather less easily, a Vulcan-delivered gravity bomb or two), then said 'we will destroy one additional city each day until you withdraw your troops'. Of course the UK would immediately become a pariah nation if it did and would be facing crippling sanctions at best; certainly >90% of Amercians would call the strike totally unjustified and probably start treating the UK as a rogue state that must be forcibly disarmed ASAP. Yet somehow 'nukes as the first resort' is supposed to be viable national strategy for the USA.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Nuclear first-strike is not a good option to have on your cards. When someone assumes you're going to play that one, as in Cuba circa '62, then you better be prepared to either go all the way, or stand down.

No NATO nation should be willing to send squadrons of strategic bombers in like that without prior provocation escalating out of normal damage control means. Putin going the "Look at the US bullying us!" route is interesting. It's much easier to garner support when everyone sympathises with you and considers themselves on your end of the deal to boot. After the events of 2001, few can stand by the US and say they don't mind further military expenditure and not get odd looks.

[Sea Skimmer]

It's interesting that Shep advocates the 'minimal ground forces and legions of bombers ready to nuke anyone who messes with us' (aka TBOverse) strategy for the US, but apparently not the UK.

For the US, minimal ground forces would have still been more then able to retake the Falklands, and strategic bombers and fighters could have wiped out Argentites air power with conventional bombing easily enough. Even the UK could have had a much smaller Army and been fine, a shortage of ground troops was not an issue, an inability to deploy and defend them from air and sea attack was.

[Starglider]

Putin going the "Look at the US bullying us!" route is interesting. It's much easier to garner support when everyone sympathises with you

As I understand it, the 'maximal realism' theory we've been hearing a lot about around here recently would characterise this as ineffective, because strength impresses, not weakness or being victimised. From a dispassionate national interest point of view this is probably true. However it seems to leave out the importance of swaying the general populations of other countries with emotive appeals, and the fact that yes governments are (eventually) strongly influenced by what the masses think. Not that I think Putin's current antics are for foreigners particularly, it seems to be mostly for domestic consumption, but yes I'd say you have something of a point.

[Medic]

An emphasis on nuclear-deterrence for national defense DOES NOT PRECLUDE the research and development of GPS and GPS-guided bombs. You take your bog-standard 500lb. bomb and strap on an $18,000 guidance kit and viola, you have a precision munition.

Believe it or not, I guarantee you that in Shepland besides the B-70's and F-108 Rapiers there would still be an endless procession of B-52's which can easily be re-tasked to hauling around conventional ordinance after a bunch of high-and-fast, penetration-based aircraft rape the air defense of any given target. Besides which, whatever else you say about Shep's opinion of the use of a 21st century military that never did switch of the gears of the 1950's strategic buildup, would Shep be in charge of that military? It's bloody irrelevant to the debate.

[Admiral Valdemar]

As I understand it, the 'maximal realism' theory we've been hearing a lot about around here recently would characterise this as ineffective, because strength impresses, not weakness or being victimised. From a dispassionate national interest point of view this is probably true. However it seems to leave out the importance of swaying the general populations of other countries with emotive appeals, and the fact that yes governments are (eventually) strongly influenced by what the masses think. Not that I think Putin's current antics are for foreigners particularly, it seems to be mostly for domestic consumption, but yes I'd say you have something of a point.

Of course, only a fool would mistake Russia (or even China nowadays) as weak. So he has the best of both worlds. You've got a potential superpower, especially thanks to Gazprom and Lukoil having such vital energy deposits, able to win the sympathy vote and expand an already sizeable and fairly modern military machine. Even if the US could justify increased spending to the masses, I expect many would still want Russia to stand up to them by virtue of being an equaliser, as with the Cold War and times before that.

It is funny seeing Putin and co. go on about the mean US ABM shield, and then going to visit tests of their brand new upgrades to TOPOL-M or new boomer subs. Poor widdle Armageddon equipped Russkies.

An emphasis on nuclear-deterrence for national defense DOES NOT PRECLUDE the research and development of GPS and GPS-guided bombs. You take your bog-standard 500lb. bomb and strap on an $18,000 guidance kit and viola, you have a precision munition.

Believe it or not, I guarantee you that in Shepland besides the B-70's and F-108 Rapiers there would still be an endless procession of B-52's which can easily be re-tasked to hauling around conventional ordinance after a bunch of high-and-fast, penetration-based aircraft rape the air defense of any given target. Besides which, whatever else you say about Shep's opinion of the use of a 21st century military that never did switch of the gears of the 1950's strategic buildup, would Shep be in charge of that military? It's bloody irrelevant to the debate.

The thought of a BUFF dropping several dozen independently targeted JDAM Mk. 82s on several targets within a large area is quite faptastic. It's like a gravity bomb missile massacre.

[Starglider]

An emphasis on nuclear-deterrence for national defense DOES NOT PRECLUDE the research and development of GPS and GPS-guided bombs. You take your bog-standard 500lb. bomb and strap on an $18,000 guidance kit and viola, you have a precision munition.

There is absolutely no way the UK could have had GPS guided munitions developed, manufactured and available for use in 1982. The US system didn't even start to become useful until the late 80s, and the chance of the UK deploying our own system even earlier is almost exactly zero.

Believe it or not, I guarantee you that in Shepland besides the B-70's and F-108 Rapiers there would still be an endless procession of B-52's which can easily be re-tasked to hauling around conventional ordinance after a bunch of high-and-fast, penetration-based aircraft rape the air defense of any given target.

I grant that the UK may have been able to do that to Argentina had the appropriate technological track been followed from the 1950s onwards (i.e. by happy accident every time the Labour party attempted to hold a defence review the conference room spontaneously exploded). The cost of maintaining that kind of force would leave even less money for the navy, unless you pared down the land forces to the point of being able to make effectively no NATO comittment to defend Western Germany against the USSR.

It's bloody irrelevant to the debate.

True. I agreed with the basic premise that UK defence spending in the 1970s was a clusterfuck so I chose something else to argue about.

[Medic]

The thought of a BUFF dropping several dozen independently targeted JDAM Mk. 82s on several targets within a large area is quite faptastic. It's like a gravity bomb missile massacre.

The fundamental point is that a lot of our conventional armaments we use now aren't so expensive that a research and development and production emphasis on strategic arms would preclude their existence. We could have both. Probably, as in TBO, it precludes large standing armies.

The Tomahawk of so much fame after all is a nuclear-tipped cruise missile, or was originally, you can simply put in a different warhead and the "C" version is a conventional variant. A nuclear-tipped anti-radiation missile that nose-dives on a target could easily be re-armed with a conventional HE warhead and the Phoenix missile also of much fame was a development for a nuclear-tipped air to air missile for the aforementioned F-108.

And in a supposed Shepland there needn't be an automatic dearth of tactical air aircraft cause the export market for conventional armaments would very much likely still exist; not everyone can afford Mach 3+ aircraft and everything that goes along with them. We could still R&D and produce aircraft on par with the F-16 and build it for domestic roles and export it as well, probably the only actual limitation in a military like that is the emphasis on force projection from CONUS, we might not own or be able to use friendly airfields close to potential threats and a lot of work would fall on the back of the Navy.

There is absolutely no way the UK could have had GPS guided munitions developed, manufactured and available for use in 1982. The US system didn't even start to become useful until the late 80s, and the chance of the UK deploying our own system even earlier is almost exactly zero.

Quite right. I'm just annoyed with what looks like an assumption that a Sheptastic military is a one-trick pony that either results in %100 isolationism or self-frying food and animal crops.

[Sea Skimmer]

The Falklands are strategically quite worthless. The thing to remember is, that while we could have disowned them, the alternative left the inhabitants there with a sour taste in their mouths (and who can blame them when Argentina went and collapsed one day a few years back). Same can be said of Gibraltar, although there's far more precedence for having that little enclave about.

The Falklands might have lost the value they once had as a fueling base, which was quite significant through the end of WW2, but Kuwait sure hasn’t lost importance. In 1961 the mere presence of two Royal Navy carriers for several months proved sufficient to deter a looming Iraqi invasion of the place.

[Vympel]

In December, Russia said it was planning naval exercises in the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean.

Err .... it had them last month. Weird thing to put in article for this month.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Didn't we have a thread about this already? I could've swore we did sometime last year.

[Stuart Mackey]

The UK should have re-evaluated the wisdom of maintaining poorly defended sovereign territories halfway around the world then, because it's totally out of line with their other national priorities to be forced to defend these little shitbag islands in the middle of nowhere. That would make more sense than maintaining island colonies just for the sake of tradition and then debating whether to spend the enormous amounts of money required to maintain the permanent ability to defend them from any aggressor.

Thats what they were doing, but that whole self determination/public opinion thing kept cropping up despite the governments best efforts to suppress it. Very bad manners of the public of the islands concerned to want to decide who governs them, they just didn't know their place.

Realistically, it would have been much cheaper and easier to quietly send a diplomat to Argentina before the whole situation blew up, and bribe them to settle down.

They were, in a way. Someone at the FCO hit apon the idea of making the Falklands problem go away by just giving them to the Argies after a series of face saving conferences and a pretense at negotiation after the Argies made a series of bellicose statements.
I guess after the war was over they might have realized that they were just appeasing a bunch of fascists.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, Shep did that other thread and it was called something like "Arms buildup woohoo".

I'm also wondering about the implications of having worthless (or even worthy) overseas territories under control. Europe and Russia are in a continental proximity, just as China and Russia - they share possible continental battlefronts.

The US, however, is out of that equation and frankly just should stay out, the idea that the US needs to have "overseas commitments" is the idea that the US should intervene in foreign conflicts. But why? The EU major nations have a war budget twice that of Russia, and utterly dwarfing any Third World nation's budgets.

[Darth Wong]

Thats what they were doing, but that whole self determination/public opinion thing kept cropping up despite the governments best efforts to suppress it. Very bad manners of the public of the islands concerned to want to decide who governs them, they just didn't know their place.

Yeah, a couple of thousand people, forcing an ex-colonial power to bend itself to the breaking point for their sake. It would have been cheaper to repatriate them and pay each and every one of them $100,000 as compensation for losing their homes.

[Stuart Mackey]

Thats what they were doing, but that whole self determination/public opinion thing kept cropping up despite the governments best efforts to suppress it. Very bad manners of the public of the islands concerned to want to decide who governs them, they just didn't know their place.

Yeah, a couple of thousand people, forcing an ex-colonial power to bend itself to the breaking point for their sake. It would have been cheaper to repatriate them and pay each and every one of them $100,000 as compensation for losing their homes.

You know, they actually thought of that!
And the islanders said "No".
I guess they felt that the whole 'Munich' thing wasn't for them, and forced Britain to take responsibility for its actions and citizens.

[Darth Wong]

Thats what they were doing, but that whole self determination/public opinion thing kept cropping up despite the governments best efforts to suppress it. Very bad manners of the public of the islands concerned to want to decide who governs them, they just didn't know their place.

Yeah, a couple of thousand people, forcing an ex-colonial power to bend itself to the breaking point for their sake. It would have been cheaper to repatriate them and pay each and every one of them $100,000 as compensation for losing their homes.

You know, they actually thought of that!
And the islanders said "No".
I guess they felt that the whole 'Munich' thing wasn't for them, and forced Britain to take responsibility for its actions and citizens.

Do you feel there is some major ethical issue here? If so, what exactly is it? National obligation toward citizens should be treated as absolute, regardless of proportionality of harm?

[Stuart Mackey]

Yeah, a couple of thousand people, forcing an ex-colonial power to bend itself to the breaking point for their sake. It would have been cheaper to repatriate them and pay each and every one of them $100,000 as compensation for losing their homes.

You know, they actually thought of that!
And the islanders said "No".
I guess they felt that the whole 'Munich' thing wasn't for them, and forced Britain to take responsibility for its actions and citizens.

Do you feel there is some major ethical issue here? If so, what exactly is it? National obligation toward citizens should be treated as absolute, regardless of proportionality of harm?

It is an ethical and moral issue: the state has the responibility to look to the welfare of its citizens and territory when they ask it to do so, especially in the face of external threats.
In the case of the Falklands, the British governement was essentially giving them up because they did not want the financial responsibility of their care, and the sabre rattleing of the Argie Junta was the pretext. To sacrifice your own citizens, on your own territory, for the sake of financial and political expediancy in the face of percived external agression, despite the express will of the people concerned, is an immoral and unethical act.

[K. A. Pital]

Having a thousand people actually die in a war for a worthless piece of land is morally superior to evacuating a few thousand civilians HOW exactly?

[Darth Wong]

It is an ethical and moral issue: the state has the responibility to look to the welfare of its citizens and territory when they ask it to do so, especially in the face of external threats.

In the case of the Falklands, the British governement was essentially giving them up because they did not want the financial responsibility of their care, and the sabre rattleing of the Argie Junta was the pretext. To sacrifice your own citizens, on your own territory, for the sake of financial and political expediancy in the face of percived external agression, despite the express will of the people concerned, is an immoral and unethical act.

As I expected, you state your case in absolute terms. No room for any kind of ethical balancing act; it's all black and white.

[brianeyci]

Well, the military is an insurance policy. Citizens of Western nations will not tolerate military deaths, so the difference must be made up in advanced technology. I just reread the BBC website on the Falklands War and it looks like a fucking disaster... a WWII era cruiser posing a threat to the British task force, no air superiority, and Chinooks sunk on their transports! Exocet missile? A non-detonated warhead somehow sinking a capital ship? What the fuck happened to damage control?

So it looks like not a question of money more than lack of particular technologies and air defense. It need not be exclusive... they could downsize their military and still field a small advanced force. The US Marines would have had no trouble taking the island with one LHA. The British should and must do better. They're a fucking island, so they have to defend their shipping lanes and can't rely on the United States to do it all the time. The assests have to exist anyway, and have nothing to do with maintaining its status as a colonial power.

Hell, Canada should have a powerful navy just to protect its arctic sovereignty, so I can't attack the British for wanting to do the same. And if the Falklands War showed up and the insurance policy needs to be used, it's a failure in diplomacy, but you can't go around international relations and say no, we won't have this insurance policy unless you're willing to give up force projection entirely. And the British need it to maintain their island's security. The "atlantic gap" from WWII rings a bell; the British need aircraft carriers.

Falklands looks like a failure of technology and certain diplomatic efforts rather than a failure because the British were arrogant and wanted to hold onto their Empire. I do not think the money point is an issue, because the British Navy has to exist anyway.

[Stuart Mackey]

Having a thousand people actually die in a war for a worthless piece of land is morally superior to evacuating a few thousand civilians HOW exactly?

Why should they be evacuated? so a bunch of mass murdering thugs in Aregentina can somehow justify their existance in power?

[Stuart Mackey]

It is an ethical and moral issue: the state has the responibility to look to the welfare of its citizens and territory when they ask it to do so, especially in the face of external threats.

In the case of the Falklands, the British governement was essentially giving them up because they did not want the financial responsibility of their care, and the sabre rattleing of the Argie Junta was the pretext. To sacrifice your own citizens, on your own territory, for the sake of financial and political expediancy in the face of percived external agression, despite the express will of the people concerned, is an immoral and unethical act.

As I expected, you state your case in absolute terms. No room for any kind of ethical balancing act; it's all black and white.

Yeah, pretty much.

[montypython]

Considering how nature and circumstances have a tendency to shred preconceived notions of human ethics and moralism, it wouldn't surprise me that the overlooked factors in issues viewed in absolute terms will bite people in the arse one way or another.

[Jadeite]

Having a thousand people actually die in a war for a worthless piece of land is morally superior to evacuating a few thousand civilians HOW exactly?

Well, apparently the Argentine govermnent felt it was worth a fight, perhaps you should ask them? I like how people are trying to claim Britain defending its territory and citizens is immoral, while ignoring that they weren't the aggressors in the conflict.

[K. A. Pital]

Well, apparently the Argentine govermnent felt it was worth a fight, perhaps you should ask them? I like how people are trying to claim Britain defending its territory and citizens is immoral, while ignoring that they weren't the aggressors in the conflict.

Oh please. I merely wondered how that was more moral than evacuating people. Not that defending the islands was some kind of vile act from Britain.

And yes, in general an agression is a prompt to a war answer, and constitutes the moral course of action. Evacuation as a better alternative can't be used mostly because people living on a certain territory cannot be easily redislocated, and they're many in numbers, not because going to war is always genuinely superior than simply removing people from a putative warzone.