PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC

Patchwork_Chimera

New Member
Registered Member
The US should have started to massively transfer USAF assets to Japan, Guam and Hawaii starting with Obama's pivot to the Pacific. This should have been accompanied by CSGs getting homeported to Hawaii, the expansion of the sealift command and major investments to air defense and BMs. Overall navy and army budgets should have been cut in favor of the air force. And of course, small wars in the Middle East should have been stopped earlier.

If the US had done these China would have it hard today. It is already too late now. The US could still do these and they would probably work better than building more Burkes, but China would be able to react by shifting its own procurement patterns and the technological difference has mostly disappeared.
To be honest, there are so many structural issues plaguing us these days that changes in force disposition alone probably aren't enough to realistically confront the threat faced here. To compete with a player like the PRC, a total commitment of our military apparatus is necessary - same thing the PLA enjoys. Half measures and piecemeal posture commitments are insufficient against the PLA of today or even the late 2010s in my opinion.

There are real, achievable paths to regaining an advantage in the Western Pacific for us, but I am not confident in our desire or capacity to see them traveled.
 

coolgod

Brigadier
Registered Member
To be honest, there are so many structural issues plaguing us these days that changes in force disposition alone probably aren't enough to realistically confront the threat faced here. To compete with a player like the PRC, a total commitment of our military apparatus is necessary - same thing the PLA enjoys. Half measures and piecemeal posture commitments are insufficient against the PLA of today or even the late 2010s in my opinion.

There are real, achievable paths to regaining an advantage in the Western Pacific for us, but I am not confident in our desire or capacity to see them traveled.
What's your honest take on Elon Musk's proposed reforms for the US military?
 

Patchwork_Chimera

New Member
Registered Member
What's your honest take on Elon Musk's proposed reforms for the US military?
Haven't seen any of them personally, just a bunch of generalized bloviating about things he doesn't understand. If that's what you're referring to, then my take is that it's beneath me to even acknowledge such dumb positions lol.

Real, achievable path for the US assuming China stays static maybe. No real, achievable path for the US if China responds to a buildup with its own buildup.
I disagree. While the PLA could certainly ramp up its own procurement tempo, there are hard limits on the total scope and scale of such an effort which are driven far more by internal resource and economic priorities than external factors. The level of expenditure and overall allocation of effort towards PLA modernization and evolution have remained mostly constant over the past quarter decades, despite the significant changes in the balance of military power. Some degree of mirroring would likely occur, yes; but for all intents and purposes, the PLA has its own vision of its future force structure, and is likely to continue pursuing this vision regardless of actions we take on our end.

Further, many lines of effort present themselves which the PLA would be hard pressed to address in a meaningful capacity, but which still provide the US a notably improved position in some way. There is a lot of low hanging fruit that current senior leadership have utterly failed to harvest due to misaligned incentives and general incompetence, but even simple successes in this capacity would render our position far less tenuous than its current state. Significantly reducing overseas US commitment and operational tempo in low-yield theaters, recapitalization of our yards - even if just to maintain currently in service platforms, realigning fiscal priorities strongly in favor of Air Force and Naval procurement and modernization efforts, and more sensibly approaching procurement and sustainment endeavors such that we are no longer paying enormous fees to rent-seeking contractors to conduct support activities which are fundamentally ill-suited to civilian involvement, etc. etc. etc. would substantially reduce the barrier to fielding a capable and credible force to operate in the WestPac. Unfortunately, all of those things seem vastly beyond the capacity of our existing institutions to act upon.
 

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Further, many lines of effort present themselves which the PLA would be hard pressed to address in a meaningful capacity, but which still provide the US a notably improved position in some way. There is a lot of low hanging fruit that current senior leadership have utterly failed to harvest due to misaligned incentives and general incompetence, but even simple successes in this capacity would render our position far less tenuous than its current state. Significantly reducing overseas US commitment and operational tempo in low-yield theaters, recapitalization of our yards - even if just to maintain currently in service platforms, realigning fiscal priorities strongly in favor of Air Force and Naval procurement and modernization efforts, and more sensibly approaching procurement and sustainment endeavors such that we are no longer paying enormous fees to rent-seeking contractors to conduct support activities which are fundamentally ill-suited to civilian involvement, etc. etc. etc. would substantially reduce the barrier to fielding a capable and credible force to operate in the WestPac. Unfortunately, all of those things seem vastly beyond the capacity of our existing institutions to act upon.
You mean massive increase of defense spendings?
 

Patchwork_Chimera

New Member
Registered Member
You mean massive increase of defense spendings?
If you're serious, then no - many means of improving our position would likely either result in or be primarily intended to reduce the overall expenditure necessary to generate and employ forces in theater. Increasing the budget to counteract celestial-scale grift and inefficiency is like carrying more cash in your wallet because a thief took the amount you had in your last one. Until the fundamental mechanisms underpinning our incompetence are resolved, any additional investment will be swallowed up and turned into an even stronger institutional foundation of that set of mechanisms.

If you're not serious - then yes, of course. After all, my PLTR positions are the bedrock of our global security and rules based international order.
 

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
If you're serious, then no - many means of improving our position would likely either result in or be primarily intended to reduce the overall expenditure necessary to generate and employ forces in theater. Increasing the budget to counteract celestial-scale grift and inefficiency is like carrying more cash in your wallet because a thief took the amount you had in your last one. Until the fundamental mechanisms underpinning our incompetence are resolved, any additional investment will be swallowed up and turned into an even stronger institutional foundation of that set of mechanisms.

If you're not serious - then yes, of course. After all, my PLTR positions are the bedrock of our global security and rules based international order.
I was serious. So you point is a complete overhaul of the defense industry is needed to remove the corruptions and inefficiencies. The only way to clean up the system is to nationalize the MIC. How can that be possible when even whistleblowers are “suicided”? Who dares to take on the MIC?
 

zyklon

Junior Member
Registered Member

Going after Boeing, Elon Musk's friends in aerospace industry, Trump's ramblings about drones. There are a lot.

Those are not concrete reform proposals, at least not yet. Musk obviously wants his companies to have a bigger slice of the pie across the board, but that can go a number of ways.

Haven't seen any of them personally, just a bunch of generalized bloviating about things he doesn't understand. If that's what you're referring to, then my take is that it's beneath me to even acknowledge such dumb positions lol.

Significantly reducing overseas US commitment and operational tempo in low-yield theaters, recapitalization of our yards - even if just to maintain currently in service platforms, realigning fiscal priorities strongly in favor of Air Force and Naval procurement and modernization efforts, and more sensibly approaching procurement and sustainment endeavors such that we are no longer paying enormous fees to rent-seeking contractors to conduct support activities which are fundamentally ill-suited to civilian involvement, etc. etc. etc. would substantially reduce the barrier to fielding a capable and credible force to operate in the WestPac. Unfortunately, all of those things seem vastly beyond the capacity of our existing institutions to act upon.

If you're not serious - then yes, of course. After all, my PLTR positions are the bedrock of our global security and rules based international order.


Sounds like a lot of things Congress absolutely will not go for.

However, you do sound optimistic about the role Musk and his friends will play as leaders in federally funded rent seeking!
 
Top