© REUTERS/ Kim Kyung-Hoon
Stephen Bryen, Asia Times: Did RAND get it right in its war game exercise?
Simulations suggest the United States would lose to both Russia and China
The RAND Corporation with Pentagon support has carried out a war game simulation in which the United States loses to both Russia and China. The US and NATO are unable to stop an attack in the Balkans by the Russians, and the United States and its allies are unable to prevent the takeover of Taiwan by China.
These are the claims made by RAND. But is RAND right?
The RAND war game effort was led by David Ochmanek, a senior international and defense researcher at the RAND Corporation. From 2009 until 2014 he was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Development.
Read more ....
Previous Post: U.S. Keeps Losing Simulated Wars With Russia And China (March 8, 2019)
WNU Editor: Stephen Bryen's scenario that he illustrates in the above Asia Times post is not going to happen. Nor will the RAND Study.
Update #2: Yup .... Wargames as Sales Tool? Touchy Business. (CDR Salamander, US Naval Institute Blog)
6 comments:
On the Russian side, do these Sims factor in, that the S-400 ain't really that much chop? So much for it's near mythical status...
https://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/37784
Since its never been used in anger ld desregard any negative article.
Let's cut the military and save some money?
By that logic, it includes any article on the positive. Which side are you going to believe fazza, hopefully not the Russians...
While we cannot "know" the outcome of a war in advance and we cannot "know" for certain if the simulations are correct are not without access to inside information that is available in real time. Even then people who have such information sometimes reach differing conclusions!! With that said we can make inferences based upon our prior experience and the track records of whomever is supplying us with information.
Given the glaring tendency of the US government and its media surrogates to overstate our own capabilities while simultaneously underestimating those of adversaries and potential adversaries, I think it a reasonable conclusion that the conclusions reached in the original article on 3/8 that the editor linked to are most likely not correct and, in fact, the situation is actually far more dire.
In times past, the US government and various interests could better control what types of information get disseminated. With the media as large as it is now this has become much harder. In times past, the 3/8 article probably doesn't see the proverbial light of day as anything against the standard narrative is not allowed. Weak as it is this article represents the pushback. While the Rand conclusions may well be inaccurate, IMHO they are rosier than reality, it does dispel the American hyperpower/superpower myth. As such, the notion that the study does "more harm than good" is ridiculously inaccurate.
"Since its never been used in anger Id disregard any negative article." This is easy for those to do who do not live in America. Aussies aren't going to bear the brunt of reprisals that war with China or Russia would bring. Americans will. As such, it would be unwise for us to blithely ignore those things that do not fit with our preconceived notions.
"By that login, it includes any article on the positive. Which side are going to believe fazza, hopefully not the Russians..." The logic employed by the US government in analyzing these things is essentially the "positive." Overstate our abilities, understate those of adversaries and potential adversaries, and pushback against anyone who doesn't tow the line attacking them personally when necessary. Even POTUS got into this in his State of the Union when he stated the US is the most powerful military force on earth. Such an assertion is far from certain and, in fact, there is ample evidence to support that this is not the case. Thank God he hasn't used the superpower nonsense!! At least to the best of my knowledge he hasn't.
As to which side we are going to believe, neither the Russians nor any other source should be taken at "face value" without vigorous research to either corroborate or refute the assertions. Essentially we should evaluate by reading and cross reading from multiple sources and evaluating the track records of the sources. In other words, those proven more trustworthy may not need to be approached with as much skepticism and those with records of being untrustworthy could likely never be trusted as a primary source for anything!!
Fusion,
IMHO you are spot on. Furthermore I hate the term "games" to describe war scenarios. This is no game!!
While the authors of the 3/8 article appeared to dismiss it, another possibility is a "Red Dawn" scenario. While I have watched both the 1984 version and the 2012 version I believe, it has been some time. I will need to watch them again.
Frankly the scenarios presented in both movies seems a bit farfetched. The idea that a group of teenagers is going to be able to be trained in a small amount of time to be capable of confronting some of the most powerful and sophisticated military forces on the planet seems farfetched at best but hey it's a movie!!
Post a Comment