2. If you object to the part about shooting the idiots I was speaking metaphorically not literally.
3. I stand behind my statement that attacking one leg of a nuclear triad is a justification for all out war as it can be seen as a first strike. Hence my harsh comment about those responsible for this blunder and it is a blunder as has been our entire policy toward Russia. Imagine how we would respond if Cuba had attacked our airfields.
4. I do not call for violence not being a member of BLM ANTIFA or an Ivy League HAMASnick. I hope to avoid violence having been through a couple of wars.
5. I hope this is satisfactory. But if you only want people on your blog who think the grifter is the second coming of Winston Churchill that is your privilege.
I mean what I say. We had no business expanding NATO to the east or overthrowing the government in Ukraine. Now we are reaping what we sowed. We learned nothing from Vietnam or Afghanistan. What is our next good deed?
Flight time for a DJI drone from publicly accessible streets near San Diego’s 32nd Street naval base to the base’s piers is less than two minutes. Less if from boats transiting the harbor. Drones carrying small explosives could take out SPY phase array antennas rendering the AEGIS weapon system inoperable. Just have to take out one panel. Has our Navy deployed a counter-drone system yet?
SALT & START treaties require nuclear assets to be visible by the other side for verification both in person and by "technical" means- generally satellites. My guess- is the targeting was supported by some European ally. Which is really not good. If the Russians determine adherence to Nuclear Treaties with the US has made them vulnerable, to a 3rd party attack by Ukraine- than I suspect Ukraine may be in smoking ruins shortly. And the Russians (like the Israeli's) have a reputation for getting so this is not good for world order in general.
Norfolk is extremely vulnerable. Not just to hitting the ships. Take out the Bridge/Tunnel, or block the channel by detonating a container ship and sinking it- and suddenly the Fleet has no more mobility.
You mean the treaties that Russian unilaterally suspended a couple of years ago? Even when New START was actionable, I don't recall any requirements about bombers needing to be parked where they can be observed; I'm going to need an article/paragraph reference from the treaty text for that one, because I sure cant find it. There are requirements about not mixing nuclear capable and non-nuclear capable bombers at the same base, and that capable and non-capable models have to be distinguishable by national technical means (ie, satellite reconnaissance), but nothing about parking requirements. I say this as someone who actually did inspections in Russia under New START: ultimately, the Russians interest in arms control treaties under Putin's leadership has been all about gaming things to their advantage politcally. His regimes is interested in these treaties primarily from the perspective of the prestige and leverage they grant, not from any genuine desire for disarmament IMO. Saying the New START treaty played any noticeable role in the success of the UKR attack is at best overstating the case and at worst disingenuous. To be honest, this talking point feels like some kind of Kremlin disinformation effort to me.
What an interesting response on your part. My limited exposure to SALT/START involved being inspected over nuclear capable artillery. Where I learned up close and personally about making sure assets are visible. But to make you happy:
Article III, Paragraph 7.
"observable by national technical means of verification, or, that are visible during inspection activities."
Within the same type, a heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armaments is to be distinguishable from a heavy bomber equipped for non-nuclear armaments. The term "distinguishable" is defined in Part One of the Protocol. In this context, it means that, within the same type, heavy bombers not equipped for nuclear armaments and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments must be different on the basis of the totality of functional and external differences that are observable by national technical means of verification, or, that are visible during inspection activities.
Exactly, but that language doesn't mean that bombers have to be parked for observation. It just means that when they are observed, you need to be able to tell the difference between, say, a B-52H and a B-52G from orbit and/or on the ground during a manual inspection. The unwritten assumption (but one that was definitely discussed during the ratification process for New START) is that normal operations, maintenance, and training for the Russian and US bomber fleets will naturally result in them being spotted via reconnaissance. There was no specific requirement to, say, have all your bombers out of hangers and on the tarmac for a given amount of time.
This seems to ignore Andy's main point that Russia stopped abiding by New START in 2023. How could Russia credibly blame treaty requirements it doesn't abide by for this attack, and more importantly, why should we take that blame as a serious threat to global order?
The Ukrainian's know exactly which bases to hit....because there are only 5 that are in use for Russian Strategic Bombers...and the Ukrainian's in Soviet times used to fly from them! They've barely changed since then...
And commercial satellite imagery from any number of providers is available on a daily basis...
Oh and the Russian's suspended implementation of New START in 2023...
It seems like plausible deniability for NATO/US would be pretty easy with this one. The game-changing nature of this is that anyone can do it. The open-source insurgencies just got dealt a very powerful card.
In the late 80s I was the Command Docking Officer at PHNSY. I got a series of ever-detailed questions by phone call from Washington, asking about our drydock #4’s ability to handle CVNs. It turned out that the real purpose was to respond to Senator Inouye’s comments about the strategic importance of the shipyard. We could physically fit the carriers of that time, but we would have needed a serious MILCON project to handle the reactor needs and let the ship shift to shore power. But like I say, my data is 40 years old.
Pretty sure that already happened when they had been planning to home port a CVN there, before the idea got lobbied away by the Virginia Tidewater crowd. "CVNS are people!"
Actually, it did not. I was, BTW, one of those "Virginia-Tidewater crowd" types. I was the Virginia briefer for the BRAC hearings when Florida (my native state!) tried to snaffle the East coast Master Jet Base.
Anyone else see this like the pre-Pearl Harbor rollout of all the P-40s and other aircraft lined up for fear of sabotage?
I totally see the risk of container ships coming and going, but if anyone does not think these drones are already present in dozens of locations around the country are kidding themselves. Hell, the drones were probably delivered by Amazon for all we know.
The drug cartels have been flying drones for years over the border tracking Border Patrol assets. They may be the most likely folks to lash out in the immediate term. It will certainly happen if China decides to move against Taiwan.
The Israeli Beam Dome and Iron Dome systems come to mind. But you have to let them run on automatic to be effective for a surprise attack. Won't do to have them in standby because by the time you figure out "this is real" it's over. So that means making a LOT of airspace no fly zones and also puts a LOT of civilian acreage at risk for the inevitable crash zones.
Imagine the debates among the usual Congresscritters. They won't be over until it's proven to be too late.
I'd love to see people flying their drones in no-fly zones need to be seen evaporating. Demonstrating that happening along w/ tracking it back to the source of the drone and holding its owner accountable will go some distance to making people think twice. But a volume attack? I sure hope there are entrepreneurial enterprises who can make things happen outside of the normal procurement processes to get an answer built and into place.
Why the hell did any authority in the US allow any Chinese to buy land or rent anywhere near US military sites or any government site or run communications thru anything sketchy like same towers?
I think the other danger is China could light the match by proxy using cartels if need be, just to deny it. Easier to do in a misinformation battle space.
I say again, eminent domain for Mare Island. Alameda too.
As for hardening bases, why don't we have HELIOS ashore for testing? And 76mm mounts ashore. How about patrol craft, fireboats, salvage ships? The vulnerability of bases has been a thing since Drake raided Cadiz.
Not living memory for anyone still in a decision making role, unfortunately. Its probably the biggest reason things have been slipping down this slope.
Even if China doesn't want to preemptively attack our fleet when it decides to go for Taiwan (on the chance that we would not honor our defense commitment unless first attacked), this concentration of naval forces creates opportunities for China to engage in creative mischief that would significantly limit our ability to respond with less chance of precipitating war.
"on the chance that we would not honor our defense commitment unless first attacked"
What defense commitment? I can't seem to find one. The best I could find was in the Taiwan Relations Act, and it was not a total commitment. Article 5 of the NATO treaty is much more obligatory, and even it is not a total commitment.
Uh, okay. You got me. The longstanding understanding that we will defend Taiwan, as evidenced by our actions during the Korean War, and the seventy years that have elapsed since then.
Will we? Won't we? We give a coy answer that may deter China, or that may just as plausibly no longer deter China but lead Taiwan to write checks that it's own military can't cash.
I guess the only way to know for sure will be when China crosses the Strait. But if China's perception is that we will defend Taiwan, our actual intentions won't matter very much if they decide to get a head start. Maybe they have studied the Pacific side of WW II enough to think that's a bad idea. Or maybe they've studied our industrial situation enough to think that maybe it isn't so bad after all.
We are no more legally obligated to defend Taiwan than we were to defend Ukraine. No U.S. President has said that we would defend Taiwan- except daffy Biden a few times, with "the White House" quickly correcting those comments. The U.S. has never officially recognized Taiwan as an independent sovereign state.
Understood. But for seventy years, we have implied through our actions that we will defend Taiwan. As noted above, I think that the policy of "strategic ambiguity" is so dumb and dangerous that it could only have been dreamed up by someone with a Ph.D.
But a legal obligation is not really the point. After all, we were not obligated to defend the Dutch East Indies or the Malay peninsula in December of 1941. Cold comfort that was for anyone in Pearl Harbor or Manila.
The larger points are: (1) choosing to defend Taiwan could be catastrophic for the US, even if the war stays conventional; and (2) choosing not to defend Taiwan could also be catastrophic for the US. In China's shoes, if I could guarantee that the war would stay conventional, I am not sure which option I would prefer.
Pretty much everyone knew that the Japanese would need to take the Philippines to expand southward toward the Indies or Malaya where the resources were. Given that the US would defend the Philippines, Japan would have to deal with the US fleet sooner or later. They chose sooner with their preemptive strike. Curious, given the methodology of the strike, that they didn't understand that the basis of naval warfare had changed.
That is one of the fascinating paradoxes of the IJN. One thing I have never understood was the need to take the Philippines absent US entry into the war. From my perhaps ignorant perspective, that represented a fear that became a self-fulfilling prophecy.
(And even if the US had chosen to enter the war without preventive attacks on Pearl Harbor and the PI, it is difficult for me to see how the PI would have been strategically vital with the force disposition in December of 1941.)
SECDEF’s next memo needs to be addressed to all base and combat commanders, recommending they review the careers of General Walter Short and Admiral Husband Kimmel.
Is anyone denying that Miller did what he is credited with doing? Or are you going on about TRADITION. Yes, admirals & presidents do recently get gold plated floating air strips named after them, enlisted sailor's names might get applied to a destroyer.
Yeah, we need to spread out quite a bit more. And it’s an imperative to do so. A lower cost idea would be to set up Navy piers at USCG cutter homeports.
One request: fully fund travel budgets for Training TDY from separate homeports. The Reserves get told plan for a quarterly IDTT at the gaining unit’s drill site, but always build the training plan with no travel quarter 4 of the FY because the budget’s been spent. I’m quite sure the same would be spent for in person classes for mandatory NECs if we did Strategic Homeports. Big Navy won’t send PO3 to Norfolk or San Diego to get a mandatory NEC the ship is short on, and he’ll be there long enough to get real use out of it.
The other thing I’m wondering about is EW use against these drones. Those trucks probably won’t have operators onboard, and lines are too long for hardlinks back to operators. There’s got to be an EW vulnerability there, using the EM spectrum to communicate. Also, commercial hardware may be more vulnerable to other EW effects. I’m hoping, from my compartmentalized view, that we have good EWOs and CTTs working on this.
If they are autonomous then the only thing that would matter is the activation signal which isn’t strictly necessary and would require jamming massive areas surrounding sensitive targets.
All the more reason that our fiscally-beyond-broke country needs to focus all of our national defense dollars on OUR national defense. Enough of the foreign (mis)adventures.
The requirement for Russia's nuclear-armed bombers to remain visible to satellite observation is part of several nuclear agreements between the USA and Russia, SALT and START. Our US long range nuclear capable bombers are covered under the same agreements and must also remain visible to Russian satellites.
Ukraine has exploited this vulnerability with the result that the goals of nuclear arms control treaties among the major nuclear-armed nations have now been put at considerable risk.
The US, the EU, and NATO currently supply Ukraine with real-time targeting intelligence, with targeting services, and with AI-driven drone targeting technology.
It is impossible to discount the possibility that the drone attack on Russia's nuclear capable bombers was consciously assisted in one or more ways by the intelligence communities of the US, the EU, and NATO.
As a consequence of the Ukraine drone attack on Russian nuclear bombers, Russia has now been given a rational justification for exiting every nuclear arms control treaty it now has with western nations.
If intelligence community assistance for this attack was indeed being provided to Ukraine, was it being done with President Trump's knowledge, and/or with the knowledge of his direct subordinates?
If President Trump and/or any of his closest subordinates knew that assistance was being provided to Ukraine for this particular attack on Russian nuclear assets, and if they didn't move quickly to stop that direct assistance, then they themselves now own the Russia-Ukraine war lock stock and barrel ... and all the other consequences which eventually flow from this war.
Remember the 01 March Oval Office meeting w Zelensky? Trump said, "You don't hold the cards." And at that very moment, Z knew full well that this plan was afoot. So either Z failed to inform T about what was coming, or the episode was staged as "great television," as T characterized it in the aftermath.
You and your college buddies probably could have figured this out if someone funded it. I don't see the need. Keeping them out makes OpSec easier on a mission with such a long lead time.
These are not the cards T was referring to...Between Iran and the Norks, Russia has more than enough munitions to keep beating the pulp out of Ukraine....killing people, maiming soldiers, and destroying civilian targets. Z's biggest card is the Ukrainian people...much like the Britons during the Battle of Britain.
The Russian's ceased implementing New START in February 2023....
"Russia has now been given a rational justification for exiting every nuclear arms control treaty it now has with western nations."
You mean like New START? They stopped implementing that in Feb 2023....Or do you mean the INF Treaty? They've been in breach of that for years....
Remember that Treaty about no weapons in space? Remember the US Government being highly concerned last year about a Russian space launch?
Notice a pattern yet?
"was it being done with President Trump's knowledge, and/or with the knowledge of his direct subordinates?"
Hahahaha......Trump knew nothing. There is no-one in Europe who would actually trust Trump and his administration with anything of note. They coud guarantee it would be in Russian hands within hours....either Trump trying to curry favour by opening his big mouth, the Secretary of State for Defense putting it in a Signal Chat....or the usual Washington leaks...
Yep. As I said above, arms control treaties are treated by Russia as a way to exert leverage and to gain prestige. I can confidently state that Putin cares very little for actual disarmament.
Which they are not going to take, because Putin is neither a moron nor suicidal. The only way nukes get launched is if NATO decides to launch an offensive and makes it all the way to Moscow.
I believe Trump didn't know. Otherwise, he would have vetoed the strike as totally crazy, the way he vetoed the not so crazy strike on the Iranian nuclear program. So if the US IC knew, they didn't tell him. Remember also that the UK and Canada can access US data via Five Eyes.
You can add a few other high demand low density assets to the list with the bombers. Strike Eagles are only at two locations now with them leaving the UK. Thanks to Hurricane Michael, Raptors are also now highly centralized, basing almost entirely out of Langley, Elmendorf, and Hickam now.
We need an immediate countermeasure while our smart people (such as they are) come up with workable long term counters to drone swarms.
If your bombers are in the air, they can't be hit by an FPV drone. Maybe it's time to revisit OPERATION CHROME DOME from the 1960s, which kept our B-52s flying circles in the sky while awaiting orders to attack the USSR.
It's not a permanent solution, and it'll stress our airframes, spare parts inventories, fuel stocks, and crew morale. But it beats having a line of smoking wrecks on the ramp at Barksdale or Minot. The routes need not be long or go far; the planes just need to be up and not on the ramp.
As for our ships, they don't need to skedaddle far. They can just get out past the horizon to loiter or anchor, taking turns to come in, refuel, restock, pump out the grey and black water tanks, and get back out to sea.
Pete…you have about 90 minutes to delete your comment calling for violence, or you will be banned permanently from commenting here. 1800 Eastern.
1. I don’t know how to delete a comment.
2. If you object to the part about shooting the idiots I was speaking metaphorically not literally.
3. I stand behind my statement that attacking one leg of a nuclear triad is a justification for all out war as it can be seen as a first strike. Hence my harsh comment about those responsible for this blunder and it is a blunder as has been our entire policy toward Russia. Imagine how we would respond if Cuba had attacked our airfields.
4. I do not call for violence not being a member of BLM ANTIFA or an Ivy League HAMASnick. I hope to avoid violence having been through a couple of wars.
5. I hope this is satisfactory. But if you only want people on your blog who think the grifter is the second coming of Winston Churchill that is your privilege.
6. God Bless America.
Pete.
1. The three dots in the upper-right hand corner of your comment...click that. Try again.
2. You're #5, oh stop with the drama "I'm a victim" crap. You're just debasing your other comments.
I mean what I say. We had no business expanding NATO to the east or overthrowing the government in Ukraine. Now we are reaping what we sowed. We learned nothing from Vietnam or Afghanistan. What is our next good deed?
Pete, just do it and come back another day to argue the concept with a different lexicon for emphasis.
It would be falling on deaf ears.
Why not just ban him.
I don't see what his idiocy adds to the discussion.
Hopefully #1 on that list will be Taiwan.
Flight time for a DJI drone from publicly accessible streets near San Diego’s 32nd Street naval base to the base’s piers is less than two minutes. Less if from boats transiting the harbor. Drones carrying small explosives could take out SPY phase array antennas rendering the AEGIS weapon system inoperable. Just have to take out one panel. Has our Navy deployed a counter-drone system yet?
SALT & START treaties require nuclear assets to be visible by the other side for verification both in person and by "technical" means- generally satellites. My guess- is the targeting was supported by some European ally. Which is really not good. If the Russians determine adherence to Nuclear Treaties with the US has made them vulnerable, to a 3rd party attack by Ukraine- than I suspect Ukraine may be in smoking ruins shortly. And the Russians (like the Israeli's) have a reputation for getting so this is not good for world order in general.
Norfolk is extremely vulnerable. Not just to hitting the ships. Take out the Bridge/Tunnel, or block the channel by detonating a container ship and sinking it- and suddenly the Fleet has no more mobility.
You mean the treaties that Russian unilaterally suspended a couple of years ago? Even when New START was actionable, I don't recall any requirements about bombers needing to be parked where they can be observed; I'm going to need an article/paragraph reference from the treaty text for that one, because I sure cant find it. There are requirements about not mixing nuclear capable and non-nuclear capable bombers at the same base, and that capable and non-capable models have to be distinguishable by national technical means (ie, satellite reconnaissance), but nothing about parking requirements. I say this as someone who actually did inspections in Russia under New START: ultimately, the Russians interest in arms control treaties under Putin's leadership has been all about gaming things to their advantage politcally. His regimes is interested in these treaties primarily from the perspective of the prestige and leverage they grant, not from any genuine desire for disarmament IMO. Saying the New START treaty played any noticeable role in the success of the UKR attack is at best overstating the case and at worst disingenuous. To be honest, this talking point feels like some kind of Kremlin disinformation effort to me.
What an interesting response on your part. My limited exposure to SALT/START involved being inspected over nuclear capable artillery. Where I learned up close and personally about making sure assets are visible. But to make you happy:
Article III, Paragraph 7.
"observable by national technical means of verification, or, that are visible during inspection activities."
https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/ssipm/sdc/tc/nst/nst-aaa/AAAtext.html
Within the same type, a heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armaments is to be distinguishable from a heavy bomber equipped for non-nuclear armaments. The term "distinguishable" is defined in Part One of the Protocol. In this context, it means that, within the same type, heavy bombers not equipped for nuclear armaments and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments must be different on the basis of the totality of functional and external differences that are observable by national technical means of verification, or, that are visible during inspection activities.
Exactly, but that language doesn't mean that bombers have to be parked for observation. It just means that when they are observed, you need to be able to tell the difference between, say, a B-52H and a B-52G from orbit and/or on the ground during a manual inspection. The unwritten assumption (but one that was definitely discussed during the ratification process for New START) is that normal operations, maintenance, and training for the Russian and US bomber fleets will naturally result in them being spotted via reconnaissance. There was no specific requirement to, say, have all your bombers out of hangers and on the tarmac for a given amount of time.
This seems to ignore Andy's main point that Russia stopped abiding by New START in 2023. How could Russia credibly blame treaty requirements it doesn't abide by for this attack, and more importantly, why should we take that blame as a serious threat to global order?
Paul,
You are wasting your time arguing with people who hate Russia.
They seem determined for war.
Especially considering Andy is correct.
Targeting supported by 'some European Ally'....
Pull the other leg, its got bells on...
The Ukrainian's know exactly which bases to hit....because there are only 5 that are in use for Russian Strategic Bombers...and the Ukrainian's in Soviet times used to fly from them! They've barely changed since then...
And commercial satellite imagery from any number of providers is available on a daily basis...
Oh and the Russian's suspended implementation of New START in 2023...
Thought you should know...
It seems like plausible deniability for NATO/US would be pretty easy with this one. The game-changing nature of this is that anyone can do it. The open-source insurgencies just got dealt a very powerful card.
My recollection is that the Russians pulled out of the treaties but continued to abide by them as a stabilization gesture.
Only in numbers....which is an irrelevance as they cannot build new TU-95 or TU-22, and their ability to build new TU-160 is marginal...
They also couldn't put the aircraft in hangars/shelters....as they don't exist...and never have.
Have a look at most Russian AB...they're lucky to have 1 fighter sized shed...
Mayport could handle 2 flat tops and some support vessels from Va easily. Va senators are stopping it.
Mayport would need substantial dredging plus MILCON to support a CVN. Also there are Reactor safeguard considerations.
In the late 80s I was the Command Docking Officer at PHNSY. I got a series of ever-detailed questions by phone call from Washington, asking about our drydock #4’s ability to handle CVNs. It turned out that the real purpose was to respond to Senator Inouye’s comments about the strategic importance of the shipyard. We could physically fit the carriers of that time, but we would have needed a serious MILCON project to handle the reactor needs and let the ship shift to shore power. But like I say, my data is 40 years old.
CVs then.
Some of us have been screaming that for many years for many reasons, one of which is the onerous infrastructure demands of CVNs.
Pretty sure that already happened when they had been planning to home port a CVN there, before the idea got lobbied away by the Virginia Tidewater crowd. "CVNS are people!"
Actually, it did not. I was, BTW, one of those "Virginia-Tidewater crowd" types. I was the Virginia briefer for the BRAC hearings when Florida (my native state!) tried to snaffle the East coast Master Jet Base.
Anyone else see this like the pre-Pearl Harbor rollout of all the P-40s and other aircraft lined up for fear of sabotage?
I totally see the risk of container ships coming and going, but if anyone does not think these drones are already present in dozens of locations around the country are kidding themselves. Hell, the drones were probably delivered by Amazon for all we know.
The drug cartels have been flying drones for years over the border tracking Border Patrol assets. They may be the most likely folks to lash out in the immediate term. It will certainly happen if China decides to move against Taiwan.
Now, if I bought a farm really close to U.S. military bases, and had evil intentions......
I'd just stick to planting soybeans or running cattle. There would never be any trailers parked around and just sitting there waiting....
Nah. No chance of that ever happening.
Just a barn that may or may not be full of drones. But who says it must be adjacent? Could be 5-10km away.
That distance factor seems like the checkmate here. There is no way to defend against it.
There is, but it takes some hard decisions.
The Israeli Beam Dome and Iron Dome systems come to mind. But you have to let them run on automatic to be effective for a surprise attack. Won't do to have them in standby because by the time you figure out "this is real" it's over. So that means making a LOT of airspace no fly zones and also puts a LOT of civilian acreage at risk for the inevitable crash zones.
Imagine the debates among the usual Congresscritters. They won't be over until it's proven to be too late.
I'd love to see people flying their drones in no-fly zones need to be seen evaporating. Demonstrating that happening along w/ tracking it back to the source of the drone and holding its owner accountable will go some distance to making people think twice. But a volume attack? I sure hope there are entrepreneurial enterprises who can make things happen outside of the normal procurement processes to get an answer built and into place.
Or parked inside a barn?
Why the hell did any authority in the US allow any Chinese to buy land or rent anywhere near US military sites or any government site or run communications thru anything sketchy like same towers?
Let's evict now. Force sale.
I think the other danger is China could light the match by proxy using cartels if need be, just to deny it. Easier to do in a misinformation battle space.
The Russian bombers are required to be exposed by arms control treaties with the US. So are ours.
I say again, eminent domain for Mare Island. Alameda too.
As for hardening bases, why don't we have HELIOS ashore for testing? And 76mm mounts ashore. How about patrol craft, fireboats, salvage ships? The vulnerability of bases has been a thing since Drake raided Cadiz.
I'm with you for everything except those 76mm. Plenty of lighter gear has stepped into the 76mm role, especially off ship.
I like the extra reach and heft. A smaller round is a smaller lethal radius, and that might matter if I'm trying to swat a swarm.
Regarding concentration of assets, one would think that Pearl Harbor would not be so easily erased from memory -- living memory, for many.
Not living memory for anyone still in a decision making role, unfortunately. Its probably the biggest reason things have been slipping down this slope.
Even if China doesn't want to preemptively attack our fleet when it decides to go for Taiwan (on the chance that we would not honor our defense commitment unless first attacked), this concentration of naval forces creates opportunities for China to engage in creative mischief that would significantly limit our ability to respond with less chance of precipitating war.
"on the chance that we would not honor our defense commitment unless first attacked"
What defense commitment? I can't seem to find one. The best I could find was in the Taiwan Relations Act, and it was not a total commitment. Article 5 of the NATO treaty is much more obligatory, and even it is not a total commitment.
https://www.ait.org.tw/policy-history/taiwan-relations-act/
Uh, okay. You got me. The longstanding understanding that we will defend Taiwan, as evidenced by our actions during the Korean War, and the seventy years that have elapsed since then.
Will we? Won't we? We give a coy answer that may deter China, or that may just as plausibly no longer deter China but lead Taiwan to write checks that it's own military can't cash.
I guess the only way to know for sure will be when China crosses the Strait. But if China's perception is that we will defend Taiwan, our actual intentions won't matter very much if they decide to get a head start. Maybe they have studied the Pacific side of WW II enough to think that's a bad idea. Or maybe they've studied our industrial situation enough to think that maybe it isn't so bad after all.
We are no more legally obligated to defend Taiwan than we were to defend Ukraine. No U.S. President has said that we would defend Taiwan- except daffy Biden a few times, with "the White House" quickly correcting those comments. The U.S. has never officially recognized Taiwan as an independent sovereign state.
Understood. But for seventy years, we have implied through our actions that we will defend Taiwan. As noted above, I think that the policy of "strategic ambiguity" is so dumb and dangerous that it could only have been dreamed up by someone with a Ph.D.
But a legal obligation is not really the point. After all, we were not obligated to defend the Dutch East Indies or the Malay peninsula in December of 1941. Cold comfort that was for anyone in Pearl Harbor or Manila.
The larger points are: (1) choosing to defend Taiwan could be catastrophic for the US, even if the war stays conventional; and (2) choosing not to defend Taiwan could also be catastrophic for the US. In China's shoes, if I could guarantee that the war would stay conventional, I am not sure which option I would prefer.
Pretty much everyone knew that the Japanese would need to take the Philippines to expand southward toward the Indies or Malaya where the resources were. Given that the US would defend the Philippines, Japan would have to deal with the US fleet sooner or later. They chose sooner with their preemptive strike. Curious, given the methodology of the strike, that they didn't understand that the basis of naval warfare had changed.
That is one of the fascinating paradoxes of the IJN. One thing I have never understood was the need to take the Philippines absent US entry into the war. From my perhaps ignorant perspective, that represented a fear that became a self-fulfilling prophecy.
(And even if the US had chosen to enter the war without preventive attacks on Pearl Harbor and the PI, it is difficult for me to see how the PI would have been strategically vital with the force disposition in December of 1941.)
"Will we? Won't we? We give a coy answer..."
Yep. Guaranteed to get us in some kind of trouble eventually.
Rather than being a vague slogan, "Remember Pearl Harbor" needs to be the first action item of every day's duties at every American base.
SECDEF’s next memo needs to be addressed to all base and combat commanders, recommending they review the careers of General Walter Short and Admiral Husband Kimmel.
The only reason to talk about Pearl Harbor nowadays is to justify the blunder of naming a carrier for Doris Miller.
@Billy
Is anyone denying that Miller did what he is credited with doing? Or are you going on about TRADITION. Yes, admirals & presidents do recently get gold plated floating air strips named after them, enlisted sailor's names might get applied to a destroyer.
I'm going on about tradition. Names like Ranger, Lexington, etc... are more appropriate.
Yeah, we need to spread out quite a bit more. And it’s an imperative to do so. A lower cost idea would be to set up Navy piers at USCG cutter homeports.
One request: fully fund travel budgets for Training TDY from separate homeports. The Reserves get told plan for a quarterly IDTT at the gaining unit’s drill site, but always build the training plan with no travel quarter 4 of the FY because the budget’s been spent. I’m quite sure the same would be spent for in person classes for mandatory NECs if we did Strategic Homeports. Big Navy won’t send PO3 to Norfolk or San Diego to get a mandatory NEC the ship is short on, and he’ll be there long enough to get real use out of it.
The other thing I’m wondering about is EW use against these drones. Those trucks probably won’t have operators onboard, and lines are too long for hardlinks back to operators. There’s got to be an EW vulnerability there, using the EM spectrum to communicate. Also, commercial hardware may be more vulnerable to other EW effects. I’m hoping, from my compartmentalized view, that we have good EWOs and CTTs working on this.
Rumor has it that Uke drones were controlled through Russian cellular phone networks.
We can’t believe anything in the main stream media.
Interesting rumor.
As today unfolded, I heard more than rumors.
Apparently the drivers of the trucks were unaware Russians under contract.
Once they parked the trucks the tops were opened and the drones launched remotely.
So yeah. -The- big vulnerability of this plan, inherent to all unmanned remote systems, is the EM spectrum.
"...EW use against these drones"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45roqI2Uceg
Isn’t the idea they are “unmanned” AI and can’t be jammed?
If it's FPV systems, they can be jammed for controls feeding back to an operator. Activation signals? Those could also be jammed.
If they are autonomous then the only thing that would matter is the activation signal which isn’t strictly necessary and would require jamming massive areas surrounding sensitive targets.
All the more reason that our fiscally-beyond-broke country needs to focus all of our national defense dollars on OUR national defense. Enough of the foreign (mis)adventures.
The requirement for Russia's nuclear-armed bombers to remain visible to satellite observation is part of several nuclear agreements between the USA and Russia, SALT and START. Our US long range nuclear capable bombers are covered under the same agreements and must also remain visible to Russian satellites.
Ukraine has exploited this vulnerability with the result that the goals of nuclear arms control treaties among the major nuclear-armed nations have now been put at considerable risk.
The US, the EU, and NATO currently supply Ukraine with real-time targeting intelligence, with targeting services, and with AI-driven drone targeting technology.
It is impossible to discount the possibility that the drone attack on Russia's nuclear capable bombers was consciously assisted in one or more ways by the intelligence communities of the US, the EU, and NATO.
As a consequence of the Ukraine drone attack on Russian nuclear bombers, Russia has now been given a rational justification for exiting every nuclear arms control treaty it now has with western nations.
If intelligence community assistance for this attack was indeed being provided to Ukraine, was it being done with President Trump's knowledge, and/or with the knowledge of his direct subordinates?
If President Trump and/or any of his closest subordinates knew that assistance was being provided to Ukraine for this particular attack on Russian nuclear assets, and if they didn't move quickly to stop that direct assistance, then they themselves now own the Russia-Ukraine war lock stock and barrel ... and all the other consequences which eventually flow from this war.
Remember the 01 March Oval Office meeting w Zelensky? Trump said, "You don't hold the cards." And at that very moment, Z knew full well that this plan was afoot. So either Z failed to inform T about what was coming, or the episode was staged as "great television," as T characterized it in the aftermath.
Zelensky will have known about multiple plans...not just this one, and if you think this is the end of it I have a bridge I can sell you...
The only thing holding SBU/GUR back has been restraint to not panic the US....no need for such restraint now...
Are there elements in the CIA and DOD that have gone rogue?
You and your college buddies probably could have figured this out if someone funded it. I don't see the need. Keeping them out makes OpSec easier on a mission with such a long lead time.
These are not the cards T was referring to...Between Iran and the Norks, Russia has more than enough munitions to keep beating the pulp out of Ukraine....killing people, maiming soldiers, and destroying civilian targets. Z's biggest card is the Ukrainian people...much like the Britons during the Battle of Britain.
The Russian's ceased implementing New START in February 2023....
"Russia has now been given a rational justification for exiting every nuclear arms control treaty it now has with western nations."
You mean like New START? They stopped implementing that in Feb 2023....Or do you mean the INF Treaty? They've been in breach of that for years....
Remember that Treaty about no weapons in space? Remember the US Government being highly concerned last year about a Russian space launch?
Notice a pattern yet?
"was it being done with President Trump's knowledge, and/or with the knowledge of his direct subordinates?"
Hahahaha......Trump knew nothing. There is no-one in Europe who would actually trust Trump and his administration with anything of note. They coud guarantee it would be in Russian hands within hours....either Trump trying to curry favour by opening his big mouth, the Secretary of State for Defense putting it in a Signal Chat....or the usual Washington leaks...
Yep. As I said above, arms control treaties are treated by Russia as a way to exert leverage and to gain prestige. I can confidently state that Putin cares very little for actual disarmament.
Russia has been given an excuse to launch nuclear weapons.
Which they are not going to take, because Putin is neither a moron nor suicidal. The only way nukes get launched is if NATO decides to launch an offensive and makes it all the way to Moscow.
Hope you’re right.
NATO launches an offensive they won't even make it to Kursk.
A dubious proposition, considering Russia's performance so far.
Ah, the old "fighting back against a nuclear power gives them an excuse to launch nuclear weapons" chestnut.
Honest question: Are the Russians paying you to post this or are you dumb enough to actually believe the things you type?
Typical self righteous moron.
I note you neither addressed my point nor answered my question.
I gave you the answer you deserve.
Sound like Pete-speak for "I have no good answer".
I believe Trump didn't know. Otherwise, he would have vetoed the strike as totally crazy, the way he vetoed the not so crazy strike on the Iranian nuclear program. So if the US IC knew, they didn't tell him. Remember also that the UK and Canada can access US data via Five Eyes.
Ah, Ukraine defending itself by attacking the sides launching attacks at it. Totally crazy.
It is NATO that is crazy
Ukraine is as much of a victim as Russia
You can add a few other high demand low density assets to the list with the bombers. Strike Eagles are only at two locations now with them leaving the UK. Thanks to Hurricane Michael, Raptors are also now highly centralized, basing almost entirely out of Langley, Elmendorf, and Hickam now.
They had HAS while they were at Lakenheath as well....
No such luxury in CONUS...
I was thinking of the LHDs or similar. But even if we have to dredge it’s doable.
We need an immediate countermeasure while our smart people (such as they are) come up with workable long term counters to drone swarms.
If your bombers are in the air, they can't be hit by an FPV drone. Maybe it's time to revisit OPERATION CHROME DOME from the 1960s, which kept our B-52s flying circles in the sky while awaiting orders to attack the USSR.
It's not a permanent solution, and it'll stress our airframes, spare parts inventories, fuel stocks, and crew morale. But it beats having a line of smoking wrecks on the ramp at Barksdale or Minot. The routes need not be long or go far; the planes just need to be up and not on the ramp.
As for our ships, they don't need to skedaddle far. They can just get out past the horizon to loiter or anchor, taking turns to come in, refuel, restock, pump out the grey and black water tanks, and get back out to sea.
Egg basket: empty.