Fine. You don't even know who or what enemy you've been fighting for the last 100 years? Socialist, communist, national socialist, baathist, fascist, PRCs, you detect the trend yet? Groupist totalitarians? Nope, of course not.  Know youre enemy.  That's the point of military history. 


not isms... countries...  we didn't fight Germany in WW1 because it had an ism and we didn't fight it in WW2 just because it was fascist.

You did fight Germany in WW I for an ism. IMPERIALISM. As for WW II; SURVIVALISM. 

but propaganda is there to be used by everyone and I don't see there side being better than yours. take the facts not the spin.
Propaganda is the tool. Don't confuse the tool with the truth.  In propaganda, its the results that matter, not the truth. Don't you understand that?

 

you misinterpret me.....I mean it as in don't get taken by the spin... truth wins out if you publish it. the US should have fought the propaganda war in the same way it fought the fighting war....  if you lost the propaganda war then it could be down to trying to push the wrong message.

That is the first thing you got correct. You are learning.

Mahan..... strangely enough.. being from a British military background I tend to have read a fair amount on seapower and its uses... his thought process was based on the British 18/19thC  policy that they were carrying out? ie control the seas, control trade.....     what is his best book?

Influence of Seapower Upon History

 I would ask you how much relevence you put on this doctrine now in the early 21stC and ongoing for the next 50+ years?

Extreme relevance since it is trade that underpins Human international relations and it is the pattern of that trade which is the reason for seapower. The oceans and shipping aren't going anywhere, Paul. And here's a hint. The same patterns of trade and commerce hold true for the air and space. Mahan's writings will become more important, not less inn the next few hundred years as commerce moves into a pure ballistic environment.  Of course, if you knew Mahan well you would realize that.

the oceans aren't.. well they are if you belive in global warming...   :-)... but I see increasing trade across land to avoid the all chickens in one basket aspect... only islands rely soley on the sea hence Britain's maritime bent throughout history.

You don't know what you are talking about. Must be a soldier mindset. The cheapest way is the most used way. BY SHIP. Also the biggest battlespace is where most of the future fighting will take place to control it..

 

trade is increasing across land though. no matter whether seas are cheaper... if there is a threat to sea trade then land becomes even more realistic. and since the seas are controlled by the US then the way to avoid is to not use them. hence more gas and oil pipelines being built ect....

You are an island, we are an ocean bordered continent 70% of the earth is ocean, Oceanic commerce increases faster now mich faster than land commerce and the PRCs are utterly dependent on seaborne fertilizer and fuel imports to feed and light themselves. How do you think I'm going to cut Beijing's throat on der Tag? 

we are an island... they are not
they are moving away from sea for oil and gas. they are spreading their risk.

also...  you say Mahan becomes more relevant.... he died before airpower came along so did not know what to expect. this is the 21stC and we know what it does now. do you not think that air power is becoming even more relevant and will infringe on the former role of sea power?????? I see air power as becoming the dominant force. ships are slow moving, fairly easily seen, floating targets. of course you can base your airpower on carriers but it is not as effective as from ground bases.

The principles of denial, blockade and use of a battrlespace remain the same whether you fly or float; the Kosovo Serbia and Iraq no-fly zones

1. Your asssertion about the PRC PRVN outcome is in error. the PRVN were stretched to the limit. If not for RC logistics failures the PRVN border de4fense would have totally collapsed. As it was the PRVN had to pull their best combat units back to forestall a repeat. that finished them in Cambodia. The UN did nothing.

 

2. The PRCs are not diversifying. What they are doing is trying to line up oil contracts and dig more coal. Their coal reserves are a diminishing joke and their oil contracts are only as good as their current payments. Idf they were diversifying they would be building an alternative power base. they aren't. they are importing oil. That is stupid. They have no international credit. They have to pay cash and carry in doillars. Like geopolitics your understandiong of economics appears to be zero.

 

3. Germans of 1933 had to use the tools and institutions available. The only ones that worked were the Army General staff and the Army itself. Which would you rather face? Von Beck or Adolf Hitler? I prefer von Beck. He wasn't crazy.

 

Americans impeach Presidents or run them out of office. Our institutions work as designed. We don't need the man on a horse.

 

If you don't understand how 3d spatial warfare evolved from 2d naval warfare? Well I'm not going to waste fifty posts educating you.  Read Seversky's "Victory through Airpower".

 

Right now my respect for your opinions and ability to reason clearly, Paul, has clearly declined sharply.

 

Don't try to probe my politics or assume what these politics are. I do not show you my politics at all. And certainly you lack the necessary skill to even try to analyze me politically.

 

Have a nice day.

 

Herald

 

 

1. the Chinese failure to do it right is hardly anybodys fault other than their own. the fact remains that they retreated back after failing to achieve their objectives... Cambodia was no longer Chinese proxy and was all but controlled by Vietnam. which front line Vietnamese units got back and into contact with any Chinese forces prior to Chinese retreat? there is nothing here but Chinese failure.

 

2 they are buying with US money/debt. if they didn't have it in the first place then they would not even be in a position to mount any for of challenge.

 

3 just pointing out that you called for Germany to do something that you don't think that you wound't want the US to do.

 

4 still quoting old material...(btw stick with Mitchell, he did have vision.) but at least you now are on the way to acknowledge that airpower is becoming the dominant force and sea power is less than it was and will diminish further.... sure if you hang around your HQ library then you will find some more modern thinking.

 

 

whether they are yours or not politics get into all thinking. you don't exactly try to hide them anyway (and if you think you do then just go back and reread the posts you have made in the last month or so). everything you post on tends to have your opinion as the driving force.

But my patience with you is ended. So now I will teach.

 

1.You totally misrepresented in your readback what I said about seapower as it refers to modern battlespace management and actual commerce war. I attribute this to your total lack of understanding as to what I wrote.

2. You haven't got a clue as to what I think politically; or you wouldn't have written the stupid thing you wrote about my politics. Here is a hint. I am a close student of Mao. I regard him as a bandit, but his political thought is a goldmine to harvest.

3. What are you writing about with regard to Germany? Did I mention the Germans and the PRCs in the same context in the present circumstance? No; you are ranging off the reservation of ideas here and revealing confused thinking. It would be nice if you could stay ON POINT and relevant to this discussion.

4. I don't have much use for confused thinkers. Pay attention to 1-3 and clean up your confusion, beforee you replyn again.

 

 Herald 

  

1...  I just pushed you on your contention that Mahan and seapower is more relevent now than it was in the past. it isn't air power is taking its place. sea power is in decline and nowhere near as useful as airpower. you still need sea power but it does not control in the way it did in the 18,19,20thC.

2. doesn't matter what you study. you put your own opinions on everyone in all your posts... witness your calling on the 100 list... all opinion not fact. if opinion gets into everything you post then it is hard for you to stay objective.

 

3.. you were the one who brought up Germany. are you saying I should have ignored you going off on a tangent.

 

 

 

a. Most cargo traffic is by ship by tonnage. most of the earth's surface is water sand you are still wrong if you can't do the mathematics and trade analysis. What travels by water is subject to SEAPOWER and it is controlled by denial of oceanic use. whether it is a plane or a sub that sinks all your PRC oil, it is still SUNK and it is easiest to sink at a CHOKEPOINT. Sea power is persistent continuous and when your merchant fleet sinks is FOREVER as far as your national power is concerned in war. Air power is ephemeral and temporary unless you are persistent. Only sea power is persistent and permanent in war.   
Opinion solidly based on provable FACT as opposed to your fantasies. So my opinions are FACTUAL. See above the ridiculous misconceptions you have on sea power. 

I brought up Germany ON POINT as an example of a continental power that misapplied sea power and didn't understand it and was defeated by it. The PRCs are in much the same boat, so it was on point as to how to handle PRCs, but the way you misread it showed me that you didn't have the foggiest notions of what I wrote or why I wrote it. You went off point into Red Herring land as confused thinkers as you are wont to do in a desperate attempt to try and derail the chain of logic linked against you. No sale, senor. You are stuck with your incompetence. 
Summary:  You don't unsderstand how trade affects war, you have no concept of strategic resource bottlenecks, you doin't know the shape of the battlespace or how you use it, and you don't know Douhet or Mahan at all                                           

 

Herald

given satt recon and long endurance uav's etc airpower is looking more persistant every day. 

 

40 hour UAVs only survive as long as an interceptor permits or after 40 hours RTB for maintenance and oil lube.

 

That is not persistence; as in an aircraft carrier bombing you for six months or six YEARS.

 

Herald

if you are looking to mess with your opponent's maritime traffic airpower is plenty persistant to do that.  merchies only move so fast after all and if the strike takes 3 hours to reach it's attack point it still happens.  ships are a lot slower than aircraft last i looked and may well take longer to put ordnance on target than planes would.

 

it's not that controlling the seas is any the less important now it's that the mechanisms for exerting that control are changing.  if you have for instance a 50 000 sq km area of ocean to interdict traffic through are you going to do better with 500 million worth of frigates or 500 million worth of maritime patrol craft and strike aircraft?