A great post. Fisher's Fundamental Theorem, paraphrased by Gerald Weinberg: "The better adapted a system is to a particular environment, the less adaptable it is to new environments."
A very good post. Wish a lot more people were willing to engage with the inherent uncertainty in such a situation. Even this far into the conflict in Ukraine, a war that should have quickly taught anyone to not be so confident in their military or political predictions, I see these overly confident predictions on where the course of the conflict shall lead, be it positively or negatively for Ukraine. And if such a war between two states in a certain defined geographical area is so hard predict, the arrogance it takes to make such predictions to a potentially global war involving an unknown number of actors is simply astounding.
Though, I do think the US's position visa via international affairs is a little different than before either world wars. Re: whether it would be feasible to achieve a similar effect as possessing a large military 24/7 with simply the capacity to quickly amass one, that a lot of the big US related incidents that could spiral into major power wars are ones that may be over very quickly. I.E., Taiwan, wherein absent US force to quickly back up the island in case of hostilities, could quickly be over run by the PLA (Though maybe the progress of the Russo-Ukrainian war should make us less certain here). At which point, the US would have to choose whether or not to begin a direct offensive campaign against a Chinese occupied Taiwan, which seems like it could be a bit more likely to result in nuclear hostilities than if the US were merely able to prevent the occupation in the first place.
The same holds for the less likely, though still concerning scenarios of Russia invading an eastern NATO member. Having an expensive military force that can could outright defeat Russia in the early stages of such a war deters such a war beginning, and in the event of an invasion, being able to defensively beat back such an incursion could be less risky than having to lead an offensive into Russian occupied Lithuania or Estonia.
As any conflict between competing nuclear powers could theoretically devolve into a nuclear exchange, it may behoove one more to possess such an overwhelming force as to deter war from beginning in the first place, rather than merely be capable of responding to it after the fact.
Good post and I'd say yo-yo-ing up and down is much harder now, both in terms of tech & training needed (though we do with reserves), but also realistically we need to maintain such diverse capabilities across broad geographies - ready to fight tonight in jungles and the Arctic, on anphib landings, from planes, the sea, across the plains in tanks, in the mountains, with divisions, battalions, platoons, all the way down to Delta 2-4 man units, plus train & work with dozens of partner forces for many reasons, respond to emergencies, insurgencies, and invasions, all the time, any time, anywhere, against anyone. That helps maintain the peace, benefits America, and the world.
This is an encouraging and yet tantalizing post. It homes in on my own greatest focus - helping leaders (at all levels) and their organizations “prepare for whatever unfolds”.
You offer redundancy, competition and diversity of thought - all intriguing ideas for how to prepare. I look forward to more insights in the coming weeks - either more such capabilities or going deeper on these. Surely the mass disruptive forces of Covid, climate change, and war provide ample case examples to learn from.
In the mean time, I am thinking about the helicopter metaphorically - what is it’s equivalent in the modern organization?
Very few years, in its history, has the US not been in a state of conflict somewhere and 80% of the planet has seen US boots on the ground. They can't all be naughty, and worthy of America's parental kind and loving bombs to be generously spent on them. Seeking a 5 to 1 advantage and relying on large and disorganized payouts to allies and private contractors has made the US appear exceedingly weak. Over stretched, ill advised and lacking in focus may seem the problems of good and sound policy to be prepared everywhere, but each year the US and its allies seem less likely to win military conflicts.
I'm a strong believer in chaos and unpredictability, and it kinda maddens me that so many people are so convinced that so many things can be so well-predicted. So this fit right in my wheelhouse!
A great post. Fisher's Fundamental Theorem, paraphrased by Gerald Weinberg: "The better adapted a system is to a particular environment, the less adaptable it is to new environments."
A very good post. Wish a lot more people were willing to engage with the inherent uncertainty in such a situation. Even this far into the conflict in Ukraine, a war that should have quickly taught anyone to not be so confident in their military or political predictions, I see these overly confident predictions on where the course of the conflict shall lead, be it positively or negatively for Ukraine. And if such a war between two states in a certain defined geographical area is so hard predict, the arrogance it takes to make such predictions to a potentially global war involving an unknown number of actors is simply astounding.
Though, I do think the US's position visa via international affairs is a little different than before either world wars. Re: whether it would be feasible to achieve a similar effect as possessing a large military 24/7 with simply the capacity to quickly amass one, that a lot of the big US related incidents that could spiral into major power wars are ones that may be over very quickly. I.E., Taiwan, wherein absent US force to quickly back up the island in case of hostilities, could quickly be over run by the PLA (Though maybe the progress of the Russo-Ukrainian war should make us less certain here). At which point, the US would have to choose whether or not to begin a direct offensive campaign against a Chinese occupied Taiwan, which seems like it could be a bit more likely to result in nuclear hostilities than if the US were merely able to prevent the occupation in the first place.
The same holds for the less likely, though still concerning scenarios of Russia invading an eastern NATO member. Having an expensive military force that can could outright defeat Russia in the early stages of such a war deters such a war beginning, and in the event of an invasion, being able to defensively beat back such an incursion could be less risky than having to lead an offensive into Russian occupied Lithuania or Estonia.
As any conflict between competing nuclear powers could theoretically devolve into a nuclear exchange, it may behoove one more to possess such an overwhelming force as to deter war from beginning in the first place, rather than merely be capable of responding to it after the fact.
Good post and I'd say yo-yo-ing up and down is much harder now, both in terms of tech & training needed (though we do with reserves), but also realistically we need to maintain such diverse capabilities across broad geographies - ready to fight tonight in jungles and the Arctic, on anphib landings, from planes, the sea, across the plains in tanks, in the mountains, with divisions, battalions, platoons, all the way down to Delta 2-4 man units, plus train & work with dozens of partner forces for many reasons, respond to emergencies, insurgencies, and invasions, all the time, any time, anywhere, against anyone. That helps maintain the peace, benefits America, and the world.
This is an encouraging and yet tantalizing post. It homes in on my own greatest focus - helping leaders (at all levels) and their organizations “prepare for whatever unfolds”.
You offer redundancy, competition and diversity of thought - all intriguing ideas for how to prepare. I look forward to more insights in the coming weeks - either more such capabilities or going deeper on these. Surely the mass disruptive forces of Covid, climate change, and war provide ample case examples to learn from.
In the mean time, I am thinking about the helicopter metaphorically - what is it’s equivalent in the modern organization?
Very few years, in its history, has the US not been in a state of conflict somewhere and 80% of the planet has seen US boots on the ground. They can't all be naughty, and worthy of America's parental kind and loving bombs to be generously spent on them. Seeking a 5 to 1 advantage and relying on large and disorganized payouts to allies and private contractors has made the US appear exceedingly weak. Over stretched, ill advised and lacking in focus may seem the problems of good and sound policy to be prepared everywhere, but each year the US and its allies seem less likely to win military conflicts.
I'm a strong believer in chaos and unpredictability, and it kinda maddens me that so many people are so convinced that so many things can be so well-predicted. So this fit right in my wheelhouse!