Posted by: graemebird | February 20, 2008

Australian Defense Review:Principles Of Kicking Ass In A Fully Nuclearised World.

From Catallaxy:

Right. We musn’t let Tillmans hardcore spamming get in the way of the long-run defense plank.

People have wrongly contended that the invention of nuclear weapons is the end of war. That it makes war unthinkable. This is extremely dangerous nonsense. Genocidally dangerous.

Even if nuclear weapons were so spectacular a weapon, fundamentally different from all other military innovations, it would still be the case that we could not let our minds glaze over.

Rather if this weapon were so very very special, it would then mean that nuclear intimidation, or its potential, was the new enemy that we devoted most of our defense planning, spending and doctrinal development towards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

We have a defense review coming up and many people will be throwing all sorts of make-believe security risks in to the mix which will obscure real threats.

For example they may say that instability in the pacific islands is a security risk. This is NOT a security risk and would not become one unless a nuclear power set up a base on one of these islands.

Some people might say that instability in the Middle East is a security risk for Australia. This is also hogwash. In fact a jihadia civil war would be immensely beneficial to our security because it would keep the crackers from spreading their murder further afield.

Sorting our problems in the Pacific Islands has a military component to it, but problems in these islands are no security risk for Australia. Rather when we act in the Solomons or elsewhere this is quite clearly A FOREIGN AID PROGRAM.

Other lunatics will claim that climate change is a security risk. Shake them down for some evidence. You won’t get it but shake them down for it anyhow. They are a terrible security risk since they will cripple our ability to produce energy. But climate change is no security risk for Australia. Since Australia is a warm country the coming cooling won’t hurt us too bad.

I tend to think mitigation against China is the best way to define our strategic challenges. Because if we can keep on an equal footing with China and our people not be intimidated by her then no other problems ought to be too insurmountable..

But it can sometimes be impolotic and undiplomatic to keep mentioning one country that we don’t necessarily have a personal problem with. I mean this can be taken the wrong way.

So really all our plans ought focus around China. But if we wanted to “depersonalize” it we might well use the alternative bogeyman of NUCLEAR INTIMIDATION from any or all potential sources as being the thing we would use to frame our plans around.

The plans would be much the same in any case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The nuclear threat can be overcome. Nanu was trying to blame JFK for a bunch of problems upthread. What criticisms I have about JFK are to do with him not being Catholic enough. When Robert McNamara went to change doctrine to purposely target civilians with nukes and to purposely allow ones own civilians to be targeted…… Well a good Catholic President ought to have known that this outrage was against Just War Theory (to put it as mildly as I can) and against all decency. But a good soldier ought to have known that this was also idiocy from a military point of view.

This McNamara thinking was the typical sort of JohnZ logic. That one step thinking, that one-step pseudo-syllogistic idiocy that a Reynolds or a JohnZ will try on once and a while.

Civilians are the last thing in this world you want to target and especially with nukes. Its a totally redundant thing to do in the first place since a war, forcefully prosecuted, kills enough civilians for even the sickest, most perverted, FDR fan to be pleased with.

And a war prosecuted without enough force tends to kill even more civilians.

Well what (if any) changes do nuclear weapons make to warfare???? This is what you will find out with great certainty if you keep reading:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In the time of Clauswitz the idea was to mass your forces and keep them together as one unit. And the great fear was a two-front war. Naturally enough a multi-front war was the worst thing imagineable.

You wanted to have the superior massed force and destroy individual subsets of the coalition ranged against you sequentially.

In World War II allied bombers darkened the sky.

Neither massing all your forces together nor filling the sky with bombers is a worthwhile idea in a nuclearised war. Rumsfeld was right not to mass too many people in Kuwait, before the war, since two or three backpack nukes could then have gotten rid of a great deal of American power for an entire generation.

Whereas pre-nuclear war meant you had to mass your forces and deal with enemies sequentially, war in a nuclearised world means you can never mass them to the extent that it becomes worthwhile for your opponent to use one of his precious nukes to take them out.

So whereas pre-nuclear war meant avoiding a two-front or multi-front war……. Nuclearised war means embracing multi-front warfare. It means spreading yourself out and using as many pressure points as one can.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The other big difference to war in a nuclearised world is the absolutely magnficent premium there is to be had in defensive measures.

This is something the Americans don’t realise yet. The have all sorts of holes in their defense. Yet they maintain these 700 bases overseas when probably a dozen would be more than sufficient. Because the nukes themselves are so heavily offensive there is, for the first time, a real imbalance between offense and defense.

Traditionally it has been thought that having these good defensive measures was delusional. Wars must always be fought on the offense went the reasoning.

That only offensive threats can prevent the beligerent crowd from going to war. Well thats all true. But with nukes, they are so powerfully offensive, that diplomatic cache will instead tend to come to people who have their defensive position so well sorted that they can deal with other nuclear powers with a sense of confidence.

Decisive strategic measures can only really be taken by people with excellent defensive investments in a nuclearised world.

The third difference in a nuclear world is that your population layout cannot involve extended high-density living or a great deal of medium-density living at all.

It ought to be ultra-high density in short bursts and then semi-rural most of the rest of it.

So that the poor people live in bursts of massively spacious skyhouses and the buildings are skyscrapers…. But most of the rich guys have at least an acre or two to make do with.

In other words you would have the setup we probably would have under free enterprise (in my view.)

A burst of Gotham City highrise surrounded by semi-rural living means that the tall building can usually be protected …… but that if a nuke did get through, most of those that survive the initial blast will likely be able to make it through the aftermath and survive.

I have maintained earlier that newly homesteaded land titles ought to have buffers around them. A buffer that can be used for infrastructural goods and nature corridors.

If this cityscape were carved out of reclaimed desert land under the above formula……….you can see how buffers around all private property would allow people to quickly high-tail it out of the built-up area, if they got wind of an incoming nuclear missile.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Look people. Thats about it. Those are the only FUNDAMENTAL differences in a nuclearised world. We can live with this reality if we put our minds to it. And in fact we have no choice even if we decide to hide under the covers and tell ourselves its the other fellow who is the scared one.

But if we believe these insane lies about there being no way to defend against nuclear weapons then we almost deserve to wind up as second-class citizens.

And we stand a pretty good chance of a premature death.

Lets get cracking on all three of these fundamental differences right away.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Old chap
    In a better world you would have been made Joint Defence Minister of Australia, NZ, the US, UK, Israel, Japan and India pronto.

    How do we get you close to this goal?

  2. You left out an important part of the program old chap.

    National conscription and the issuance of a free Kalashnikov to all adults without a criminal record upon turning 21.

  3. God man my wife has been nagging the shit out of me and our marriage is on the skids this morning she threw a chair at me and I asked her if she planned to go home later on and she told me she didn’t love me anymore so maybe we should take all our saved money and put it under my son’t name and then we could get an additional $6000 a month from social security but then my wife threatened to drag me into court unless I got down on my knees and begged her for forgiveness so I shot her and buried her in the back yard and got married to this nice girl at work called Itchitaki but pretty soon she started to nag me even worse than my wife so I agreed with my lawayer to sue the shit out of her and send her back to the Yakuza whorehouse she used to work at before she got a job on the basis of a fellating my boss but she was nagging me even worse so I lost it at shot her and buried her in the back yard.

    Thanks for listening guys. I really appreciate it.

  4. Thank You!!! Dwayne. The gratitude is all ours. Its good to see a man finally not taking shit from the girls. Although if I may be so bold your sanction appears to be somewhat overblown. I say that because of the rather permanent nature of it. Take this as a friendly amendment and with all my best regards to your future relationships.

    Thanks for your support Mr Quartermain. And I agree with your assessment although remember that power corrupts and that goes for me too. And so I can tell you right now that I’d only accept such an assignment for non-consecutive 2 years at a time bursts. But your basic correctness shines through….. except as regards to two of your suggestions.

    You must understand. Conscription is slavery. Its also a false economy. And in economics there is no such thing as a free lunch. Nor yet any free Kalishnakovs.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: