Putting things into perspective

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: DWReese
BTW, the scenario that I was referring to was the LIVE: Spratly Spat. It's fun.

I'll have to try it. I want to do the Arab-Israeli wars scenarios.

The SCS is interesting to me because it's so contemporary and topical, but I actually think it's hard to make fun scenarios for it, because there's SO MUCH firepower involved, but at the same time nobody really wants to go to war either, because it'd likely be awful for everyone involved. It's almost an "everyone loses," sort of fight. It gets into the problem of it not being clear when or if they'd actually fight. Since that's the case, it makes it hard to figure out what reasonable possible scenarios in that conflict might look like. In that sense, even though SCS scenarios are very topical they are also almost always sort of contrived, if that makes sense.

[DWReese]

SeaQueen,

What you said makes perfect sense.

I really don't believe that a real SCS military conflict will begin as a result of a "planned" offensive act. It will likely begin because one side is pressing on the other (Show the Flag) and then suddenly some "guy" on one side or the other, inadvertently/accidentally initiates/causes an attack on the other side. At that point, instead of apologies being offered, retaliation is in order. Then, you end up with a at least a tit-for-tat conflict that may, or may not, escalate. But, there will definitely be a demand for retribution. Whether the retribution is contained, or it escalates is what makes it interesting. The shameful part is that people will lose their lives as this "show of force" goes on. In the end, no actual ground is permanently gained. It can be physically occupied, but never completely fortified and held if the other side ever desires to take action against it. (Perhaps that is where the next conflict comes from?)

As you said, there are many facets to this area, and defining it through geopolitics and military action may be kind of difficult to do.

Doug

[SeaQueen]

I think it's more frightening than that. My observation has been that there's two kinds of wars. The first is when one side believes that victory will be quick and easy because they so over-match their opponent, that war seems like the most expedient and decisive way to pursue their political goals. Essentially it's the "we'll be home by Christmas," kind of war. Sometimes it turns out to be true, sometimes it doesn't. The second is when the two sides in conflict fail to communicate or misunderstand exactly where their red lines are. During the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein really didn't think that the U.S. really cared enough about Kuwait to intervene, and he'd received diplomatic cables from the United States to the effect that our government regarded it as an inter-Arab dispute and didn't want to be involved. He took that as a green light to invade. Both kinds of war could happen in the SCS.

The first kind of war could happen in the SCS if China believes the US to be a weak, declining hegemon, unwilling or unable to assert themselves meaningfully in the region, and then decides to assert their dominance in the region militarily because it seems like the fastest way to accomplish their goals at the time. The second kind of war could happen in the SCS if in the course of attempting to reassure our allies in the region, and deter Chinese aggression, the US leadership miscalculates the reaction of the Chinese government. There's always some uncertainty in attempting to deter aggression. It's not always well known exactly what a government is attempting to accomplish, what point they might be willing to back down, what's negotiable or what's something they're willing to kill and die over. It's difficult when governments are making decisions in the context of often radically different national, military and cultural realities.

[DWReese]

SeaQueen,

The "LIVE: Spratly Spat" sort of matches your second example. The Chinese are present, and have set up shop on some of the islands. A coalition has been formed consisting of a ship from each of the involved surrounding nations that are opposed to China's actions, and a ship from the US. Neither side is hostile to begin the scenario. Obviously, there are certain things built into the scenario to trigger hostilities, depending of which side you are playing, but it's also apparent that neither side really knows what is expected of them now that they are coming together, face-to-face. It's a game of chicken-on-the-high-seas. You should check it out hen you get an opportunity.

Doug

[SeaQueen]

I'll put it on my "to do" list. I think deterrence and the transition to war is hard to do well in Command, though. The reason is that Command is so tactical. It's about the kill chain, and deterrence is about everything other than the kill chain. There's not really a good way to capture the operational and strategic move-counter-move in the weeks and months that might lead to war, nor is there a good way to capture the strategic intentions of the players. It's just not that kind of sim.

Nobody in Command plays the President of the United States and the President of China. You're playing the commander of a few warships or a wing of aircraft. Even if you made a mega-scenario where you effectively wore The President's hat, you'd spend so much time down in the weeds figuring out WRA and setting up missions, that it's not really clear it'd be realistic. That's not what the President does, nor should it be. You're not really even wearing the COCOM's hat. They don't plan missions. That'd be a different game, where a single "unit" might be entire carrier strike group, a SAG, or a squadron of aircraft. It'd be very focused on intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, logistics, special operations, strategic messaging, and just generally shaping things. The weaponeering, sensors and a lot of the particulars of the aircraft would be abstracted or irrelevant.

[BrendaBrannon]

Well, it is a rather interesting story with the reflections to the chosen topic. Will you move forward with it?

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: BrendaBrannon
Well, it is a rather interesting story with the reflections to the chosen topic. Will you move forward with it?

Sorry, old thread. Remind me. Move forward with what?

[BDukes]

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

ORIGINAL: BrendaBrannon
Well, it is a rather interesting story with the reflections to the chosen topic. Will you move forward with it?

Sorry, old thread. Remind me. Move forward with what?

Haha. You talk to bot account that somehow gets in. Or likely one.[:)]

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: BDukes
Haha. You talk to bot account that somehow gets in. Or likely one.[:)]

Would it surprise you if I said I routinely fail Turing tests as well?

[Whicker]

that is hilarious. I didn't get it at first but that is a very bot-y post. So is the other post they did. Wouldn't have even questioned it if you hadn't pointed it out.

[SSN754planker]

And THAT should be the goal of any real life military/country.

To achieve objectives with the minimum loss of life and equipment.