Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 23, 2019
Book Review: The (Real) Revolution In Military Affairs

Considerable amounts of ink have been been spent in writings about the Revolution in Military Affairs. It is a concept that claims that new military doctrines, strategies, tactics and technologies would lead to an abrupt and significant change in the conduct of warfare.

U.S. 'experts' tended to use the expression to market expensive new concepts and weapon systems. Network centric warfare and precision strikes were both predicted to change the way wars are fought. But the U.S. wars on Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrated that there was no such revolution. Even with all its new toys the U.S. failed to win.

Andrei Martyanov's new book is about The (Real) Revolution in Military Affairs. Martyanov was a naval officer in the Soviet and Russian coast guard. He now lives in the U.S. and blogs at the Reminiscence of the Future… .

The real revolution in military affairs is the development of new types of weapons by Russia. Weapons which the U.S. can not defeat and to which it has no equivalents. The consequence of the revolution is the loss of the U.S. geo-political supremacy. One cause of this loss is at the core of Martyanov's earlier book LOSING MILITARY SUPREMACY: The Myopia of American Strategic Planning.

The new book takes an expanded view of the situation.

Public pundits in the U.S. have considerable influence over political decisions about war and peace. A huge number of 'experts' in a myriad of special interest think tanks and lobbies put out a steady stream of advice. Unfortunately most of these 'experts' fail to correctly measure geo-political power. They often lack the most basic understanding of military affairs and real wars.

Martyanov explains why the models the 'experts' use fail. He shows how the advantage of one weapon system against another one can be calculated. People who have had a military education know these formulas. Those who only studied political science have likely never heard of them.

The result of such calculations is well expressed in a quote from Admiral Turner who Martyanov cites: "It isn't the number of keels, or size of ships that count. It is the capacity to do what might be decisive in some particular situation."

The new extremely fast anti-ship missiles Russia developed make the U.S. fleet of aircraft carriers groups useless in a larger war against a competent enemy. Russia developed these weapons as defensive means to counter a potential U.S. aggression. As the Russian Defense Minister Shoigu just recently explained:

We don’t need aircraft carriers, we need weapons to sink them with.

The revolution in military affairs the U.S. believed in has largely disappointed. The precision weapon, computers and gizmos have not solved the basic law of war. The enemy always has a vote in the outcome.

In 2018 Russia presented a number of completely new types of weapons – extreme long range missiles, nuclear driven torpedoes and hypersonic systems.  Martyanov shows that these have taken away the invulnerability the U.S. thought to have. The U.S. has no comparable systems and it is years behind in developing them.

The U.S. war concept in a conventional war is always to first gain air supremacy. Only after that is achieved are the troops supposed to go in. New developments in Russian air and missile defense make it impossible for the U.S. to wage such a war against Russia or whoever else fields such weapons.

Weapons proliferate. Other state may soon have similar capabilities as Russia (and China) are now fielding. They may also decide to develop cheaper and more asymmetric weapons like drones. The Houthi in Yemen used cheap drones and cruise missiles against high value targets which were defended by very expensive but not very capable U.S. air defense systems. The attacks showed that the balance of power in the Middle East has changed.

Martyanov sees the world at the beginning of a new era in which global power will be rearranged towards a multi-polar system. The foundation for that is the real revolution in military affairs that Russia and others created while the U.S. was still busy with telling itself that its power will only ever increase.

In his postscriptum Maryanov states that the U.S. is in reality a power in decline.

Andrei Martyanov's book provides indispensable knowledge for anyone who wants to understand the current geo-political developments.

The (Real) Revolution in Military Affairs is available as paperback and in electronic form. It has 193 pages plus 22 pages of endnotes.

 

Comments


So where’s the proof that Trump’s doing anything about the swamp other than filling it with his own breed of swamp creatures and noxious gases? I’m getting so fed up with all the naive posts from people who…blah, blah, blah

Posted by: KC | Sep 24 2019 13:49 utc | 95

Let me guess…
KC, not being naive, thinks that if Trump was Fair Dinkum he would have marched into the White House and started sacking/ indicting all the hi-profile pro-Fake War Of Terror psychopaths from Day 1?
If not then please share KC’s superior plan to Drain The Swamp with we politically naive folk – if it’s not too much trouble.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 24 2019 15:14 utc | 101

I disagree with the posters who say that a war with Iran is inevitable. It is not Trump’s cool headedness but Russia stepping on the yankee foot in Syria that has stopped the wars of aggression.

Posted by: arby | Sep 24 2019 15:30 utc | 102

arata @74–
I’m somewhat surprised by your comment since I follow Khamenei’s and Zarif’s Twitter daily, and such a proposal would surely be announced by Zarif. Might you have a link to Iran’s proposal? It would be good to compare it with Russia’s.

Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 24 2019 15:30 utc | 103

arby
There are three constants with Trump. Americas greatness, that includes the military. His hatred of socialism, and his hatred of Israel’s enemies.
What I saw in his UN speech, I have also seen in a few comments at the SST blog. He believes that his enemies of choice are corrupt and rule through fear. Ideology and religion are one and the same. Trumps hatred of his targets is a religious hatred.
Trump needs to cut China’s oil supply. China and Iran just signed a strategic oil deal…

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Sep 24 2019 15:47 utc | 104

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Sep 24 2019 15:09 utc | 101
Trump is going to keep pushing and squeezing Iran until the tail that wags the Christian Colonial dog collective (“Israel”) begs him to stop. How much more obvious does it have to get now that the French-slaves, the German-slaves and the sleazy Brit-slaves have all piled onto the Bomb bomb bomb, bomb-bomb Iran daydream?
Do the sleazy Swedes have to sign up too?
Trump hasn’t finished flushing all of the ratbags and ideological time-warps out of the woodwork yet – but he is making wonderful progress.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 24 2019 15:50 utc | 105

Hoarsewhisperer
I do not share your optimism, but it will be good if you are right. Seeing the euros crawl to Trump’s side earlier and now watching Trump’s UN speech, the future does not look good.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Sep 24 2019 15:57 utc | 106

@Jackrabbit

Any thoughts on the commentary here? Examples: after Putin?; “paralysed” as a strategy; quantum computing; etc.

I am not sure what do you mean by paralysed. But if you mean this:

Otherwise, US enters more countries under whatever pretext and method — and stays forever. Even in cheap — like using Kurds to control Iraq, Syria and Turkey borders — making sure no development , roads, bridges, pipelines are built. Just keep them paralyzed. In Europe, strategic Balkans have been paralyzed for two decades. Eastern Europe paralyzed with Russia-threat narrative that idiots are supposed to repeat daily. Ukraine has been paralyzed. Saudis are now in no position to refuse US “generosity”, and the chain reaction goes from there.

I really exist in reality-based community and have a good idea of actual military US capabilities and a dynamics of very visible and dramatic US decline across the board. US is out of resources and cannot fight even medium-intensity regional conflict without sustaining a defeat. In general, it is not a single discussion board post problem–that is why I write books. So far, I was correct. As always, there is a possibility that I could be very wrong but as my latest book states–US not just losing but lost a conventional arms race (I will abstain from going over nuclear one) and there is a s very good explanation to this. Not least through this document.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/07/26/2017-15860/assessing-and-strengthening-the-manufacturing-and-defense-industrial-base-and-supply-chain

Posted by: SmoothieX12 | Sep 24 2019 17:14 utc | 107

All discussions of US military decline need to be premised on what constitutes “victory” for a declining economic power. The US has relied on keeping the flow of oil under threat since the first Bush as a means to keep, for just one thing, other nations reluctant to drop the dollar as the main reserve currency. (Oil itself functions as a de facto reserve of value, so keeping the Middle East roiled serves the purpose of limiting that as well.) Constant war keeps the US a safe haven for capital, for just one other thing. The US does not have to “win” a war in the sense of actually conquering. See Afghanistan. As near as I can tell, this is a strategic asymmetry that people who babble about other asymmetries ignore. Those are real too, which is why the situation is destabilizing. But it took WWII for the current division of the world to emerge (altered by the collapse of the USSR.) It will take another world war for a new division of power to emerge. The would-be multipolar powers profess to want a world where they can peacefully resolve issues, but that’s not the way multipolar worlds work. They resolve issues with war.
National states with sovereignty to wage war are obsolete. This is why trying to go back to the late Victorian British Empire is so horribly reactionary.

Posted by: steven t johnson | Sep 24 2019 17:56 utc | 108

I do not share your optimism, but it will be good if you are right. Seeing the euros crawl to Trump’s side earlier and now watching Trump’s UN speech, the future does not look good.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Sep 24 2019 15:57 utc | 108

I wouldn’t blame anyone for feeling pensive about the future.
But there are potential silver linings. For example, the “Israelis” are hoping to sign a Mutual Defense Pact with President Agreement Shredder.
If Trump decides that the “Israelis” have repudiated the MDP by trying to provoke a war with Iran requiring AmeriKKKan intervention, then he can repudiate it too, and wish them Good Luck.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 24 2019 17:57 utc | 109

SmoothieX12 @110
Yeah, that’s what I meant by “paralyzed”.
Thanks for responding.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 24 2019 18:03 utc | 110

@111
I don’t know if this was addressed to me:

National states with sovereignty to wage war are obsolete.

But pardon my French, wow. It is especially fascinating to read against the background of most US intelligence and military assessments underscoring nation-state as the main geopolitical actor, with all that it entails. In general, it is difficult to come up with a rational response to this:

The US does not have to “win” a war in the sense of actually conquering. See Afghanistan

Winning the war means achieving political objectives of said war. The United States didn’t win a single war since Korea (it won one campaign against third rate Saddam army and over mighty Grenada) and already lost in Afghanistan. In fact, the only reason the US is still in Afghanistan and is ferrying some of the ISIS groups into it is to save face in a front of Taliban basically dictating conditions of the surrender, which will be a complete withdrawal with immediate collapse of Kabul’s utterly corrupt regime within a month and Taliban getting into power. That, going back to the nation-state waging a war, which IS the legend of massive Russo-Chinese-Indian-pakistani and others Center-2019 military maneuvers. Anyone in Russia knows that, in the end, it will be up to Russia and her forces (201st Military Base in Tajikistan, anyone) to defeat inevitable Taliban and other fanatic jihadists’ attempts to de-stabilize Middle Asia.

Posted by: SmoothieX12 | Sep 24 2019 18:15 utc | 111

There are two major reasons for wars. The first is for banksters to make huge profits from lending money (which didn’t previously exist) to both sides and put them in debt. The second is for the aggressor to gain access to another country’s assets which are usually raw materials. Russia has no reason to aggress at this point in history. It has shown incredible restraint from increasing its federal debt to GDP ratio, which is currently less that one fifth of the USA, and has actually decrease over a percent in the last two years. Second, its domestic raw material assets so exceeds its ability to exploit them at this point that it would be ridiculous to take on the expense of a war to acquire more. So Putin, fully aware of the Sabatai-Frank Death Cult’s intention to crush it through wars of aggression and a nuclear first strike, has focused its 1/10 of the USA military budget on defense. While one may regard these super weapons capable of physically destroying the West in less than one hour as offensive, their purpose is strictly to take the SFDC’s nuclear first strike agenda off the table. That is why Putin has advertised them as opposed to keeping them secret.

Posted by: el gallinazo | Sep 24 2019 18:19 utc | 112

SmoothieX12 @110–
Extrapolating on the overall meaning and underreporting of such documents is precisely what Izzy Stone and George Seldes did in their reporting, which made them anathema to the BigLie Media of their days. The obvious implication of that document/executive order is that the entire Neoliberal policy of offshoring US manufacturing debilitated US National Security and thus amounted to Treason–a point I made 27+ years ago during the 1992 POTUS campaign. Perot made it one of his cornerstone issues but it got little media coverage for what ought to be obvious reasons. And since that policy goes back to Reagan/Bush, what does that tell us since Bush as DCI effectively ran the Executive for 12 years?
As we now see, the Outlaw US Empire has fallen back on to the one remaining asset it wholly controls–its High-tech and computing industries–in an attempt to leapfrog its shortcomings by producing a new group of Vunder Veapons and thus regain its unilateral edge. But their timeline from idea to actual implementation is far too long to allow it to maintain its presence in Afghanistan and Syria, and most likely the entirety of Southwest Asia.

Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 24 2019 18:53 utc | 113

@105 karlof1 | Sep 24 2019 15:30 utc

Time line of proposal is like this:

Zarif : “Inclusive regional security” in his first visit to Iraq on  it was mentioned on tweet 11 March 2019, too.

Zarif: “Non-aggression Pact”, in his second visit to Iraq, it was mentioned on tweet too. 26 May 2019

Russia:  proposed ” Collective Security in Persian Gulf” in July.

There are hundreds references to the matter in Farsi, Arabic, Turkish and English

See here: “Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif suggested on May 26 signing a non- aggression pact with Persian Gulf littoral states during his three-day trip to Iraq. The suggested plan proves Iran to be right since security in the region would be achieved via cooperation of all regional countries and a desirable and stable regional discipline is obtainable without interference of foreign countries. The plan can become operational step by step in case of building confidence among regional countries.”

“In addition to Iranian Foreign Minister’s plan of ‘non-aggression pact’, Russia also outlined plan for ‘collective security in Persian Gulf’ and presented it to the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly on 30 July 2019. Russia’s concept of collective security in the Persian Gulf has been distributed as an official document approved by the United Nations.”

Supressed version were  mentioned on western MSM.

Posted by: arata | Sep 24 2019 19:04 utc | 114

Michael @34: “There will be multiple other costs such as cities without water, as in India, South Africa, and other places. ”
You are either an ignoramus, a moronic ideologue or a scheming bullshi**er.
The water shortages in South Africa are a direct result of the ineptitude, arrogance and corruption of the ANC government. During Apartheid South Africa developed the largest water supply scheme in the world at that time, diverting water from the highlands of Lesotho to the industrial cities in the north. The system would have ensured sufficient water for the next half-century. Lesotho Highlands Development Scheme consisted of 6 Phases. Back then, it was stated that it would only reach its full potential if all six stages were developed. However, Mandela stopped the programme shortly after coming to power, due to his arrogance, hatred of anything initiated by whites and shortsightedness. The result is that the northern cities have water shortages. Another reason is the open borders policy of the ANC. The idea is to flood the country with blacks so that whites become an insignificant minority, i.e. a purely political motive. The result of this reckless policy, which also hurts blacks, is to overload the water supply system, which was never significantly improved from the Apartheid era, when the Department of Water Affairs had a very good reputation worldwide. However, most government departments have now been gutted by affirmative action.
Therefore, the reason for the water shortage lies in the shortsighted, spiteful, arrogant and ignorant policies of the ANC, and the tremendous corruption that ensued under its rule.

Posted by: dingdong | Sep 24 2019 19:11 utc | 115

arata @118–
Thanks very much for your reply and link to relevant article. I can offer no excuses for having missed the tweets you cite, so I thankyou for your indulgence. Given the nature of Trump’s screed, both the Iranian and Russian proposals will be most welcomed by the great majority of UN members. Erdogan’s speech provided a good start. Qatar also spoke in favor of collective security and against all sanctions.

Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 24 2019 20:02 utc | 116

Who was it that said after the Iraq Invasion that it was the end of History. And that the US would now create History and you can study it but by the time your done we will create something else. Well guess that was total Bull Crap except in the real sense that for all practical purposes, the History of the US has ended and it did end with the Invasion of Iraq. Hard to imagine Bush the Chimp could destroy the Nation. But he and his buddies did.. Too much money in the pot, too much corruption and way way to many Capitalist Pigs stealing everyone’s money.

Posted by: Delta G Whiz | Sep 24 2019 20:49 utc | 117

With the collective security proposal at the UNGA for the Gulf, it becomes possible to at least imagine a day when the UNGA might begin to regulate incentives for global citizenship. Here the right to levy sanctions and raise or reduce tariffs might be based on certain indicators deemed by the UNGA to foster global comity. Funds would be levied through a tax on all foreign currency operations. Penalized under this system:
* unauthorized use of sanctions
* foreign military bases
* wars of aggression
* non-compliance with or failure to ratify international treaties (nuclear, chemical and biological warfare, climate, etc.)
* currency manipulations, including petrodollar and safe-haven machinations.
Along these lines, US goods and services would be subject to levies that might begin to create real economic disincentives to reckless international policy.

Posted by: Paul Damascene | Sep 24 2019 21:01 utc | 118

Paul Damascene @122–
If you heard any part of Trump’s speech, as well as those of previous presidents, the Outlaw US Empire will never abide any UN decision that reigns in its unilateral actions as it de facto no longer abides by the UN Charter or by the USA’s 1787 Constitution. Yes, that might change in the future, but today’s reality is what I just described.

Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 24 2019 21:35 utc | 119

Karlofi1 @ 123 —
I appreciate the perspective, and agree. Though I will add that though no single entity, including the UN, or ICC, has the power to compel the US to act or refrain from acting, I believe that an international entity could levy and collect tariffs on the international transfer of US products and services. The EU could not do so, nor could any trading block without exposing itself to countersanctions on its own trade. But the UN is not a trading entity, and has no products that the US could sanction. Of course, this would presume that such an entity could insulate itself from seizures of its bank accounts and sanctions against its personnel. In the former case, a mandatory source of UN funding other than “voluntary” payments by nation states — along the lines of the Tobin tax on international financial transactions would be required. And of course sanctioning UN personnel would in turn serve to increase tariffs on goods and services of US origin, beginning say with arms sales, etc.
Do I think it likely? No. Might there be a mechanism of international enforcement that can be protected from US economic power? I suspect there might, though better minds than mine might have to find it.
The search would only begin in, say, a multipolar world willing to cut the US out — a UN without the US, perhaps. Which might begin with moving UN headquarters out of New York until the US begins to act as a normal country. 😉
Will I live to see it? I should live so long.
Regards

Posted by: Paul Damascene | Sep 24 2019 21:59 utc | 120

@ peter AU 1
If Iran will fight, they will do it either when oil supplies are tight, during a recession, or close to the 2020 election. I view the ball as being in China’s court; if they break sanctions, then no war, if they don’t, there will be a war and $120 sustained oil. That, and their alleged dollar shortage and dollar debt payments due in 2020 and 2021, would probably result in the communist leadership being overthrown and executed.
I also do not understand why China has not said that they will buy a certain amount of US ag products in exchange for a 2M barrel/day Iran sanction waiver. Trump would of course decline, but it would be hard for him to explain saying no.

Posted by: Schmoe | Sep 24 2019 22:35 utc | 121

Paul Damascene @124–
Thanks for your reply! Those are worthy ideas. They might become possible once an alternative to SWIFT is in place and the tax is collected when monies are transferred. The same sort of action needs to be performed on the so-called tax havens, the aim being to make capital flight and tax avoidance impossible. It’s worth contemplating the question: How to kill the Outlaw US Empire without shooting it in the head. As alluded to above, it must first and foremost be cutoff from international financial flows and not allowed to transact any business with any other nation–totally contained and embargoed, with the aim of rousing its citizenry to eliminate the Current Oligarchy and its Neoliberalism, and then prove itself capable of acting like a normal nation. Yes, regime change impressed by the weight of the world.

Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 24 2019 22:36 utc | 122

Schmoe @125–
China continues to import Iranian oil, ignoring the illegal sanctions, which is why oil fell again today to @$62.50/bbl. Also, speeches made by national leaders at UNGA today all spoke highly of the need for and willingness to arrive at some form of collective security & peace plan for the Persian Gulf and entire Southwest Asian region.

Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 24 2019 22:44 utc | 123

FYI–FYI–FYI–
For those interested, Russia’s Valdai Discussion Club has announced its agenda for its 16th annual meeting from 30 September to 3 October. This year’s topic: “The Dawn of the East and the World Political Order.” As usual, Putin isn’t scheduled, but he usually attends and actively participates at least one day. Lavrov will likely be present all 4 days as usual, and is scheduled to speak during session 6 on the 2nd. As it follows the UNGA General Debate, there always seems to be a segue from one to the other in some manner.

Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 24 2019 23:05 utc | 124

The better deal. US demands… (link is to Pompeo’s speech)
https://www.state.gov/after-the-deal-a-new-iran-strategy/
First, Iran must declare to the IAEA a full account of the prior military dimensions of its nuclear program, and permanently and verifiably abandon such work in perpetuity.
Second, Iran must stop enrichment and never pursue plutonium reprocessing. This includes closing its heavy water reactor.
Third, Iran must also provide the IAEA with unqualified access to all sites throughout the entire country.
Iran must end its proliferation of ballistic missiles and halt further launching or development of nuclear-capable missile systems.
Iran must release all U.S. citizens, as well as citizens of our partners and allies, each of them detained on spurious charges.
Iran must end support to Middle East terrorist groups, including Lebanese Hizballah, Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Iran must respect the sovereignty of the Iraqi Government and permit the disarming, demobilization, and reintegration of Shia militias.
Iran must also end its military support for the Houthi militia and work towards a peaceful political settlement in Yemen.
Iran must withdraw all forces under Iranian command throughout the entirety of Syria.
Iran, too, must end support for the Taliban and other terrorists in Afghanistan and the region, and cease harboring senior al-Qaida leaders.
Iran, too, must end the IRG Qods Force’s support for terrorists and militant partners around the world.
And too, Iran must end its threatening behavior against its neighbors – many of whom are U.S. allies. This certainly includes its threats to destroy Israel, and its firing of missiles into Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. It also includes threats to international shipping and destructive – and destructive cyberattacks.
………..
Schmoe, my guess is the US will now try to use the snapback provisions in the nuke deal to reinstate the UNSC nuclear sanctions. If this occurs, it will put Russia and China in a very difficult position. He will use any and all means to squeeze and provoke Iran into a military reaction. My guess is Saudi Arabia is the live bait.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Sep 24 2019 23:06 utc | 125

I should also have quoted the paragragh after Pompeo’s list of demands.
“First, once this is achieved, we’re prepared to end the principal components of every one of our sanctions against the regime. We’re happy at that point to re-establish full diplomatic and commercial relationships with Iran. And we’re prepared to admit[i] Iran to have advanced technology. If Iran makes this fundamental strategic shift, we, too, are prepared to support the modernization and reintegration of the Iranian economy into the international economic system.”
The demands and that paragragh are Trump’s ‘better deal’

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Sep 24 2019 23:12 utc | 126

Posted by: steven t johnson | Sep 24 2019 15:14 utc | 102
You said many times that Russia having hypersonic weapons is BS without explaining in detail why. This isn’t serious, Russia is already fielding hypersonic weapons and the US military/intelligence community admits that.
US moving towards tactical nukes is precisely that – an admission of conventional military weakness. And that increasing weakness is a reality. The US military community admits that it is losing ground to Russia and China and soon will be unable to stop a chinese take over of Taiwan for example. This is the reason for the current US hysteria, such as leaving the INF treaty, threats to leave the START treaty, etc. They desperately need to free their hands in order to be able to handle the new threats.
Afghanistan? The US lost the war there, it proved to be incapable of stopping the Taliban advance and the Taliban gains new ground every month. The Taliban is cutting the country in half right now, most roads are blocked, electricity lines destroyed. The war is bleeding the US budget.
The Afghan government can not operate without US support, it does not even have money to pay the salaries for its soldiers and police. It will collapse the moment the US leaves.
>> Constant war keeps the US a safe haven for capital, for just one other thing
The US does not have the money for wars anymore, it is in very bad fiscal shape. No money for a surge in Afghanistan or war on Iran. According to current law, its military budget will drop to 2,5 % of GDP in several years, an all time low for the last 100 years. This is not to mention that massive budget cuts will have to start by 2025, huge cuts or massive new taxes will be needed to stabilise the exploding deficit.
>>But it took WWII for the current division of the world to emerge (altered by the collapse of the USSR.) It will take another world war for a new division of power to emerge. The would-be multipolar powers profess to want a world where they can peacefully resolve issues, but that’s not the way multipolar worlds work. They resolve issues with war.
First of all, an unipolar world means constant war as well, as the dominant power consantly tries to destabilise the rest of the world and keep it off balance so that it does not rise and challenge it. Wolfowitz Doctrine.
Second, no, it does not take a world war for a new power configuration to emerge. See the example of Turkey. As the US declines even further, more and more allies are going to leave it. These former allies will then reorient themselves towards Asia, both their economies and their militaries. Moreover, the US fiscal crisis will constrain the US military and force it to abandon various parts of the world – as i said above an all time low military budget (for the last 100 years) is coming.

Posted by: Passer by | Sep 24 2019 23:29 utc | 127

@Peter AU 1 #55
Present cryptography is using large, like 256 bit primes.
The decrypt needs to actually have some workshops and other data, so it seems more than 256 qubits are needed.
But the problem is still knowing what a valid result is.
Millions on monkeys banging on typewriters for a million years is less days space than 2exp300 or more.
Decrypting with such an enormous surface guarantees monkey outputs (I.e. perfectly legit looking messages that aren’t what was actually sent).
So you’ll pardon me if I don’t hold my breath about Huawei’s pronouncements.

Posted by: C1ue | Sep 24 2019 23:39 utc | 128

As other posters have eloquently put it, consensus isn’t science.
Even disregarding that the 20,000 “scientists” of the consensus, few are climate scientists or even scientists at all. Many are economists, TV show hosts, and what not.
The real world provides plenty of test opportunities, though.
For the last 25 years, the panic mongerers have been saying “catastrophe” next year, in 5 years, in 10 years. Their predictions keep failing.
Even in less catastrophic predictions like actual temperatures, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, climate deaths, droughts, etc etc, the doomsday predictions have been uniformly wrong.
Being so wrong is a skill. But it isn’t a skill which backs up the claims…

Posted by: C1ue | Sep 24 2019 23:47 utc | 129

Peter AU 1 @129 &130–
Iran will either ignore or issue this one word reply: No. IMO, TrumpCo are in no position to make any demands upon Iran. Still no schedule posted for tomorrows UNGA speakers. Did find out Lavrov will represent Russia.

Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 25 2019 0:07 utc | 130

Peter AU 1 @130: US will now try to use the snapback provisions
I think you’re right about this.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
Aside: I appreciate your contribution to MoA. I find my self looking for your comments.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 25 2019 0:08 utc | 131

C1ue
From theoretically possible to working nuke in four years. Hundred thousand people working on the project.
I mentioned in an earlier comment China’s huge investment in maths and science. By this I meant education. Take for example Russia, China and US. Hyperthetically they each have the same education system. Each will produce about the same percentages of physicists, mathematicians and so forth. China 1.4 billion people, US 330 million, Russia 145 million.
China would produce over four times as many qualified people as US. Soviet education system was very good, and I take Russia of today also a good education system. I take it China’s education system is not poor quality.
I think China will have very large, both in money and people, good quality resources to work on the problem of quantum computing coupled to it being a strategic goal.
This is why even with the obstacles you mention, I think China may come up with an operational computer earlier than expected.
China brought in leading experts from around the world to work on quantum communications, and I take it the same would be occuring with research into quantum computing.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Sep 25 2019 0:24 utc | 132

Jackrabbit
Thanks. I have noticed from your comments that we have been thinking alike for quite some time now as to which way the US is headed.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Sep 25 2019 0:39 utc | 133

67
Unfortunately I have to agree. 25 years of combat arms in the Man’s Army, with airborne knees, cracked vertabraes cervical and lumbar, etc, etc, and I can still kick the shit out of privates during combatives, and out ruck them in the field. WTF is wrong with the Federal Government that it doesn’t allow us to make men out of these fools? When I came on board you couldn’t be a fag, couldn’t smoke weed, and were more afraid of your DI than Godzilla. Now we have Marines wearing thongs (and not just the females, navy enlisted wearing makeup on duty (again, not just the females) and the Army has female personnel outside the wire. And let’s not get started on how nasty some of these military females are. The point is, without a determined, straight male military, all the drones in the world aren’t going to impress our enemies. Unless we send our fruits and tramps out to suck them into submission, it’s not going to work out well. The Rangers and airborne brigades aren’t going to be anything but cannon fodder without heavy infantry and armor to back them up. And today’s recruit isn’t likely to bust his ass in the PC environment we are stuck with. When the SHTF we can only hope that our allies stay bought, and don’t decide that dying for GloboHomo isn’t in the cards. If I was a 20 year old hard d*ck, I’d sure as hell think about the Legion or a commission with the Russkies. At least if it looked like the flag was going to drop. Deploying with a poofter or delusional female is not what I consider a survival strategy.

Posted by: Smedley | Sep 25 2019 0:54 utc | 134

I think it is less about us military capability and more about us military bureaucracy promises to win wars by sanitary precision bombing – at politically acceptable cost in us lives but great cost in dollars due to its limits. Degrades but does not occupy.
It’s why aggressors face a tough go against a determined people.
A frustrated and bankrupt monster facing the prospect of it’s own mortality is a dangerous creature. As they say: Failure is not an option. And yet it is the reality.
Too bad there are no heroes in this game of drones, the tender parts of the beast are well exposed.

Posted by: jared | Sep 25 2019 1:44 utc | 135

@126 karlof1 | Sep 24 2019 22:36 utc

How to kill the Outlaw US Empire without shooting it in the head

Do not worry the Caliph is warped in felt and is under felt rolling process, up to now there was no single drop of blood, the astronomer on the roof top is monitoring the sky, it is calm, there is no sign of resurrection, no Hiroshima.

Posted by: arata | Sep 25 2019 1:48 utc | 136

@ Peter AU 1 | Sep 24 2019 23:12 utc | 130
Very interesting quote.
As the grande speech by Macron re. inviting Russia back into the fold.
It seems to me the west is increasingly panicked at the realization that its ignorant violence has gone a long way to forge an imposing alliance among China/Russia/Iran which may snowball beyond what it merits is the west is increasingly exposed as unreliable heartless dishonest bully.

Posted by: jared | Sep 25 2019 1:54 utc | 137

Passer by@131 seems to believe nonsense about an exploding deficit preventing war. No, losing wars will ruin the currency, but government debt doesn’t end wars. Further, the US government could (and would) sequestrate all Chinese assets, including refusing to honor redeem bonds held by the Chinese government. Is that effectively a selective bankruptcy, a highly illegal and morally questionable thing? Sure, but that won’t stop them.
Lastly a unipolar world is a stable world, it’s just one in which something like the Congo war can go on year after year. As to Afghanistan, it doesn’t matter if the US doesn’t control the larger part of the country. If the US just defends airbases that can keep ravaging the country with bombs, there will be no pipeline through Afghanistan, no central government will stop the opium trade, nobody can make a deal with China for BRI, Pakistan will never be free to concentrate on India as their entanglement will never end in either peace or victory, there will always be a US military presence to the east of Iran, there will be avenues into the rest of central Asia that, etc. etc. Personally I’ve been thinking not only will Social Security be “reformed,” i.e., reneged upon, but there will be a national VAT before it’s over.
As to whether the world division can be resolved without a general war? Well, that’s a big question. But I guarantee you that talking about Turkey as an example is not a good sign.
Smedley#138 is an excellent example. Skipping over the foolish belief there were no gay soldiers in every previous war, Smedley boasts of having been in a losing army for 25 years but somehow he personally is a winner. If I am going to listen to a grunt, I’ll listen to a winning grunt. Women soldiers have done very well indeed, see the record for Soviet women or Viet Cong or many guerrilla movements. Men have the advantage for hand to hand and heavy lifting. The idea that modern war relies on either strikes me as more wishful thinking. One thing I’m pretty sure makes a good soldier is fire discipline. Judging from how Smedley shoots off his mouth, he was a piss poor soldier in that respect.

Posted by: steven t johnson | Sep 25 2019 2:48 utc | 138

Sorry, forgot that Russia’s fielding weapons that blow up Russians, as we were reminded a few days (or weeks?) ago. Weapons that blow up in field testing aren’t useful. I’m still skeptical of the claims about Patriot, so why should I simply accept the US military’s claims about Russian weapons? They’re not a reliable source.

Posted by: steven t johnson | Sep 25 2019 2:50 utc | 139

Posted by: steven t johnson | Sep 25 2019 2:48 utc | 142
>> Passer by@131 seems to believe nonsense about an exploding deficit preventing war. No, losing wars will ruin the currency, but government debt doesn’t end wars. Further, the US government could (and would) sequestrate all Chinese assets, including refusing to honor redeem bonds held by the Chinese government. Is that effectively a selective bankruptcy, a highly illegal and morally questionable thing? Sure, but that won’t stop them.
They do, under current law military spending is projected to drop to all time low for the last 100 years, in order to try to stem the rising deficits.
Yes, the deficits will prevent larger wars, what you see now is “hegemony on the cheap” – the US can not engage in large wars anymore and requires proxy wars, hybrid wars, constantly demands for someone else to pay, someone else to die, etc. “Hegemony on the cheap” is the beginning of the end of the actual hegemony, where the hegemon starts to cannibalise its own allies due to lack of available resources.
The US right now does not have another 6 trillion to pull for another Iraq type war, this may lead to dollar crisis and hyperinflation, when added to the rest of the deficits.
>>Further, the US government could (and would) sequestrate all Chinese assets, including refusing to honor redeem bonds held by the Chinese government.
They won’t do that because this will be the end of the US dollar. No one will invest in country’s bonds if hundreds of billions from them can be confiscated at a wim. Plus China can confiscate all US investments in the country too, and ban it from the world’s largest market (it is the world’s consumer largest market as of 2019). Companies such as AirBus will be very happy to hear that. As of now, the US and China are too entangled for anything like this to happen.
>> If the US just defends airbases that can keep ravaging the country with bombs
Apparently it can not ravage the country with bombs, Afghanistan is too big and complex terrain for this to happen. Taliban operates out in the open and the US does not have the capacity to monitor and bomb all areas at the same time.
As for US bases remaining there under siege, this is highly questionable, i do not think it will work. Current experience shows that US vacates bases in taliban controlled areas. See Korengal valley. It failed to work and it led to lots of US casualties and sustained non-stop taliban attacks.
>>As to whether the world division can be resolved without a general war? Well, that’s a big question. But I guarantee you that talking about Turkey as an example is not a good sign.
It is a pretty good example of how the emerging multipolarity works.
>>..Lastly a unipolar world is a stable world, it’s just one in which something like the Congo war can go on year after year.
Looking at the refugee flows generated by these wars, it does not look like that, it destabilised Europe pretty good.
>>Sorry, forgot that Russia’s fielding weapons that blow up Russians, as we were reminded a few days (or weeks?) ago.
That was not a hypersonic weapon as for as i’m aware. Anyway, you said that Russia having hypersonic weapons is BS. Let’s hear more in detail about that, as well as the sources, claiming that Russia does not have hypersonic weapons.

Posted by: Passer by | Sep 25 2019 5:17 utc | 140

Passer by
In agreement with most, apart from your take on a multipolar world. Much will depend on what US does in the near future. US if it keeps power intact will give your version of a multi-power world.
Both Russia and China have been through war and understand its costs. They want no more of it. But that also goes back to the weapons revolution which was nukes. For the thinking countries, that ended the times when hard power would prevail, that there could be a winner. US does not yet understand this.
In watching SCO, the countries that are coming together despite their differences, a multi-polar world under the SCO would be quite different than any system before it.
Re SCO. India and Pakistan will be a test. Not sure how that will go.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Sep 25 2019 5:45 utc | 141

Bonbong,
If I wanted to hear what bourgeois liberal tools had to say, I’d feed you Ex-Lax. Marx was right about their crimes against humanity and I frankly won’t mind taking every neoliberal still sucking air and throw them out of a helicopter. What you moralizing children play-acting on the backs of the working class need to recognize is GFY.

Posted by: Jonathan^-1 | Sep 25 2019 6:15 utc | 142


It’s certainly worse if one considers swamp creatures to be the revolving door corporate cunts that inhabit and capture various regulatory agencies including the SEC, EPA and DOE. But back to foreign policy, you seem to have a rather well-formed opinion of Trump’s means – please elaborate.
Posted by: KC | Sep 25 2019 5:08 utc | 145

My opinion of Trump is based on his tireless dynamism and innate ability to read and manipulate crowds and individuals. He never looks tired, miserable or out of his depth. I’m of similar vintage to Trump and I can’t fake those characteristics. When he’s wearing his International Diplomat hat he stacks up quite credibly with his peers in that domain.
He won me over when he acknowledged that Politicians had let working Americans down while feathering their own nests, mused upon the $6 Trillion wasted in ME wars, promised to Drain The Swamp and promised the beginning of the end of those scams “Right here, and right now.”
He’s defused the M-IC’s favourite fake threats, Russia and North Korea, and is pretending to toy with the “Israel” Lobby’s favourite fake threat, Iran. Trump knows that AmeriKKKa’s ME wars are wars for “Israel.” And imo, there’s no way that a REAL US Prez would forgive or forget Bibi striding into Congress as if he owned the place, and by-passing Obama, to tell His Congress Critters what to think – to numerous standing ovations. ‘Giving’ Jerusalem to the “Israelis” was an utterly meaningless and unlawful publicity stunt, and an IQ test which “Israel” failed spectacularly, paving the way for future similar IQ tests.
Trump hasn’t released the details or sequence of his plan but, having announced his intentions on Day 1 of his Presidency, I never expected it to be pleasant or predictable. I wouldn’t have blamed China for the fact that greedy AmeriKKKans exported the jobs of millions of Americans but it’s not my plan and Trump seems to know what he’s doing. Appointing Neocon psychos to his inner circle seemed risky to me but it’s a logical step toward figuring out The Swamp’s pecking order and it’s vital, imo, to get that 100% right before implementing the draining process.
I didn’t interpret your q-anon reference as provocative, I merely wanted to quibble with your perspective on Trump.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 25 2019 8:41 utc | 143

“And this is why US weapons have become increasingly obsolete yet a lot more expensive. Designed for expensive features, rather than robust operational functions.”
Yeah, like the cars that are coming off the production lines loaded with LED crap and computers that needlessly you what to do next but need to be programmed. And every consumer item such as a fridge, chock full of useless s–t features that also require programming, and BTW, constantly “upgraded” computer software that becomes ever less functional and more difficult to use for anyone except a computer nerd/geek. The weapons are also products of the geek play-with-yourself-all-day mentality.
It is all planned obsolescence.
Could it be that the money-spinning strategy of planned obsolescence is leading to genuine obsolescence?
Of weapons, of nations—even of brains?

Posted by: Really?? | Sep 25 2019 10:23 utc | 144

I have Andrei Martyanov’s new book on order. It should be here in the next few days and I am quite interested in reading it.
As a military historian\analyst myself, I have long known that the hype surrounding a revolution in military affairs in the United States has been just that, hype. We have known since the mid-1990s that US weapons development was subjugated to the whims of people who saw technologies as the answer to everything; new gizmos for soldiering, new ships for the Navy, modern planes for the Air Force and so on. The list is endless.
As to Russia’s military advancements in the past 20 years, though the technologies may be radically new, there is no true revolution in Russian military thinking. It is just that the Russian military personnel understood that to survive with a rogue United States stomping all over the planet they would have to develop the technology and weaponry to counter such an increasing threat. This is just common sense. And since the US likes to produce big targets it was also common sense in Russian military thinking to develop weaponry that could destroy them.
Prior to these Russian advancements much of Russian military thinking was still dealing with the post WWII military mindset, which more or less promoted quantity over quality, though even then Russian weapons development did quite a decent job of it even with all t he impediments of the Soviet state.
In terms of US military thought it has always been about two things; expansion and\or exploitation for money. Since 1898 the US has been doing just that to the entire world and its military thinking with the exception of individual contributions hasn’t really moved beyond the same thinking that won the conflict for the North in 1861 to 1865; production superiority. And massive corruption within the US military supplier industries has always been rampant. Today it is so bad that the US cannot develop a credible weapon system for any of its services.
Countering such trends in the United States can hardly be considered unique in the annals of military history considering that those who won their conflicts often understood the battlefield better than their opponents…

Posted by: Steve Naidamast | Sep 25 2019 18:43 utc | 145

@Peter AU 1 #135
Size and budgets matter for some issues, not for others.
Quantum – it is not clear that this is one of them.
After all, how much money, time and scientists have been thrown at fusion? Still not there after literally decades and tens of billions. Another example is string theory.
Secondly, useful quantum for cryptography is not a single problem. It is really a family of them:
1) How to create a stable quantum computer of sufficient size?
2) How do you program a quantum computer?
3) How do you know the program is working?
Each of these certainly has children problems of their own underneath.
Size and budget helps with 2) – that’s a math/programming issue, but inability to test is a serious hindrance when trying to separate failed ideas from successful ones. But, this problem could likely be solved if 1) and 3) were solved first.
1) is physics dependent and I’m not at all clear it is soluble.
3) is completely insoluble with anything known today. We’re talking the equivalent of quantum mechanics in 1700: no data, no test capability, no theory even – not going to happen without a series of really major breakthroughs.
So while it would be cool if this did occur, I am not holding my breath.
I posted this on another thread, but this is a very good writeup on the “quantum supremacy”.
It is exactly as I speculated earlier: a stunt that doesn’t actually do anything useful. It does show “potential”.

Posted by: c1ue | Sep 25 2019 19:04 utc | 146

c1ue
Thanks. A lot of problems to be overcome and breakthroughs that must be made.
From what I can make of it Russia and China, and I think the US see quantum computing as the next major strategic breakthrough to be made, similar to nuclear weapons. From what Putin has said, Russia is taking this approach quantum computing. Fusion and the research into it, I suspect, was not looked at as strategically important in terms of defence.
It will be interesting to see what develops.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Sep 25 2019 19:33 utc | 147

@Peter AU 1 #156
Merely having priority and throwing money and people at a problem does not mean there will be success.
Besides fusion, there are many other examples of failure, including defeating cancer, Star Wars, cyber security, etc.
Again, without big a strong technical path to success and a proven theoretical underpinning, there are no guarantees.
The Manhattan project, for example, already knew fission existed. They just didn’t know if it could be controlled.
That’s a vastly different problem than having g no way to even test theories.

Posted by: c1ue | Sep 26 2019 1:27 utc | 148

One of the weapons that seem the most relevant to today’s military chessboard
is nuclear powered robot-sumarine, or drone-submarine. It is NOT a nuclear torpedo.
This is the weapon which according to Putin — has no vulnerabilities. It is armed with
conventional or nuclear missiles.
Why is this important? Because the weapon addresses the forward force
projection that US must rely on.
It can stay in water indefinitely, stay in depths where they are safe, they are FASTER
then torpedoes or surface ships.
The reason why these are significant is AI that is built in to collect large amounts
of data about oceans and seas — the entire geography and other characteristics.
These are really a combination of drone (execute commands), probe (collect data)
and robot (self-repair). Given their size, it should be easy to manufacture large
quantities. And China has vast amounts of factory floors. Their ability to strike
submarines, surface ships and coastal objects makes them very difficult to
defend against. As much as the supersonic is the buzz lately, I see these underwater
drone-robots (drobots?) much more applicable to today’s warfare. As for air
operations — warplanes and missiles — would not their use be limited by air
defense capabilities? Especially piloted planes. Once nuclear powered cruise
missiles enter operation, the defense against them is slim — unless US develops
a real, multi layered defense system that can handle cruise missiles.
It really depends on what kind of war is being fought — and what for.

Posted by: Bianca | Sep 26 2019 7:05 utc | 149

Bianca “As for air operations — warplanes and missiles — would not their use be limited by air
defense capabilities?”
US has no defence from the current range of Russian missiles. The older generation were supersonic that could manoeuver somewhat during the terminal phase making them difficult to defend against.
The new generation are hypersonic and maneuvering, with no current or planned future defence systems capable of stopping them.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Sep 26 2019 8:18 utc | 150

@Bianca #150
There is an enormous difference between a drone and a robot.
Drones are remotely piloted, robots are supposed to be various degrees of autonomous.
I would be more than a little concerned if anything robotic was also nuclear-armed, even leaving aside Terminator references.
Secondly, you talk about mapping and what not. That’s been done for decades – nothing new there whatsoever. Even with maps, however, navigation is still non-trivial.
The primary benefit of the underwater drone combined with the nuclear engine is that the single largest limiting factor for regular subs is removed: people. No need to carry food and water. No worries about entertainment or alcoholism. Breathable air. Etc.
Even so, having large numbers of drones is more than somewhat pointless – because they all have to be controlled. The more there are, the easier it is to jam control links.
The technotopian rejoinder is autonomous. But autonomous is really proving to be very brittle so far. They’re hard to train, harder to test and impossible to upgrade incrementally.

Posted by: c1ue | Sep 27 2019 22:57 utc | 151

mr uncle John, your dreaming.
If The key to monetary system still exists it s because the East and asian powers want to do things methodically as not to overturn their present business! And that s to alternatively say, that when the world economies become 65 or 70 percent asian, the bad old dollar will be one of the waste basket disposables.
And to pretent that the US will one day produce weapons just for its own defense is dreamingly far fetched because never before in History has an empire managed to fix itself.

Posted by: augusto | Sep 29 2019 16:49 utc | 152

I look forward to reading this; as it more coherently explains in a modern context how to use a sword or a Warhammer and the limits of each….or the modern equivalent of: ” Don’t charge Panzers with Horse Cavalary.” (smiles) There is also the weakening of education to consider in the U.S. design stream; the last 30 years of coddled and comforted children who never had to face the concept of failure and the lessons it teaches; strive for excellence, much less the hobbling of minds by discouraging teaching the process of critical thinking makes for poor engineers- and weapons designers. Who will replace the “thinkers,” so to speak…..a whole generation of children has been ruined by this.
An SJW (social justice warrior) who behaves more like a spoiled child than a rational, reasoned, thinking adult (take a look at what Home Depot has had to do to get Millennials SJW’s to shop there- TEACH THEM BASIC USE of hand tools) is not likely to conceive of a “cutting edge” weapon system, much less operate one- they are too busy screaming about emotional bruising from Jewish introduced Identity Politics.

Posted by: Michele Baillie | Sep 30 2019 8:33 utc | 153

A Senator said the reason the US government hasn’t dealt with the fentanyl crisis is inertia. Not true. It is corruption. Selling opioids or constructing the USS Gerald Ford makes money for the connected. The Pentagon is a scam. Anyone who pointed out how vulnerable the Saudi oil supply is would have the revolving door slammed shut by vested interests. But the real problem is the true believers. If they start a war with Iran, it is all over. As Donald Trump indicates, the only American military response to the destruction of Saudi Arabia and possibly Israel by Iran’s and Shiite militias hundreds of thousand missiles and UAVs is the use of nuclear weapons.
Posted by: VietnamVet | Sep 23 2019 21:08 utc | 18
But what is the point of using nukes after Israel is destroyed? That just makes things worse for the US itself.
Before Israel goes down for the count it has its much publicized Samson Option, which is beginning to look very much like a rebranded Masada Option for modern times.

Posted by: Ben | Oct 7 2019 14:35 utc | 154