Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!ames!amdcad!military
From: prahrens@pttesac.UUCP (Peter Ahrens)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Learning in War
Summary: Wrong war, wrong enemy, and a question
Keywords: preparations, exocet
Message-ID: <27412@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Date: 22 Sep 89 06:52:51 GMT
References: <27375@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Sender: cdr@amdcad.AMD.COM
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, San Francisco, Ca.
Lines: 44
Approved: military@amdcad.amd.com



From: prahrens@pttesac.UUCP (Peter Ahrens)

In article <27375@amdcad.AMD.COM> cew@venera.isi.edu (Craig E. Ward) writes:
>
>It has often been said that armies do not reform until after they've been
>beaten.  This leads to a more interesting question: How can a military
>establishment unlearn the lessons of past victories?
>...[valid examples of the failure to adjust deleted]...
>What does this mean for the military establishments of today, not just for
>the US and NATO, but also for the SU and the Warsaw Pact?  Are they ready for
>the next war or the last?

If that war is between these two establishments, perhaps it would be both
next and last.

But it is clear (to me, at least) that the war each is preparing for,
against the other, is actually of very low probability.  Neither is
likely to be prepared for the war they will actually face.  The Soviets
currently appear to be facing something resembling civil war or uprising
(performance in Afghanistan or Georgia is not reassuring in this context).
The U.S. faces terrorist opponents, drug or jihad, who are not generally
impressed with conventional military power, particularly when it is
rendered impotent by domestic ethical, economic and political considerations.

An effective demonstration of a small, deadly rapid deployment force 
against "narco-terrorists" would go a lot farther than the threat to
shoot down civilian aircraft.  (If you are really going to "make war"
on somebody.)

An interesting recent example is the case of the British in the Falklands,
who were about to sell to the Australians one of their two carriers (Hermes,
I think) based on an analysis of their support role in a European conflict
against the Soviets.  Turned out they needed it pretty badly a little bit
farther south.  Convincing demonstration of the utility of Carrier Battle
Groups?

A question for the learned: anyone willing to compare the exocet hit
on HMS Sheffield in the Falklands versus the hit on the USS Stark
in the Persian Gulf, with respect to the design of the vessels?

-Peter Ahrens