“I admire your ethics. But right now, a little violence might help.” – Star Trek: Enterprise
Is an inconsistency in a Cheech and Chong movie a pothole?
War in 2021 has much the same objective as war throughout human history – make the enemy do something that they otherwise wouldn’t do. It’s never been pretty. In the end, though, the old adage that violence doesn’t solve anything is wrong – ultimately violence solves quite a few things, as Heinlein notes in Starship Troopers:
“. . . I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea — a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that `violence never settles anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms. . . .”
Our current military is ready to fight a war. It’s just that the war in question is World War II. Our armed forces absorbed the lessons of the Wehrmacht and now could totally defeat the Germans and the Japanese much more quickly than the first time. Even I got caught into that mindset when I displayed dismay that the bomber fleet of the United States was down to just over 100 bombers.
Okay, not that kind of bomber . . .
My mind was locked into old paradigms: 1,000 bomber raids. Those days are gone. There is no real reason to send slow, crewed planes on missions where a much faster missile can do the job. Big bomber raids are a thing that you only do against people who can’t shoot the bombers down which every significant near-peer enemy of the United States can.
And if you want to destroy a city? You use a nuke – if I had a nuke, I’d call it Dr. W. You know, W, M.D.?
Likewise, our aircraft carrier fleet is great when used against an enemy that can’t really fight back. Use them against Iraq? Sure. Use aircraft carriers against China?
Ummm, that’s probably silly, since if a carrier is within fighter range of China, it’s probably in Chinese missile range, too. American aircraft carriers are just targets preloaded with casualties.
Why am I writing about this today?
There are rumblings of war. Putin looking to take over part of Ukraine? China looking to take over Taiwan? An American senator talking about a first strike against Russia?
I know when I yawned in physics class it set off a chain reaction.
To the extent the United States isn’t involved in either of these conflicts, things probably remain nice and boring. If Putin wants the Donbas, I’m not sure that I care. I have no idea why he might want it, but it seems like a lot of Russians live there. I can certainly understand why he wants to keep the Crimean Peninsula, since that’s where he keeps his ships.
Again, I’m not sure that I care. At all.
Taiwan is a different situation. Its shore is as close as 81 miles to the Chinese mainland. For the people in Taiwan, this is unfortunate. From the standpoint of the United States – what, exactly would we do to help Taiwan if the Chinese invaded?
I don’t know.
I’m not sure that the United States could do anything. In report after report, the United States loses, and loses quickly when China attempts to take Taiwan every time we wargame the situation. Taiwan is 81 miles from China. Taiwan is 5,000 miles from Hawaii. To the extent that Taiwan isn’t prepared to defend itself, I’m pretty sure the United States has limited options in responding quickly.
I heard the Dalai Lama has a gambling problem. He loves Tibet.
Which brings us to the face of war in 2021. The Chinese have been thinking for a very long time about war with the United States. To be sure, I’m willing to bet some very, very smart people in the United States have been thinking about just the same thing, when they weren’t distracted by Afghanistan or Iraq.
This following is from the 1999 treatise “Unrestricted Warfare” by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. (LINK):
. . . if the attacking side secretly musters large amounts of capital without the enemy nation being aware of this at all and launches a sneak attack against its financial markets, then after causing a financial crisis, buries a computer virus and hacker detachment in the opponent’s computer system in 146 advance, while at the same time carrying out a network attack against the enemy so that the civilian electricity network, traffic dispatching network, financial transaction network, telephone communications network, and mass media network are completely paralyzed, this will cause the enemy nation to fall into social panic, street riots, and a political crisis. There is finally the forceful bearing down by the army, and military means are utilized in gradual stages until the enemy is forced to sign a dishonorable peace treaty. This admittedly does not attain to the domain spoken of by Sun Zi, wherein “the other army is subdued without fighting.”
The idea is simple – warfare encompasses absolutely every facet of the life of the enemy. Destabilize the government. Force their economy into chaos. Starve them. Own their communications systems. In other words, it’s just like a Biden presidency.
The hippies tried to get to Afghanistan – they heard that smoking weed there got you stoned to death.
None of this is really new – destruction of civilian cohesion is a tactic that’s been used again and again. At the end of World War I, the Allies kept a food blockade on Germany from 1914 until months after the November 1918 Armistice – the blockade lasted until July of 1919 to force Germany to sign the Treaty of Versailles. Over 100,000 German civilians died during the famine after the Armistice was signed.
The war envisioned by the Chinese (if it happens) won’t be the antiseptic thing that most civilians in the United States have dealt with since 9/11/2001. It will involve the systems around us failing. Imagine the utter loss of every modern convenience, including food being available and plentiful. Then imagine there is no information on when (or even if) the help is coming. Alone. No food. No power. In the dark.
That’s what unrestricted warfare looks like.
After going through Hurricane Ike (a small one, by destructiveness standards) it was enlightening to watch the systems go down. After four days, Home Despot® opened up, and was selling limited amounts. How limited? As I recall only 8 customers were allowed in the store at a time. Purchases were done, as I recall, with cash only. I went by to purchase a battery-operated fan, and was actually in and out fairly quickly – the Hurricane might have been a small one, virtually all services stopped.
Recovery was fairly quick because the damage was regional. All of the surrounding areas pitched in and within a week, most power was back on in the city. We had radio, so we were listening to the city come back to life in real-time.
I think when the astronauts saw this storm they said, “Houston, you have a problem.”
The interconnected, wired, and powered world has created an unparalleled ability to create wealth, to create comfort, and create convenience. But it has added a great degree of fragility. In 1919, if you had taken out the electricity to the United States, the result would have been inconvenient, but not fatal. Some water systems might have failed, and people would have had to switch back to candles. Abandoning the top floors of buildings that were inconvenient to reach except via elevator would be bad, but there would be no fundamental reason we couldn’t fix the systems: this failure would hurt, but not paralyze us.
Today, it creates a system where unrestricted warfare could result in a conflict that would be over in minutes, and end with a country so devastated that it might never be rebuilt.
So, have a happy Monday!
This post was inspired in part by email with a reader – I’ll let them bring it up if they so choose.