naraburns nihil supernum
1yr ago
(text post)
29410 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #1
This is a megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
Very low. A world war necessarily involves at least 2 of the following: NATO, Russia, China.
I can see a path where Iran does something stupid and is promptly destroyed by the United States. But that would be where it ends. Russia already has its hands full and China doesn't seem interested in this kind of foreign adventure.
I don't think the US can "promptly" destroy Iran without nukes. And nukes make a world war very likely.
The most likely reason for Iran not becoming directly involved is geography. They can't invade without traversing the entire peninsula, and it's not like Syria and Jordan are so friendly with them they'd allow it or participate. They could presumably launch missiles, but conventional missiles don't decide a war, and they obviously invite direct retaliation.
Why? The nuke mythology --- nuclear winter this, radiation that, Fallout, "glassing", end of civilization, etc. --- creates a level of fear and hesitation in excess of what the effects of the weapons warrant. (I recall reading something about the nuclear winter concept being essentially made up for leftist political reasons in the 1980s.) If someone were to use a nuke in anger, this mythology would collapse. We'd come to understand that a nuclear warhead is merely a bomb that makes a bigger boom than other bombs and view 70 years of anti-nuke agitation as ignorant hysteria. With the "nuclear taboo" aside, why would a nuclear strike (especially a counter-force tactical nuke) cause a world war when a destructive conventional strike wouldn't?
The nuclear taboo is NOT aside. And if a nuke in the Middle East swept the taboo aside, Russia is freed to use its nuclear arsenal in Ukraine and then perhaps elsewhere... which again, brings you a lot closer to WWIII.
They wouldn't be able to "destroy" Iran without nukes, but conventional attacks would probably be enough to destroy whatever military capability they have to project power beyond their own borders, and the political situation within their own borders is dicey enough that it's a wild card; i.e. a rally around the flag effect could help the government, or getting entangled in a foreign war to help terrorists could be another addition to the list of grievances for last year's protestors.
From the nuclear nations which one will be willing to risk it's own existence as retaliation for Iran? Pakistan or North Korea probably? Pakistan could be bribed with Iran territory. China could be bribed with Iran's oil. Israel will be happy. Russia will gladly shrug for lesser sanctions and smaller aid in Ukraine. UK and France - meh. India - doubt it.
North Korea - who knows, but probably extremely low. The regime there is preoccupied with its own survival. Not with geopolitics at large. They seem to be happy to turn into an island.
Anyway - I think this is time to reconsider the battleship as a ship - just a delivery vehicle for dumb artillery and lots of it. That is protected by the carrier group.
Russia would be most likely, especially if lesser sanctions and smaller aid in Ukraine weren't forthcoming. Which I expect would be the case for a US arrogant enough to nuke Iran. Russia might take that as license to nuke Kyiv, for instance. But it's not going to happen; unless Iran goes nuclear themselves (which would mean they've successfully concealed completion of a nuclear weapons program), the US isn't going to nuke them. Nor Israel, unless a general Middle East war against them has already started with their backing, which also seems unlikely.
As for battleships, you can't win a war promptly with conventional artillery either. Eventually you'll have to invade. If you just keep shelling, we'll find out if Iran can figure a way to sink a carrier group.
If you just keep shelling, we'll find out if Iran can figure a way to sink a carrier group.
And if I remember correctly, wargame scenarios from the early 2000's (when the Navy was arguably in better shape) showed this exact scenario going very very badly for the US. So much so that they had to redo the wargame from scratch with heavy restrictions of the Red Team general to save face.
That's what it was, the "Millennium Challenge." On further review, the range limitations in the exercise were definitely a factor, but it's still not inspiring.
(However, be careful in reading these. Another source claims that the motorcycle messengers thing didn't happen and I have no way to research whether it's true.)
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Very low. A world war necessarily involves at least 2 of the following: NATO, Russia, China.
I can see a path where Iran does something stupid and is promptly destroyed by the United States. But that would be where it ends. Russia already has its hands full and China doesn't seem interested in this kind of foreign adventure.
The situation in Ukraine was/is more dangerous.
I think the concern is that Iran gets involved, the US responds, but is a paper tiger of sorts causing China to take Taiwan.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think the US can "promptly" destroy Iran without nukes. And nukes make a world war very likely.
The most likely reason for Iran not becoming directly involved is geography. They can't invade without traversing the entire peninsula, and it's not like Syria and Jordan are so friendly with them they'd allow it or participate. They could presumably launch missiles, but conventional missiles don't decide a war, and they obviously invite direct retaliation.
Why? The nuke mythology --- nuclear winter this, radiation that, Fallout, "glassing", end of civilization, etc. --- creates a level of fear and hesitation in excess of what the effects of the weapons warrant. (I recall reading something about the nuclear winter concept being essentially made up for leftist political reasons in the 1980s.) If someone were to use a nuke in anger, this mythology would collapse. We'd come to understand that a nuclear warhead is merely a bomb that makes a bigger boom than other bombs and view 70 years of anti-nuke agitation as ignorant hysteria. With the "nuclear taboo" aside, why would a nuclear strike (especially a counter-force tactical nuke) cause a world war when a destructive conventional strike wouldn't?
The nuclear taboo is NOT aside. And if a nuke in the Middle East swept the taboo aside, Russia is freed to use its nuclear arsenal in Ukraine and then perhaps elsewhere... which again, brings you a lot closer to WWIII.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
They wouldn't be able to "destroy" Iran without nukes, but conventional attacks would probably be enough to destroy whatever military capability they have to project power beyond their own borders, and the political situation within their own borders is dicey enough that it's a wild card; i.e. a rally around the flag effect could help the government, or getting entangled in a foreign war to help terrorists could be another addition to the list of grievances for last year's protestors.
More options
Context Copy link
From the nuclear nations which one will be willing to risk it's own existence as retaliation for Iran? Pakistan or North Korea probably? Pakistan could be bribed with Iran territory. China could be bribed with Iran's oil. Israel will be happy. Russia will gladly shrug for lesser sanctions and smaller aid in Ukraine. UK and France - meh. India - doubt it.
North Korea - who knows, but probably extremely low. The regime there is preoccupied with its own survival. Not with geopolitics at large. They seem to be happy to turn into an island.
Anyway - I think this is time to reconsider the battleship as a ship - just a delivery vehicle for dumb artillery and lots of it. That is protected by the carrier group.
Russia would be most likely, especially if lesser sanctions and smaller aid in Ukraine weren't forthcoming. Which I expect would be the case for a US arrogant enough to nuke Iran. Russia might take that as license to nuke Kyiv, for instance. But it's not going to happen; unless Iran goes nuclear themselves (which would mean they've successfully concealed completion of a nuclear weapons program), the US isn't going to nuke them. Nor Israel, unless a general Middle East war against them has already started with their backing, which also seems unlikely.
As for battleships, you can't win a war promptly with conventional artillery either. Eventually you'll have to invade. If you just keep shelling, we'll find out if Iran can figure a way to sink a carrier group.
And if I remember correctly, wargame scenarios from the early 2000's (when the Navy was arguably in better shape) showed this exact scenario going very very badly for the US. So much so that they had to redo the wargame from scratch with heavy restrictions of the Red Team general to save face.
That's what it was, the "Millennium Challenge." On further review, the range limitations in the exercise were definitely a factor, but it's still not inspiring.
Millennium Challenge. See also the top answer from the defense consultant in this. Basically, Red "won" by using loopholes in the rules that failed to model reality.
(However, be careful in reading these. Another source claims that the motorcycle messengers thing didn't happen and I have no way to research whether it's true.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link