The Wikipedia article doesn't really communicate what happened very well IMHO. This experiment was never designed to examine the combat capabilities of the US Navy. It was designed to test concepts related to a new concept called Net-centric warfare. It was a new concept to handle information and the sharing of information. In order to test this concept under different conditions, things had to be scripted so that those conditions would occur and the information dissemination concept could be examined. What this Van Riper did is similar to helping somebody practice football kick returns, but instead of helping, just repeatedly running regular offensive formations.
I'm not necessarily saying Riper was wrong, but I just wanted to point out that the motivation for the reset runs deeper than "the games were designed to let blue win".
I get Van Riper's point, but at the same time he was given an impossibly powerful position -- a military force with the sole objective of military victory without any underlying political objective.
If this were a real war, with an underlying political situation, and Red sank an Blue aircraft carrier and killed 20,000 sailors in a day in a preemptive strike, Blue would respond with rules of engagement that would redefine the term "atrocity". This wouldn't make for a useful military exercise, and I don't think anyone wants to see the US military practicing simulated genocide just to maintain realism.
>... he was given an impossibly powerful position -- a military force with the sole objective of military victory without any underlying political objective.
If we're going to spend resources the way that we do, our .mil ought to be able win against exactly such a case. In fact, I think the scenario could go worse for our .mil. Consider the case that we simply misjudge the political objective, which arguably could lead to more dire tactical mistakes. I've seen no reason to think that our .mil are immune from such a prospect. Nor do I think a prudent military planner would fail to consider it.
>If this were a real war, with an underlying political simulation, and Red sank an Blue aircraft carrier and killed 20,000 sailors in a day in a preemptive strike, Blue would respond with rules of engagement that would redefine the term "atrocity".
I keep hearing that argument about our military's capabilities, with specific respect paid to the technological capabilities. Yet, I observe results that suggest very strongly the notion that we have placed unwarranted faith in our ability to make effective use of tech. Unfortunately for us, such faith can serve no useful purpose and has no place in the mind of one making battle plans.
I think they were right to restart the war game, let them evolve their tactics; but, not to hobble Van Riper and turn the exercise into a quarter-billion dollar (false) confidence building exercise. You'd also have to think that troops are incredibly stupid if you expect them to fall for it.
The US military can destroy any other nations ability to make war. Our total losses in post invasion Iraq where minimal despite a fairly active insurgency. (We lost significantly more people in larger battles of past wars.) And that's about the limit of what it's possible to do with a military.
Now, clearly the military has significant limits, but at some point you need to decide it's time to use a different tool.
That seems to be moving the goal posts rather far. Men and material get lost in war. That said, carriers are valuable so it's important consider what are acceptable risks.
> I get Van Riper's point, but at the same time he was given an impossibly powerful position -- a military force with the sole objective of military victory without any underlying political objective
I think it would have been interesting to saddle Van Riper with political objectives, then restart the simulation. Saddling him with tactical handicaps only served to validate the status quo.
> If this were a real war, with an underlying political situation, and Red sank an Blue aircraft carrier and killed 20,000 sailors in a day in a preemptive strike, Blue would respond with rules of engagement that would redefine the term "atrocity".
Or the opposition party in Blue's home would have used this chance to take control, with the narrative that the former leaders acted foolishly and got our nose bloody. Getting the most for our defense allocated tax dollars is sacrificed for political gain. So too is the US geopolitical position gamed for the sake of politics and money.
Actually, that sounds like an excellent thing to drill into soldiers _not_ to do in response. I want soldiers who don't go all My Lai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre) in response to one setback.
I haven't read up on the whole story but I did not see anywhere that Blue was limited in their rules of engagement. In my point of view Red showed a severe weakness in Blue's supposed superior electronic warfare capability.
It would be interesting if during the 2003 Iraq war if Saddam had organised a retaliation instead of looting his own country. [1]
Causalities on both sides could have easily increased by a factor of 10. If the U.S. resorted to a full on genocide the situation would have escalated, possibly brining other nations (even westernised ones) into the mix. It wouldn't have been pretty.
If I am a self-obsessed evil dictator who is threatened with certain defeat, you think I am going to hold off on that master plan to take out a Blue carrier on the basis that Blue might nuke me?
There are too many if's. If you're threatened by certain defeat, I think your immediate concern is saving your own skin or avoid being back-stabbed. But this is a thought experiment. You could come up with a scenario where it's untrue, but that would only be a scenario.
Additionally, if you're faced with certain defeat, this means you've lost significant deterrence. If not, it would be more intelligent to exhibit your capabilities to negotiate a truce.
I was trying to illustrate a situation where the nuclear deterrent definitely doesn't apply.
I'll remove some conditions then.
In a war situation, Red will take out a Blue carrier regardless of Blue's nuclear deterrent because they are at war. The nuclear deterrent makes Red reluctant to get to the point of war. Once at war, Red will either surrender under the threat (and hence not be a threat), or call Blue's bluff.
Edit: Also, the position that "they wouldn't dare take out my carrier because of the atrocity I'd do to them in return" is not a sensible military strategy during war.
Of course nuclear deterrent doesn't apply in all cases and Red will definitely try to neutralize as many targets as they can and if they can sink all ships they will (that's what Japan tried to do in Pearl Harbor after all).
However, where I feel we disagree is that how Red does it is important as they don't want to allow Blue to gain allies or to give the possibility to Blue to react in a way that would otherwise been politically impossible (ie nuclear weapons).
While the nuclear capabilities may not deter the beginning of the war but if the political will is there to use that capability after such an attack, then it would possibly be a short war. So Red decides to strike and Blue returns with a nuke or three or dozen, exercise over. What's the point in that?
But you are right, history shows that a "deterrent" of any nature, not just related to war, is often not considered leading up to whatever it is supposed to deter.
I think it would be an interesting element in the simulation, that in order to actually beat Red, Blue would have to use nuclear weapons. It would show the limits of conventional warfare against asymmetric warfare, and as such be useful.
It would be good for the simulation to say that Blue should win without using nukes, and if using nukes, not damage the environment enough to make life hell for Blue and Blue's allies' populations.
Use of nuclear weapons against primary (i.e. military) targets that are isolated from civilian populations would not be an atrocity in this case. If e.g. Iran were to manage to sink a US aircraft carrier, I have no doubt that they would see the business end of some W80s, and justifiably so.
I find it difficult to believe the US government would be crazy enough to resort to first use of nuclear weapons in response to a legitimate use of conventional weapons. The legitimate purpose of a nuclear arsenal is retaliation in the event an enemy uses weapons of mass destruction, not playing sore loser in a conventional battle.
Well, in that case that's no different than assuming that neither side has nukes with the same result. But considering the origin of the Red force, it is fair to assume that they do not have nuke capability. If they did, it would likely be limited in nature.
I don't see the reason for this assumption, e.g. Russia has a nearly unlimited nuclear weapon arsenal but probably very limited options regarding "network-centric warfare" (at least as far as I know) - so, using the techniques the red forces used in this scenario to overwhelm the "network-centric" enemy sounds completely reasonable.
The exercise did not use Russia as a possible origin for the Red Force, it was an unknown adversary from the Middle East. Therefore, you could have different assumptions about the rules of engagement, responses, and enemy resources. From what I understand of the exercise, it was to simulate going to war with an adversary that would fight differently because of the lack of modern military resources and hardware. I wouldn't categorize Russia in that way.
In reality Blue would not do that because then they wouldn't have access to petroleum ever again. All the mideast oil would be burned. Mad Max, anyone?
Assuming a "like for like" attack I would assume that Blue would use a tactical nuke on a Red military base of roughly the same population as the number of casualties on the ships.
Only a lunatic would go straight to a city-busting attack with strategic weapons.
I am referring to Red's torpedoes, asymmetric attacks and possible multiple thermobaric strikes specifically targeted at the oil. Red doesn't have MAD, but Red does have a deterrent.
Basically, the low-tech commander "hacked" the wargame by using his forces effectively in unexpected ways. The USA invasion force cheated by bringing dead forces back to life (respawning?!) and forcing the enemy to do what they were "meant to".
I've read that many of the operations Red "performed" worked only by fiat. Motorcycle messengers delivered messages without fail and instantaneously, cruise missiles were mounted on boats which in real life would be arguably too small to support them, etc.
But the comment suggests that some of the vectors of attack were essentially impossible. One could dream up several possible ways to attack a superior force but that doesn't mean they would all actually work.
Well, if we're allowed to use methods that are essentially impossible; then in my fabricated arsenal for our simulation I have a weapon that destroys all resources of the opposing force and places all their personnel in a location of my choosing with the push of a big, red button.
After all, who cares if our simulation attempts to simulate realistic conditions?
Regardless of who controlled the simulation, if it aims to simulate reality then you simply cannot use unrealistic tactics as that destroys the purpose of the simulation. The blame belongs to the person who was in control of the simulation and didn't enforce basic rules established by reality. If we're not enforcing reality in this type of simulation then the outcome of said simulation is pointless and indicates nothing about military readiness nor doctrine.
Use of nuclear weapons would not be considered cheating in this case simply because they exist. The discussion about nuclear weapons was whether they would prove to be a deterrence or not, not whether they could be used.
And since you left out the second part of my fabricated weapon spec, I have to point out I wasn't speaking of nuclear weapons as they don't magically relocate the enemy personnel to a location of my choosing. But you knew that right?
I see no indication their radar was that low-tech. From what I read it seemed more a success of human intel and capability versus any technology. The thing is with planes, if you can see it then you can likely shoot it down.
I couldn't find a good article in English, the one I pasted was very poor on details. Here is a Google translation (sorry) of a Bulgarian website - http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&... . The plane was on their screen the whole time. That's their radar - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-18_radar , it has been in use since the '70s, the latest ones manufactured during 1984.
P.S. The translation says "you downloaded 'stealth'" in one place. Believe me, they mean "you took down 'stealth'". It's not one of those "you wouldn't download a stealth bomber" things.
P.P.S. What does the standard say, if I start using apostrophes in a paragraph because the quote contains double quotes in it, should I use apostrophes for all my quotes or could I just switch back to double quotes?
I've heard this story before and don't necessarily doubt it, but it does seem a bit romantic. Fits too easily in with everyone's favorite criticism of the military. Does anyone have a version not based on Riper's account?
Yea, this is the type of criticism I expect, but it's pretty useless so long as the source is "another reddit thread I read and can only partially remember".
What is real and what is simulated in war games such as this? It apparently cost US$250m, so you'd think some of it would be real but for example were real motorcycle messengers used to transmit messages to real front-line troops? Were ships actually moved? Were cruise missiles actually fired?
Great question. I've always been curious exactly how the mechanics of a "war game" work - the technical mechanics. How exactly is a cruise missile simulated, how do you determine whether a ship is sunk, etc. I wonder if the software systems the mil uses literally have a simulation mode?
Anyone with details on this - some info would be hugely appreciated!
Initially I was full of thoughts and comments to do with low tech and olde skool methods easily taking on big political, policing and military forces, etc. Often this comes to mind when I hear the authorities talking about terrorists using the internet and cell phones for communicating, and getting caught. What's wrong the the old dead drop, human courier, etc, I think. And MC02 is another great example. But I bet we all think that. So... boring!!!!
However, having read this, the comments here and particularly the article in exile.ru, Im wondering about the problem of the aircraft carrier. As I understand it, the point of these things is to plonk a use-able base near or in the theatre of operations. "Projecting power" is the phrase, I believe. Anyway, these operations, and other examples, talk about being 100 miles off shore, or something similar, and there for being vulnerable to small mass attacks, one of operations, or what ever. The conclusion seems to be that aircraft carriers are vulnerable sitting ducks, and there for useless. Further, carrier owners are some how wrong for wanting, using or advocating them. I disagree.
If one is going to engage in this sort of war, a base near where the war is to be fought is essential. The US (China, Russia, etc) cant do war in the middle east (or anywhere not close to the people doing war) with out some thing like a carrier, unless suddenly the locals get friendly and allow huge US bases on their land. Yes, deals were, are and will be done, but its not comprehensive or ideal. If it were, heh, why war? Oops, tangent...
Anyway, point being, the carrier is as vital as it is vulnerable. What needs to be sorted out is how you get them in place, then defend them. But IMHO, they are certainly not worthless, useless, or even slightly redundant. They are literally a part of the country that can be manoeuvred to different places. If you can't do that, you can easily do major war 1000's of miles away.
There's also been some criticism about Riper's claims, that the simulation was completely unrealistic. That said, it's not very constructive to use simulations to prove points about war strategy, because simulations are pretty much always rigged to let one side win.
Are there any RTS games which could be used to play out Red vs. Blue? Seems like Iran paid attention, and they've been developing doctrine and hardware based on Millenium Challenge. If I were the US, I would be developing weapons and tactics against Van Riper's. (Like stealth drones that can target motorcycle messengers.)
Malcolm Gladwell has a chapter on this in his book Blink. Really interesting read about how frequently instinctual, snap decisions (Red team) based off of limited information result in better results than overly analyzed decisions based off of loads and loads of information (Blue team).
I'm not necessarily saying Riper was wrong, but I just wanted to point out that the motivation for the reset runs deeper than "the games were designed to let blue win".