friends,
for every gallon of fuel the allied forces in europe used in fighting the battle of the bulge, and later in carrying the fight into germany proper, four gallons of fuel were required to get it to the allied war machine.
think about that, for just a moment.
this simple factoid explains the nature of strategic warfare, and the reality of geo-political projection of military and diplomatic power, better than anything i can think of. and, i do not have a limited imagination.
this humble fact explains that while china and russia can bluff and bluster, they are not capable of projecting military power. oh, they have weapons.
but, they cannot use them beyond their borders, as the russian "invasion" of georgia so amply demonstrated. in wwii, the united states produced ships faster than we could satisfy the voracious appetites of the german u-boat wolf packs, and we produced trucks for the "red ball express" that would ship gasoline, supplies, ammunition, food and fuel all over western europe. in quantities sufficient to sustain offensive warfare.
students of military doctrine call this "logistics." i prefer simply to describe it as the reality of power.
"git thar fustest wif the mostest."
and with regard to this strategic precept, only one country in the world during world war ii had the ability to do that, and only one country in the world has the ability to do that now. the united states can literally ship armies ready to fight all over the world pretty quickly, and can have the marines there almost immediately, as we have demonstrated in asia and the middle east. the russians could not get matching uniforms to their "troops" in georgia, nor even hats for all of them. (study the pictures.)
think about it.
john jay @ 12.26.2011
p.s. don't even get me started on what a pimple on an elephant's butt, is iran. in terms of strategic power, they are yet a nullity. and, likely to remain that way, so long as israeli intelligence can detonate bombs almost anywhere they want in iran.
JJ, for an old barrister, you have a firm grasp on what strategic capability is; the basic tenets of winning a large-scale and sustained effort to wage war include not only supply production (paramount to this is national autonomy to facilitate sustainment of this) and transport capabilities, but just as important as getting all the appropriate parts, pieces, and personnel to the battles is the committment to finish the war once it has been initiated.
I don't mean to take issue with your current assessment of the current capacity of the US to sustain war-time production levels. However, this nation cannot do so without having to rely on in many cases unfriendly or potentially anti-US countries who would not hesitate to cut us restrict or end our access to critical elements necessary to produce, replace, or repair our fantastic tous. Think about it, much of our manufacturing capabilities of critical parts have been moved outside our country. Unless and until this nation recoups not only these exported manufacturing capabilities but just as critical in-country skills (from production line people through management) to make it a reality.
As it stands now, we nor any other country (friendly or unfriendly) have the capability to replicate the war making materiel of WW-II with all of the abilities to wage a protracted conventional world war.
Even if we did have this capacity, the lack of competent and skilled diplomatic representatives who are wise enough to steer clear of fighting a major war effort until hostilities are over or nearly so. Examples of this diplomatic incompetence was the Paris Peace talks and the still on-going negotiations on the Korean Penensula. Diplomacy is not and should not be a fair democratic process. It can only be effectively conducted from a position of power and not from a spirit of fairness.
But I commend you for your understanding between strategic and tactical war making and sustainment requirements. Your comments?
Rod
Posted by: Rod | December 28, 2011 at 09:48 PM
rod:
all of your observations regarding the limitations upon our productive capacity are clear, cogent & convincing.
added to those considerations, any objective appraisal of our current weapons/military/production capacity must acknowledge that a lot of our stuff is old and outmoded, and nearing the end of any reasonable service life.
having said and acknowledged that.--
we still have a lot of very useful assets, and a lot of assets which will remain useful in the short term.
and, if you compare what we do have and its service life as opposed to what our potential adversaries have, and we are not in too bad a shape.
for instance, the soviets/russians have one missile frigate with a flight deck that took them about 30 years to get into service, and which goes to sea every so now and again for about 40 days at a whack.
no carrier group to go along with it. no fleet for transport of oil, water and food. it could stand against a u.s. carrier task force for about the ten minutes it would take it to sink after engagement.
the chinese have the sister ship, bought from the georgians years ago when the rooskies couldn't make the payments on the promissory notes during construction. just launched.
no marine attack flotilla's, no littoral ships.
no air assets at all of a strategic nature.
but, your points are true. we are slipping. and, we do absolutely nothing to keep our capabilities in house, and we are loosing the scientific community and construction history and heritage slip down the ways to oblivion.
what a lot of people do understand about these things is that military and construction and logistic capability are as much art and heritage and family as they are science. as the rooskies and the chinese are discovering, just where do you find the marine architects who can design the ships, the design bureaus who simply do not copy and reiterate, and the welders and fabricators and shipwrights to build such stuff.
ours dies.
if you look at wwii, you will see that in its early stages the situations in most countries parallel ours today.
no productive capacity, and essentially outmoded and antiquated weaponry, even that recently manufactured.
i give you the grant & lee tanks, the little panzers of the wehrmacht firing 37mm guns, and the tanks which had hulls and turrets made from riveted steel.
a far cry from that which saw the end of wwii.
do i have to get into airplanes.
you make a good point. does the united states have the ability to start from that position again and to apply the production capacity to an all out war effort? do we have the production capacity.
i doubt it.
which is why our superiority in material goods and good equipment is so important, and so vitally important to maintain.
as you so very well know, and recognize.
john
Posted by: john jay | December 29, 2011 at 10:59 AM