for Clash Of The Armchair Generals5/9/2013 c1 
1Captain Kurt Hoffman
Hi there,
This piece is actually pretty well done, and dispels the rumors of Europe's ability to defeat us in open warfare with little to no difficulties.
Are you still active, per chance?
Regards,
The Captain
1Captain Kurt HoffmanHi there,
This piece is actually pretty well done, and dispels the rumors of Europe's ability to defeat us in open warfare with little to no difficulties.
Are you still active, per chance?
Regards,
The Captain
2/3/2006 c1 78WinterDeity
First of all, I vote for Admiral. It's way more thought out than James, and if it were a war, that would really be what counts. The only thing you both forgot was human nature. People aren't robots and won't act as one. As always there could be spies, traitors, anything really. I'm definitely not any military expert, so correct me if I'm wrong, but if just one person was able to contact the other side and report the next plan of attack, everything would get even more complicated. What each of you did was plan what would happen. Now you both assumed that what was going on in your essay was exactly what was going to happen, but in reality it all comes down to quick thinking. Still, I salute both of you for the effort.
78WinterDeityFirst of all, I vote for Admiral. It's way more thought out than James, and if it were a war, that would really be what counts. The only thing you both forgot was human nature. People aren't robots and won't act as one. As always there could be spies, traitors, anything really. I'm definitely not any military expert, so correct me if I'm wrong, but if just one person was able to contact the other side and report the next plan of attack, everything would get even more complicated. What each of you did was plan what would happen. Now you both assumed that what was going on in your essay was exactly what was going to happen, but in reality it all comes down to quick thinking. Still, I salute both of you for the effort.
1/23/2006 c1 54Andrew Joshua Talon
Well, since most people in the UK are not crazy liberals, and the UK are traditionally our best buds, I don't think this scenario is likely to occur. However, I am amazed at the ignorance of people in regards to our conventional combat power and our unconventional combat power. I.E., overrating our nukes while underestimating our TWELVE FRICKING aircraft carriers and our super-advanced combat aircraft.
54Andrew Joshua TalonWell, since most people in the UK are not crazy liberals, and the UK are traditionally our best buds, I don't think this scenario is likely to occur. However, I am amazed at the ignorance of people in regards to our conventional combat power and our unconventional combat power. I.E., overrating our nukes while underestimating our TWELVE FRICKING aircraft carriers and our super-advanced combat aircraft.
7/21/2005 c1 2chitoryu12
James, if you don't shut up right now and stop hounding us Republicans, I'm going to shove a Tomahawk missle up your craphole!
2chitoryu12James, if you don't shut up right now and stop hounding us Republicans, I'm going to shove a Tomahawk missle up your craphole!
6/13/2005 c1 6averroes
Interesting. While you have done a generally good job, here are some thoughts on other factors which ought to be considered:-always remember, if there are three options available to your opponent, there's a chance (a good one with a smart opponent) they will choose the fourth.-we live in the age of assymetric warfare, which ranges from irregular and guerrilla warfare to the using intelligence and planning to isolate the battlefield in such a way as to provide instant superiority (it doesn't matter that you have 10 times the forces of your opponent if your opponent can arrange to outnumber you on the actual battlefield at the time of battle.-as you say, the defender always has the advantage-the Spanish thought they had it all over the British once, and we all know how that turned out.
As you say, it's just a matter of conjecture, and it's not likely to be a matter of just dealing with the UK. And as a Canadian, I have contemplated, as an intellectual exercise, how a nation like the US, Canada, or any other major nation could be severely hurt (all could be, in ways that would leave the victim state looking more like 1943 Germany than post 9/11 America), and how to prevent it. In this day and age, even having a clearly defined battlefield is a dubious proposition.
Good show
6averroesInteresting. While you have done a generally good job, here are some thoughts on other factors which ought to be considered:-always remember, if there are three options available to your opponent, there's a chance (a good one with a smart opponent) they will choose the fourth.-we live in the age of assymetric warfare, which ranges from irregular and guerrilla warfare to the using intelligence and planning to isolate the battlefield in such a way as to provide instant superiority (it doesn't matter that you have 10 times the forces of your opponent if your opponent can arrange to outnumber you on the actual battlefield at the time of battle.-as you say, the defender always has the advantage-the Spanish thought they had it all over the British once, and we all know how that turned out.
As you say, it's just a matter of conjecture, and it's not likely to be a matter of just dealing with the UK. And as a Canadian, I have contemplated, as an intellectual exercise, how a nation like the US, Canada, or any other major nation could be severely hurt (all could be, in ways that would leave the victim state looking more like 1943 Germany than post 9/11 America), and how to prevent it. In this day and age, even having a clearly defined battlefield is a dubious proposition.
Good show
8/18/2004 c1 14biminator
i wonder, do you have many arguments like this with jago? It'd be fun to read a seroes of them. good job anyway.
14biminatori wonder, do you have many arguments like this with jago? It'd be fun to read a seroes of them. good job anyway.
2/11/2004 c1 7CommandoCody
I don't agree with some of the particulars you brought up and I find the overall notion-us being able to invade the UK-hard to swallow, but for public relations reasons; not military. The argument was entertaining to read nonetheless. The hell of it is there's an office in the Pentagon that spends all of its time coming up with guide-line scenarios for situations just like the one you described. You could probably make good money shelling this stuff out to them.
All in all, I’d say that this clash of armchairs was worth the read, especially about halfway through your rebuttal when you flipped up your foot rest and really began to wipe the wall with Jango, whose arsenal probably only consisted of a rudimentary cup-holder. Now, in the aftermath, maybe the inspectors will finally be able to determine the full extent of his sitting program.
7CommandoCodyI don't agree with some of the particulars you brought up and I find the overall notion-us being able to invade the UK-hard to swallow, but for public relations reasons; not military. The argument was entertaining to read nonetheless. The hell of it is there's an office in the Pentagon that spends all of its time coming up with guide-line scenarios for situations just like the one you described. You could probably make good money shelling this stuff out to them.
All in all, I’d say that this clash of armchairs was worth the read, especially about halfway through your rebuttal when you flipped up your foot rest and really began to wipe the wall with Jango, whose arsenal probably only consisted of a rudimentary cup-holder. Now, in the aftermath, maybe the inspectors will finally be able to determine the full extent of his sitting program.
12/12/2003 c1 danAlwyn
Hm...I'm not quite sure I agree with your entire analysis here (although I'm a bit late to the field). Although Britain is down to 16 subs, both the Trafalgars and the Vanguards seem to be bastards to find when they don't want to be found. And if they've done with their bases what Doenitz did with his, even heavy strategic bombing may not be able to disable them completely.
I'm also not sure about the ability of our bases overseas to withstand attack. Especially with both 1st Armored and the Big Red One off in Iraq, and likely to stay thereabouts for some time, our European forces are kind of thin. And reinforcements may not be timely. Of our twelve carriers, they can only seem to project power over two oceans completely at any one time. The Navy has been pointing this out vigorously for a long while, that they don't actually have the ability to launch a massive carrier operation anywhere without depleting their coverage. The political atmosphere surrounding an invasion of the UK would seem to render them unwilling to deploy all of them in shifts to British waters.
I guess what's really worrying me is that neither the US Navy nor the US Air Force has been giving serious consideration to swarm tactics inherent in modern missile technology. So far, we haven't gone toe to toe with a real industrial power since WWII, and even though we should have enough power projection to overcome in the end, it may be fairly easy for the British to slap together some easily mass-produced missile model. Or come up with a fast-produced model of one they already have. If the first invasion attempt, the spur of the moment one, ends up bloody (even the Air Force can't find all the missile batteries, even if they know where to look, as demonstrated in Gulf I), then the British may have time to improvise while everything else is coming together. The Egyptians managed to hand the Israelis a surprise with massed anti-tank missiles in 1973 (at least until the ammo gave out), so it would be interesting to see what an army with a large supply of home-made guided weapons could do to either air or sea forces (Especially given some of the problems with long-range usage of AH-64s in Iraq). That's new technology, so I have no idea if the British could pull it off, but thanks to the standardization of modern electronics, it might be possible. It'll all be up their Engineers, and the soldiers who would fire the damn things.
I think that the US would win if you could guarantee world neutrality (nothing like having to fight fires in two different places in the world at the same time), but I don't think that it would be as easy or as straightforward as you indicate.
Anyways, I must admit that I know basically nothing about military affairs, not at the professional level certainly, so I might just be blowing smoke. And I realize that the argument has long since moved on, but I thought I might as well add my two cents.
Feel free to shoot me down.
-dA
Hm...I'm not quite sure I agree with your entire analysis here (although I'm a bit late to the field). Although Britain is down to 16 subs, both the Trafalgars and the Vanguards seem to be bastards to find when they don't want to be found. And if they've done with their bases what Doenitz did with his, even heavy strategic bombing may not be able to disable them completely.
I'm also not sure about the ability of our bases overseas to withstand attack. Especially with both 1st Armored and the Big Red One off in Iraq, and likely to stay thereabouts for some time, our European forces are kind of thin. And reinforcements may not be timely. Of our twelve carriers, they can only seem to project power over two oceans completely at any one time. The Navy has been pointing this out vigorously for a long while, that they don't actually have the ability to launch a massive carrier operation anywhere without depleting their coverage. The political atmosphere surrounding an invasion of the UK would seem to render them unwilling to deploy all of them in shifts to British waters.
I guess what's really worrying me is that neither the US Navy nor the US Air Force has been giving serious consideration to swarm tactics inherent in modern missile technology. So far, we haven't gone toe to toe with a real industrial power since WWII, and even though we should have enough power projection to overcome in the end, it may be fairly easy for the British to slap together some easily mass-produced missile model. Or come up with a fast-produced model of one they already have. If the first invasion attempt, the spur of the moment one, ends up bloody (even the Air Force can't find all the missile batteries, even if they know where to look, as demonstrated in Gulf I), then the British may have time to improvise while everything else is coming together. The Egyptians managed to hand the Israelis a surprise with massed anti-tank missiles in 1973 (at least until the ammo gave out), so it would be interesting to see what an army with a large supply of home-made guided weapons could do to either air or sea forces (Especially given some of the problems with long-range usage of AH-64s in Iraq). That's new technology, so I have no idea if the British could pull it off, but thanks to the standardization of modern electronics, it might be possible. It'll all be up their Engineers, and the soldiers who would fire the damn things.
I think that the US would win if you could guarantee world neutrality (nothing like having to fight fires in two different places in the world at the same time), but I don't think that it would be as easy or as straightforward as you indicate.
Anyways, I must admit that I know basically nothing about military affairs, not at the professional level certainly, so I might just be blowing smoke. And I realize that the argument has long since moved on, but I thought I might as well add my two cents.
Feel free to shoot me down.
-dA
9/25/2003 c1 Steven Lawrence
Oh Jago, I hurt your feelings. I'm sorry. I don;t like idiots. Thats about it.
And Admiral, love to beon the NSC man. Jago and me have tried emailing-he does't like to respond.
-Steve
Oh Jago, I hurt your feelings. I'm sorry. I don;t like idiots. Thats about it.
And Admiral, love to beon the NSC man. Jago and me have tried emailing-he does't like to respond.
-Steve
9/25/2003 c1 Mbwun
Hmm? Herr Jago, what advice did I give you, exactly? Was this on a different essay? Hell, now I have to go check everything...
~He Who Walks On All Fours
Hmm? Herr Jago, what advice did I give you, exactly? Was this on a different essay? Hell, now I have to go check everything...
~He Who Walks On All Fours
9/25/2003 c1 Le Creature
Well, on Hawaii-you seem to be urging for a violent attack on a foreign power (an ally, at that.) I don't see why you should do that if we apparently do a better job of taking over countries when we decide to do so economically.
And on the point of asking about the reconnaisance and coordination of an attack, we still don't have Saddam, we still don't have Osama, and we didn't prevent 9/11. What exactly about our intelligence are you so sure of?
Well, on Hawaii-you seem to be urging for a violent attack on a foreign power (an ally, at that.) I don't see why you should do that if we apparently do a better job of taking over countries when we decide to do so economically.
And on the point of asking about the reconnaisance and coordination of an attack, we still don't have Saddam, we still don't have Osama, and we didn't prevent 9/11. What exactly about our intelligence are you so sure of?
9/25/2003 c1 Admiral
Nice try, James, but you don't get off that easily.
This will be "settled" once and for all when you acknowledge publicly that I'm a better armchair strategist than you. I want you to concede, election-loser style. You started this.
Steve's problem with you is between you and him. Why don't you send him an email and find out what the problem is? And Mbwun didn't give you any advice. He just reaffirmed what I said. hnmn DID give you the advice, but I think he meant for you to do it in a review, not in another email to me.
We don't have to overthrow the government to gain power in the U.S. I'll be old enough to run for President legitimately in February. I probably won't win the first time out, but if I ever do win I could just name the other guys to the National Security Council.
(Hmm...me as President...excellent! New essay idea! Thanks, James. You've just helped inflict more of me on your fellow leftists.)
And speaking of emails, if this is such a "waste of bytes" why do you continue to respond to my emails? If it's so damn boring you'd think you wouldn't keep giving me more ammunition, but you do. I'll get another two chapters out of the last couple of exchanges. Stop trying to prove me wrong and I'll stop posting and boring everybody!
And while I'm here:
Le Creature: Yes, removing the UK's strategic capability would require a well-coordinated attack and excellent reconnaisance. What's your point? Also, yes, we took Hawaii without firing a shot, but it WAS a kingdom and we DID take it. How was the statement invalid?
Nice try, James, but you don't get off that easily.
This will be "settled" once and for all when you acknowledge publicly that I'm a better armchair strategist than you. I want you to concede, election-loser style. You started this.
Steve's problem with you is between you and him. Why don't you send him an email and find out what the problem is? And Mbwun didn't give you any advice. He just reaffirmed what I said. hnmn DID give you the advice, but I think he meant for you to do it in a review, not in another email to me.
We don't have to overthrow the government to gain power in the U.S. I'll be old enough to run for President legitimately in February. I probably won't win the first time out, but if I ever do win I could just name the other guys to the National Security Council.
(Hmm...me as President...excellent! New essay idea! Thanks, James. You've just helped inflict more of me on your fellow leftists.)
And speaking of emails, if this is such a "waste of bytes" why do you continue to respond to my emails? If it's so damn boring you'd think you wouldn't keep giving me more ammunition, but you do. I'll get another two chapters out of the last couple of exchanges. Stop trying to prove me wrong and I'll stop posting and boring everybody!
And while I'm here:
Le Creature: Yes, removing the UK's strategic capability would require a well-coordinated attack and excellent reconnaisance. What's your point? Also, yes, we took Hawaii without firing a shot, but it WAS a kingdom and we DID take it. How was the statement invalid?
9/25/2003 c1 126lili brik
lol, the premise of this entire thing is so bizzare...i'd have to agree with the reviewer who questioned about taking out britain's nuclear capabilities...seriously. and i think that any point about the zulus is...erm...rather pointless? oh well. other than that, it was somewhat interesting in a not entirely bad way
however, i have to admit that i really laughed when you said that you have never been in the military. not, of course, that you've ever said otherwise falsely, and not that i thought for a minute that you might actually be a navy reservist. lol! so, you have this military fetish and you've never been in the military? ? you might have an understanding of military tactics, but i'm still convinced that you're insane. even if you're not insane, you get way too defensive (note: an armchair general is still not a general-and this whole debateis rather pointles)
126lili briklol, the premise of this entire thing is so bizzare...i'd have to agree with the reviewer who questioned about taking out britain's nuclear capabilities...seriously. and i think that any point about the zulus is...erm...rather pointless? oh well. other than that, it was somewhat interesting in a not entirely bad way
however, i have to admit that i really laughed when you said that you have never been in the military. not, of course, that you've ever said otherwise falsely, and not that i thought for a minute that you might actually be a navy reservist. lol! so, you have this military fetish and you've never been in the military? ? you might have an understanding of military tactics, but i'm still convinced that you're insane. even if you're not insane, you get way too defensive (note: an armchair general is still not a general-and this whole debateis rather pointles)
9/25/2003 c1 James Jago once more
Well, you're winning so far, but only about nine people have actually reviewed it- it's too early to claim victory as yet. Mbwun seems to have missed the point slightly (sound as his advice is, it's precisely what I was doing when I wrote the email in the first place) and Stephen Lawrence appears do have taken a strong personal dislike to me for no reason I can fathom.
I think the only way this argument will ever be conclusively settled is if you and your pals of FictionPress overthrow the government of the United States -I'll give you a helping hand by blowing up the White House, and with pleasure- and having a go at taking over the world. Let's either do that, or drop the whole subject as a waste of time and email bytes.
Well, you're winning so far, but only about nine people have actually reviewed it- it's too early to claim victory as yet. Mbwun seems to have missed the point slightly (sound as his advice is, it's precisely what I was doing when I wrote the email in the first place) and Stephen Lawrence appears do have taken a strong personal dislike to me for no reason I can fathom.
I think the only way this argument will ever be conclusively settled is if you and your pals of FictionPress overthrow the government of the United States -I'll give you a helping hand by blowing up the White House, and with pleasure- and having a go at taking over the world. Let's either do that, or drop the whole subject as a waste of time and email bytes.