RAND: U.S. Forces Are Defeated by Russia and China Across Most Scenarios in World War III Simulations

[quote] Nonprofit global policy think tank RAND performs simulated war scenarios to test how the US would fare against other leading military superpowers

The simulations cover battle on land, at sea, in the air, space and cyberspace

Analysts warned last week that the US loses to Russia or China in most scenarios

However, they said it would take just $24billion annually to improve outcomes

That's about three percent of the $750billion defense budget proposed for 2020

'In our games, when we fight Russia and China, "blue" gets its ass handed to it,' researcher David Ochmanek explained at the Center for a New American Security on Thursday, Breaking Defense first reported. American forces are generally color-coded in blue in the simulations.

'We lose a lot of people. We lose a lot of equipment. We usually fail to achieve our objective of preventing aggression by the adversary,' Ochmanek added.

Though hypothetical, the simulated games warn that the world order America has fought to protect for more than a century could be at risk.

The simulated conflicts take place in all five domains of battle: land, sea, air, space and cyberspace.

Accord to RAND, 'red' aggressor forces frequently burn US military bases to the ground, sink warships and take out cyber systems.

Robert Work, a former deputy secretary of defense and experienced war-gamer, explained that America's F-35 fighter jet is the most advanced of its kind in the sky, but is vulnerable on the tarmac.

'In every case I know of, the F-35 rules the sky when it's in the sky,' Work said Thursday. 'But it gets killed on the ground in large numbers.' [/quote]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6797043/US-defeated-Russia-China-scenarios-World-War-III-simulations-analysts-warn.html

I've been advocating greater military preparedness and spending on SW for years!

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

SW-User

I'm very curious about what variables were used. Or what scenarios. I suspect that Russia would have a hell of a time keeping their aircraft and tanks in good repair and ready for combat. I also suspect our coordination is better. I fear the cyber.

And then there is an interest n the results -- we are talking about Rand after all.

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

And I have been saying for a long time that the US is not the world beater it claims to be, to be howled down by fools who dont understand how War works in spite of the fact that they won WW2 with the same rules. War is a numbers game. Its not about the individual contacts. Its who can keep coming.

Majorlatency · M

Agreed.... Plus we really need to rethink our current strategy of trying to police the world. Our military is spread too thin which introduces a logistics nightmare that is complex to manage..

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@Majorlatency

I agree.

We needed better airlift and sealift capacity.

And it's simply idiotic to retire the carrier [i]Truman[/i], as Trump is proposing.

QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M

There are always going to be inherent difficulties, because we'd be fighting Russia and China in Russia or China. They aren't coming here, and supply lines are a killer.

Not to mention the inherent MAD-nature of all of this. We'd be stupid to get into WW3, and so would everyone else. The whole scenario is silly.

We can still frustrate Chinese and Russian efforts anywhere in the world and have the far and away better military. We can't invade China or Russia and win. That's ok.

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

@QuixoticSoul But fighting China in the south China Sea or Russia in Central Europe is a logistical nightmare and one they would play for.

Add a comment...