Armageddon???? Epilogue Up

[Sea Skimmer]

Are you not forgetting the Boer war and then, even more so the Russo-Japan war of 04-05 where conditions were exactly like the western front 14-18?
[/quote]

Not that I totally agree with the original statement either, but what your saying is only partly true. While they had machine guns and barbed wire and artillery slaughting lots of men quickly, both of those wars saw predominantly mobile fighting, one side might occupy a static position but once a battle started they’d quickly get flanked or otherwise forced out of it. Japan beat the Russians every battle by flanking. Those wars also reinforced the notion that infantry could fight each other and even artillery and machine guns at very long range with rifle fire. Both wars did have sieges on relatively short frontages that most resembled WW1, but wars have had long grinding sieges for the last 4,000 years or so.

Port Author was a good warning on WW1, but it was also a purpose built fortress on classical lines, with a ring of forts and permanent intermediate works. In fact it was pretty easy to draw conclusions from those wars that a war in Europe would be mobile… and that’s exactly what everyone did. They just didn’t appreciate that with such huge armies you would literally not be able to find an enemy flank to turn at all.

Also neither the Boer War nor Russo-Japanese War saw mass mobilization on the home front and conversions of large portions of the economy to supporting the war effort like the US Civil War and WW1 would. This is no surprise because the Boers essentially had no economy, while Britain was totally overwhelming economic, and the R&J’s conflict was too short, but it is an important difference

[Edward Yee]

... what's the B-70 and Continental Air Defense?

By the way, chapter 85 is mentioned now at TV Tropes in the Heroic Sacrifice article.

[JN1]

... what's the B-70 and Continental Air Defense?

The B-70 bomber, capable of sustained Mach.3 flight at high altitude and the Continental Air Defence of the United States. Strange decided to get rid of all of the defensive SAM batteries and IIRC fighter strength was also significantly cut back.

[EdBecerra]

... what's the B-70 and Continental Air Defense?

The B-70 bomber, capable of sustained Mach.3 flight at high altitude and the Continental Air Defence of the United States. Strange decided to get rid of all of the defensive SAM batteries and IIRC fighter strength was also significantly cut back.

Basically, he cut back on a lot of things, made a lot of politically risky choices, then tried a combination of "I'm just a misunderstood patriot", "I vas only following orders", "It seemed like a good idea at that time!", and "They were HONEST mistakes!" defenses in his book.

An attempt to revise history after the fact? Or merely the truth, and he was in over his head politically? Or a guilty man who got caught and is trying to evade punishment?

*shrug*

History will have to make that call.

Ed.

[JN1]

Like Duncan Sandys, he probably genuinley thought he knew best.

[Stuart]

That does raise a legitimate point. How were they so profoundly ignorant of the state of affairs on Earth when they've been doing stuff like following the career of a US Secretary of Defense? For instance, if they've been watching him closely they should have picked up on the existence of things like nuclear ballistic missiles.

The way the system works is that when the deceased human arrived on the plateau of Minos , their character was judged and they were consigned to the appropriate circle. Note that teh various circles aren't punishments for various sins (that's Dante's Christian interpretation of the system), they're simply a demonic sense of irony at work, the torments of the various circles fit the characters of the occupants. So, the aimless and the vapid who never acheived anything or attempted anything go to the first circle while troops tend to end up in the fifth and sixth circles.

Robert McNamara was an anomaly but I just can't resist the temptation to consign him to the deepest circles of hell at every available opportunity

[Stuart]

Stewart, just a nit, but 3,000 divisions? All mechanized? Dude, it costs roughly three billion a year to run a mechanized division in peace time, I don't even want to know what it costs during wartime. You're basically saying that the world's defense spending is going to jump at least nine-fold just to account for Earth's army. Holy fuck, man, that's a lot. Something else that kinda bugs me. You have 125 corps, which means that each corp has 24 divisions. I doubt that a Corp level communications unit, even if it were brigade-sized, could deal with the information flood of 24 divisions during combat operations. Hell, I question if it could do it during peace time. 24 divisions is about as large a field army as the United States Army has ever assembled, to call that a Corp is a bit insane IMO.

Sorry, I screwed the pooch on the maths; somehow I inserted an extra command level. The actual numbers are five divisions to a corps, five corps to an Army, five Armies to an Army Group and five Army groups to the Expeditionary Army for a total of 625 divisions and 15.6 million troops.

The US Corps is four divisions (technically two armored and two mechanized infantry although there isn't much difference between them any more) and an armored cavalry regiment. Eventually, the US Army/Marines would be racking up to the size of a full Army Group (100 divisions and 25 armored cavalry regiments) but it'll take a long time getting there. The Chinese could probably hit an army group pretty soon.

Basically the Human Epeditionary Army would be

1 Army group that's US/British/Australian
1 Army Group that's Russian/Eastern European
1 Army Group that's Chinese
1 Army Group that's West European/South European/South American
1 Army Group that's mostly Indian with everybody else added in

[Stuart]

I missed the previous debates regarding this, but why would McNamara be placed there? From what I've been able to find on him it seems like he was an overglorified number cruncher in regards to military costs.

because he was a foul and despicable traitor who criplled the strategic power of the United States and exposed its citizens to attack. he cancelled the B-70 Valkyrie (after it had been approved by both House and Senate and ignored a 31 - 4 majority vote in the senate ordering him to procure the aircraft). He gutted the defense system of the US, eliminating missile defense and the next generation of advanced fighters, he destroyed the navy;s plans to build a nuclear carrier fleet, delaying that step by more than 20 years. he crippled military space operations, cancelling the MOLs and Dyna-Soar. If Dyna-Soar had gone ahead we would have had a reusable, manned space truck available in the late 1970s that is decades ahead of the Space Shuttle in design. He 'reformed" military procurement so that it takes teh US twice as long to geta military system into production and costs three times as much as anywhere else.

Want me to keep going? I warn you, this is a hobbyhorse of mine.

[Stuart Mackey]

Like Duncan Sandys, he probably genuinley thought he knew best.

That's another person who should be in the ice pit.

[Stuart]

... what's the B-70 and Continental Air Defense?

By the way, chapter 85 is mentioned now at TV Tropes in the Heroic Sacrifice article.

The B-70 Valkyrie was the next generation bomber that would have replaced the B-52.

Maximum speed around Mach 3.3 - 3.5, range around 8,000 miles, bombload up to 65,000 pounds. Operational altitude around 80,000 - 85,000 feet. To give you some idea, the SR-71 Blackbird is still pretty much invulnerable to air defense systems (except fighters) and the valkyrie would have been faster, more agiile, flew higher and could shoot back. The B-70 would have had an elaborate anti-missile system called DAMS that would have allowed it to shoot down surface-to-air missiles aimed at it.

Continental Air defense was the integrated air defense of the United States against air and missile attack. It comprised two parts, NORAD that operated the fighters and some long-range anti-aircraft missiles and ARADCOM that operated the rest of the anti-aircraft missiles and the anti-missile systems. By 1962, ARADCOM was routinely shooting down targets that simulated inbound ballistic missiles.

[JN1]

The UK should be able to field an army group fairly soon. If we add the regenerative divisions which were formally serving as district/command H.Qs that's an extra 3 divisions in additon to 1st, 3rd and 6th, which would be enough for two corps, although they would be smaller than the US equivalent.
I'd expect that further divisions and more Corps H.Qs would be formed in the not too distant future.

[Stuart Mackey]

Stewart, just a nit, but 3,000 divisions? All mechanized? Dude, it costs roughly three billion a year to run a mechanized division in peace time, I don't even want to know what it costs during wartime. You're basically saying that the world's defense spending is going to jump at least nine-fold just to account for Earth's army. Holy fuck, man, that's a lot. Something else that kinda bugs me. You have 125 corps, which means that each corp has 24 divisions. I doubt that a Corp level communications unit, even if it were brigade-sized, could deal with the information flood of 24 divisions during combat operations. Hell, I question if it could do it during peace time. 24 divisions is about as large a field army as the United States Army has ever assembled, to call that a Corp is a bit insane IMO.

Sorry, I screwed the pooch on the maths; somehow I inserted an extra command level. The actual numbers are five divisions to a corps, five corps to an Army, five Armies to an Army Group and five Army groups to the Expeditionary Army for a total of 625 divisions and 15.6 million troops.

The US Corps is four divisions (technically two armored and two mechanized infantry although there isn't much difference between them any more) and an armored cavalry regiment. Eventually, the US Army/Marines would be racking up to the size of a full Army Group (100 divisions and 25 armored cavalry regiments) but it'll take a long time getting there. The Chinese could probably hit an army group pretty soon.

Basically the Human Epeditionary Army would be

1 Army group that's US/British/Australian
1 Army Group that's Russian/Eastern European
1 Army Group that's Chinese
1 Army Group that's West European/South European/South American
1 Army Group that's mostly Indian with everybody else added in

New Zealand would be committing to at least one, probably two divisions and would operate along side the Australians (you could have an ANZAC army) and UK (and the US for the purposes of equipment theft), we wouldn't know how to operate along side 'everybody else' I dont think, totally dissimilar training, culture and doctrine.

[Stuart Mackey]

I missed the previous debates regarding this, but why would McNamara be placed there? From what I've been able to find on him it seems like he was an overglorified number cruncher in regards to military costs.

because he was a foul and despicable traitor who criplled the strategic power of the United States and exposed its citizens to attack. he cancelled the B-70 Valkyrie (after it had been approved by both House and Senate and ignored a 31 - 4 majority vote in the senate ordering him to procure the aircraft). He gutted the defense system of the US, eliminating missile defense and the next generation of advanced fighters, he destroyed the navy;s plans to build a nuclear carrier fleet, delaying that step by more than 20 years. he crippled military space operations, cancelling the MOLs and Dyna-Soar. If Dyna-Soar had gone ahead we would have had a reusable, manned space truck available in the late 1970s that is decades ahead of the Space Shuttle in design. He 'reformed" military procurement so that it takes teh US twice as long to geta military system into production and costs three times as much as anywhere else.

Want me to keep going? I warn you, this is a hobbyhorse of mine.

You know, my father has similar things to say about him, and he, like me, is a New Zealander..Strange's reputation is dirt everywhere it seems

[Shermpotter]

Yes, I would deeply like you to keep going. I am always eager to hear more about why anyone despises the man who nearly destroyed America. Everything I ever heard about this man is bad. Then I met you and it really, really began to piss me off. So yes, please expound. Hell, email me with it if you want to (you have it courtesy of Jan).

At the risk of sounding Ameriwank, I honestly think the world would be a far different place if that man had never walked the earth. But, hey, that's just my opinion....

[Guardsman Bass]

That does raise a legitimate point. How were they so profoundly ignorant of the state of affairs on Earth when they've been doing stuff like following the career of a US Secretary of Defense? For instance, if they've been watching him closely they should have picked up on the existence of things like nuclear ballistic missiles.

The way the system works is that when the deceased human arrived on the plateau of Minos , their character was judged and they were consigned to the appropriate circle. Note that teh various circles aren't punishments for various sins (that's Dante's Christian interpretation of the system), they're simply a demonic sense of irony at work, the torments of the various circles fit the characters of the occupants. So, the aimless and the vapid who never acheived anything or attempted anything go to the first circle while troops tend to end up in the fifth and sixth circles.

Robert McNamara was an anomaly but I just can't resist the temptation to consign him to the deepest circles of hell at every available opportunity

So what Kitten saw - the people wandering in a wasteland sitting around fires and picking through garbage - was the first circle of Hell? That doesn't sound too bad; you can't die from starvation anyways in Hell if you are one of the human dead (to the best of our knowledge), and at least you aren't being actively tortured.

[Darth Wong]

I missed the previous debates regarding this, but why would McNamara be placed there? From what I've been able to find on him it seems like he was an overglorified number cruncher in regards to military costs.

because he was a foul and despicable traitor who criplled the strategic power of the United States and exposed its citizens to attack. he cancelled the B-70 Valkyrie (after it had been approved by both House and Senate and ignored a 31 - 4 majority vote in the senate ordering him to procure the aircraft). He gutted the defense system of the US, eliminating missile defense and the next generation of advanced fighters, he destroyed the navy;s plans to build a nuclear carrier fleet, delaying that step by more than 20 years. he crippled military space operations, cancelling the MOLs and Dyna-Soar. If Dyna-Soar had gone ahead we would have had a reusable, manned space truck available in the late 1970s that is decades ahead of the Space Shuttle in design. He 'reformed" military procurement so that it takes teh US twice as long to geta military system into production and costs three times as much as anywhere else.

Want me to keep going? I warn you, this is a hobbyhorse of mine.

I would be more interested in what you thought he believed his own justifications were. Generally speaking, people believe there is a good reason for what they're doing, even if they know they are doing unsavoury things to reach that goal. Of course, the exception would be sociopaths for whom their only motivation is self-gratification, but his actions don't seem to fit that mould.

[Stuart]

I would be more interested in what you thought he believed his own justifications were. Generally speaking, people believe there is a good reason for what they're doing, even if they know they are doing unsavoury things to reach that goal. Of course, the exception would be sociopaths for whom their only motivation is self-gratification, but his actions don't seem to fit that mould.

McNamara was a perfect storm of problems. One particular category came from his own character shortcomings. he was egotistical to the point where he would not tolerate any dissenting voice in his presence. Everything within his environment was defined so that it gave him the answers he wanted and only the answers he had pre-defined. So, for example, if he wanted a report on a specific program, his request for that program would be so phrased that the resulting document would give him the answer he wanted. Any contrary viewpoint was rigidly excluded; if he was talking with somebody and he found himself in disagreement with said person, he would simply turn around and walk away. If that person was in a departmentf or which MacNamara had executive responsibility, that person would be fired.

Another problem was that McNamara had a grossly inflated idea of his own capabilities. He took it for granted that any idea he had was right, any opinion he held was correct and that anybody who thought otherwise was, at best, incompetent. he assumed he was a better car designer than car designers, a better marketing manager than marketers and a better manager than managers. This, remember, was the man responsible for the Edsel. he had a habit of making up his mind on an issue at a very eraly stage and then holding that position regardless. Any additional information had to be in accordance with thepreconception or it would be either ignored or changed to fall in with his opinion.

Finally, McNamara believed that everything could be solved by 'managing' an issue. That included technical problems as well as managerial ones. If a program didn't meet its targets, it was because it wasn't being properly managed and needed more management. So, programs under his rule became loaded with layer after layer of additional managers.

A diversion into strategy here. Under Eisenhower, the US strategy was containment. The idea was that because our economy was much healthier than the USSR, we could eventually outresource them. All we had to do was sit and wait. Eisenhower also believed that nobody was idiot enough to start a nuclear war and that meant the only way one would start was if people miscalculated. So, the objective was to reduce the scope for miscalculation. That meant thinking very carefully about things and indulging in no foreign adventures. Take things very easily and carefully said Ike, and we'll all live through this. So, Eisenhower saw a need to do two things; one was to reduce the cost of the US defense system as much as possible, the other was to eliminate the means by which a nuclear mistake could happen. Both meant gutting the US Army. Accordingly, Eisenhower gutted it. He turned the US Army into a nuclear tripwire that was so weak it could only fight with nuclear weapons. That meant no campaigns in foreign countries; after all if one doesn;t have a powerfula rmy, one is not tempted to use it.

In nuclear matters, Eisenhower's strategy was simple. First build up a massive nuclear striking arm that could devastate an enemy. that meant nobody could survive attacking us; even if we went down we would take them with us. The second phase was, once the massive striking force was established, build up a powerful defense which would keep pace with the enemy threat to that defense. Because we were slashing defense expenditure elsewhere, we could afford it. The idea was that the USSR would see us building up our nuclear striking force, they would try and respond. As their striking force increased, we would be increasing our defensive force to compensate for it while maintaining our striking force. The USSR would see the defensive screen forming, try to counter it and their economy would collapse under the strain. More or less what happened in the 1980s.

Of course the Army didn't like this at all and the Kennedies made the weakness of the US Army a key point in their 1960 election campaign. They also claimed a massive missile gap existed between the USSR and USA because they had concentrated on building missiles while we built obsolete bombers. Be it noted, that was completely untrue, there was a missile gap but it was ehavily in our favor AND KENNEDY KNEW IT. He also knew our bombers could go straight through the USSR air defenses with only minimal losses. Anyway, that's the defense grounds on which Kennedy fought the 1960 election.

As we all know he won. What people usually don't know is that McNamara wasn't his first choice as SecDef, in fact he was the third, the first two having turned the position down because they could not, in conscience, go along with the deception that had been practiced during the election. McNamara was the third choice and he accepted the post. He knew nothing about defense (he worked for Ford automobiles) but by teh time he finished opening the door of his office, he was an expert, in his opinion anyway.

His orders from Kennedy were simple. Rebuild the US Army intoa powerful fighting force and fit it for an active interventionary role. All teh talk about bearing any burden was part of that. McNamara had to rebuild teh Army and to do that he needed money and trained men, He got them by gutting Aradcom and using the resources and personnel to build a new Army. That was the army that went to Vienam and screwed up so badly. Not surprising, it was an army of conscripts led by anti-aircraft gunners. He needed more money the Kennedy's were pushing missiles, McNamara obeyed orders, pushed missiles instead of bombers because they were 'more modern' and 'less expensive'. In fact, in terms of cost per warhead delivered, bombers actually cost less than missiles but that's another matter.

In the need to free up more resources for the Army and to justify the shift to missiles, he capped the number of warheads we were to have procured. In this of course he missed the point completely but his justifications were after-the-fact. The need was to save money first (to continue running the big new Army) and all his justifications were intended to achieve that. So, the bomber re-equipment plan was scrapped and missile deployment limited. The massive strategic striking force lead we'b built up in teh 1950s was tossed away and teh defense force that was to have complemented in was still-born.

The only thing McNamara understood was management and his motto was "if some is good, more is better". So he managed more and more. And he assumed because he was RSM, he could manage anything better than anybody. He managed the war in Vietnam, the involvment, build-up, strategy, tactics, operational concepts, political initiatives, everything came from McNamara. We all know where that went.

A terrible, criminally incompetent man.

[Darth Wong]

Ah. So if I'm reading this correctly, he didn't really have a larger strategic concept in mind at all, but rather, he had specific milestones in mind, and he didn't know or care how those milestones were supposed to fit into any kind of larger strategy. It was all about being able to convince himself that he was a success, by reaching (or appearing to reach) those milestones, even if he did so in such a manner that he ended up sabotaging the larger strategy.

In short, it was primarily about self-gratification, which would imply that he might have actually had sociopathic tendencies after all. Does that sound right?

[Pelranius]

Great work. Sorry for the lack of comments, have been busy with College.

A pity McNamara didn't die when the Message came around. It's nice to see the traitors get their just desserts (I'm think of Hewjier and the rest).

As for the Traitor's Pit, what happens to people like spies for the Allies and such? Do they get thrown in as well?

[EdBecerra]

Ah. So if I'm reading this correctly, he didn't really have a larger strategic concept in mind at all, but rather, he had specific milestones in mind, and he didn't know or care how those milestones were supposed to fit into any kind of larger strategy. It was all about being able to convince himself that he was a success, by reaching (or appearing to reach) those milestones, even if he did so in such a manner that he ended up sabotaging the larger strategy.

Looking back, DW, that's how he defined Vietnam. While he wasn't the only one to try to use body counts as a measure of winning the war, he was the one who really pushed it in the public eye, repeatedly telling people that if the Viet Cong killed X many people, and we killed X+10 Viet Cong, we were in the lead, and we were winning. When called on it by some people, he flatly stated that there were a finite number of Viet Cong, and if nothing else, the Cong would eventually run out of live members, whereas America would never run out of soldiers - we were, after all, the richest nation in the world, we could afford to spend the Viet Cong into defeat, just as we spent Germany and Japan into defeat.

Somehow, we're always fighting the current war with the weapons of the previous one...

Ed.

[Junghalli]

Looking back, DW, that's how he defined Vietnam. While he wasn't the only one to try to use body counts as a measure of winning the war, he was the one who really pushed it in the public eye, repeatedly telling people that if the Viet Cong killed X many people, and we killed X+10 Viet Cong, we were in the lead, and we were winning. When called on it by some people, he flatly stated that there were a finite number of Viet Cong, and if nothing else, the Cong would eventually run out of live members, whereas America would never run out of soldiers - we were, after all, the richest nation in the world, we could afford to spend the Viet Cong into defeat, just as we spent Germany and Japan into defeat.

Technically I'd say that was true, but it would probably have required more-or-less the "no people, no problem" solution. Something that most Americans would have considered morally unacceptable, and I would say rightly so. To say nothing of the casualties, effort, and ruinous expense we'd have to expend in the process, and the way this would make us look to the rest of the world.

[EdBecerra]

Technically I'd say that was true, but it would probably have required more-or-less the "no people, no problem" solution. Something that most Americans would have considered morally unacceptable, and I would say rightly so. To say nothing of the casualties, effort, and ruinous expense we'd have to expend in the process, and the way this would make us look to the rest of the world.

That's sort of the point, Jung. McNamara did believe in the "no people there, no problem there" solution. As for morality, he didn't appear to see anything wrong with it, and like the other people coming from the corporate sector, the ones referred to as "the best and the brightest" back during the 60's, they had something of a mild contempt for the common man. They were the three-martini-lunches, business-suit, golf-in-the-afternoon executives who thought a government could be run like a business - for profit. They were the "whiz kids". The world was shiny and new, and they were certain they'd succeed where the previous generations had failed.

Camelot was theirs to build, they thought, and none would stand in the way of their techno-corporate utopias.

Forty years now... damn, where did the time slip away to?

Ed.

[K. A. Pital]

Well, an awesome end is near. Thanks Stuart and everyone who wrote this magnificent work into being!

I thought that the war would drag on and it would turn into a techno-soap-opera - thankfully it didn't, and there were many surprise plot turns along the way up to the very end, making the thing an enjoying read.

Armageddon deserves a movie, really. I thought the quality was lagging in mid-book - now I see that I was wrong.

P.S. If any help is needed on Russian history or anything for the Heaven war, especially relating to multitudes of dead Russians, of whom there should be plenty, I'm ready to answer questions As I noted, population dynamics suggest that dead XIX-XX century generations from around the world would comprise the most numerous faction of Hell's ever-growing population compared to all other eras of human existence.

[MKSheppard]

Of course the Army didn't like this at all and the Kennedies made the weakness of the US Army a key point in their 1960 election campaign.

Kennedy made it a campaign promise to revive the B-70 program after Eisenhower slowed it down/terminated it. We know where THAT ended up.

he cancelled the B-70 Valkyrie (after it had been approved by both House and Senate and ignored a 31 - 4 majority vote in the senate ordering him to procure the aircraft).

This is the first I've heard of the congressional orders. I do know that congress did approve and fund 90~ F-12B Blackbirds for NORAD, but strange refused to release the money using a budgetary legal trick.

That was the army that went to Vienam and screwed up so badly. Not surprising, it was an army of conscripts led by anti-aircraft gunners.

I wouldn't be so hard on the US Army in Vietnam. They had a shitty job, made more shitty by the insane politicking going on with the war -- we could have mopped up the VC easily early on if we had done exactly what Saint Curtis Advocated in Mission with LeMay in 1965; and then later in America is in Danger in 1968:

Sustained heavy aerial bombardment of the Hanoi and Haiphong areas, the mining of Haiphong harbor; and heavy attacks on the logistics system of North Vietnam to cripple their ability to field both an air defense system and military in North Vietnam and support a guerilla army at the same time in the South.

It's pretty much what Richard Nixon did in 1972 with Linebacker II. By the way, Nixon ordered the head of the JCS to execute LB II with these words:

“this is your chance to use military power effectively to win this war and if you don't I will consider you personally responsible.”

[Setzer]

I can almost hear Stuart's blood pressure rising...

So, putting it politely, McNamara was a worthless bastard whose every effort was devoted towards reinforcing his own delusions about himself?