cyber attacks will continue to be a focal point but hacking is not a game-changer. we understand how to make secure networks, disable hacked credentials and devices.
on the other hand, cyber capacity to do sigint is going to play a much bigger role every decade, e.g. running chat bots that collect information about troop movements, verifying them with satellite and drone and wearable camera footage, detect internet traffic patterns, starlink locations. that sort of thing.
Kind of ironic, didn’t we win the first war against the British for a similar reason? Large global power with predictable tactics loses against the unorthodox tactics of the colonists.
Seems like Van Riper had a couple key advantages that the actual Iranians may not have.
He knew with absolute certainty that the Americans were attacking. That may be true in a real scenario, but it’s not a given in every scenario. If it’s not certain, the Iranian side is at a much bigger disadvantage.
He knew with absolute certainty what communications the Americans could intercept.
I oppose the US invading Iran with every fiber of my being, and I also would think that a country that is at least rationally but amorally planning an invasion should do so in anticipation of the worst case scenario, not the best, but Millennium Challenge represents something more like a worst case scenario than a median outcome. The American military would be wise to know that they could get their asses kicked in a worst case scenario, but we also know how they did in Iraq just one year later. Yes, they lost the insurgency, mainly because the ultimate objective was not actual conquest but to replace an evil but legitimate government with an illegitimate one and then leave, but the conventional military portion of the conflict was obviously “successful” (but evil).
And that all said, I think the scales have tilted towards defenders instead of attackers since the Iraq War II. Iraqi RPGs weren’t much of a threat to American tanks, but I think NLAWs and Javelins would be. It seems like anti-ship missiles have gotten better, and anti-aircraft capabilities have gotten better, while tanks, ships, and aircraft haven’t gotten that much better.
I feel like this works both ways too. On the defensive side, you can leave some unimportant or fake stuff vulnerable and make Russia think their hacking skills are elite and they can just keep doing what they’re doing. While hiding the fact that you know exactly how to protect against their tactics.
i think every war game exercise has shown at best a very spotty predictive value. i have yet to hear a report on a war game that is then backed up by actual events. that includes both the millennium challenge and whatever simulations the pentagon ran in advance of events in syria or libya or afghanistan or ukraine. there’s obviously more value and a bias in writing and reading a news story that describes a failure rather than confirm the preplanned us superiority on the battlefield. but nevertheless wargaming is literally there to continually improve your awareness and planning, not to predetermine policy, especially military policy.
the truth of every conflict is that advantage will tilt back and forth, and many war games don’t/can’t model accurately for that, especially where capturing some town by a side comes with a 50/50 probability.
So Ukraine seems to be attacking a key bridge between Crimea and Kherson with HIMARS. Sure seems like they’re trying to cut it off from supplies in anticipation of an offensive.