[dhosek]

A college friend teaches at the Naval War College. Most of these "Pentagon planned for X" stories are breathless reporting on some scenario put together by a low-level officer as a training exercise. Often some component is something "hot" in the culture at the moment to make the training exercise more compelling for trainees. This is also why there was, for example, pentagon "plans" for a zombie apocalypse, etc.

[openasocket]

Was about to comment with the same, the military creates all sorts of plans for all sorts of scenarios, even completely implausible ones. In the 1930s for instance, the US had an actual war plan for an invasion of Canada (War Plan Crimson, as a part of War Plan Red which was a general war with the UK) and Mexico (War Plan Green)! These plans were made not because we really had any intention of invading Canada or Mexico, but because it gave our military planners something new to work on. And as a part of this they could come up with new ideas or theories that could be applied to more likely threats, and this planning is a good way to help train officers and sharpen minds for strategic thought

[korethr]

Additionally, I would rather they war game and plan for extremely implausible scenarios, than have them not bother because of course, those scenarios could never happen. ISTM that the things that could never possibly happen are the ones that bite you in the ass when they eventually do, because you were unprepared for that impossibility.

This applies to businesses too, not just the armed forces. Here in the US, I'd bet you many businesses, even those that have some measure of emergency disaster preparedness, had not made any plans around a plague disrupting their China-originated supply lines, much less that same plague hitting this continent. But some had. I can't find the link ATM, but a month or so ago, there was an article here on HN, about how a grocery chain in Texas had managed to keep their stores stocked and their supply chains running, in part because they had gamed out a pandemic scenario and made plans accordingly. Some businesses in my have area managed to become (more-fully) operational sooner than others as local COVID-related restrictions have been eased. And others are still completely shut down, even though they could start operating partially again under the current restrictions. Dollars to donuts, I'll bet the many of former had gamed out pandemic or similar scenarios, and planned accordingly, while many of the latter had not.

[kube-system]

This is what you're thinking of: https://www.texasmonthly.com/food/heb-prepared-coronavirus-p...

[korethr]

That is indeed it. Thank you.

[bgroat]

Or Wimbledon having paid pandemic insurance for over a decade

[dragonwriter]

> These plans were made not because we really had any intention of invading Canada or Mexico

To be fair, Americans and/or pro-US Texans and/or pro-US “filibusters” fought wars in and opposite one or another Mexican regime (sometimes alongside a competing Mexican regime, as in a war between the Mexican Republic and the Empire of Mexico) in the 1810s, 1820s, 1830s, 1840s, 1850s, 1860s, 1900s, and 1910s.

So, having military contingency plans for invading Mexico in the 1930s wasn't unreasonable, and not just as some kind of abstract exercise.

[openasocket]

That's true, a US-Mexican war in that era wasn't nearly as far-fetched as an invasion of Canada. A better example would have been War Plan Gold, which involved war with France

[saalweachter]

While it had been over a century since our last attempt to invade Canada by then, there has always been a certain flavor of American in love with the idea of continuing the doctrine of Manifest Destiny until the entire continent has been conquered.

(Those snooty Australians lording their continent over us, we'll show them.)

[khuey]

Given how much we spend on the Pentagon, they should probably have a war plan for just about everything.

[TrainedMonkey]

Is there any reason to believe similar plans and contingencies don't exist anymore?

[landryraccoon]

I hope there are even more of them now. It would be pretty cool to read about a contingency plan for an insurgency against a Klingon or Cylon occupation of the earth. That would be an interesting scenario.

Think about it, would it be better for the US military (not to mention the world) to spend it's money on training simulations to improve officer quality, or actual drones and bombs being used in actual wars? Scenario 1, IMHO, is much better for humanity.

[openasocket]

There are likely more now than there were in the 1930s. The US officer corps has expanded greatly since then, and computers and better information likely makes creating war plans much easier. Planning a campaign is much easier when you have a database containing a topographical map of the entire planet and the suspected arsenal and troop distributions of every nation, instead of having to dig deep through archives for the right atlas and hoping a military mapmaker has happened across that beach before. Fun fact: the Allied forces lacked military maps of the beaches of Northern France, so had to enlist civilians to send them copies of any vacation photos they happened to take there, and tried to re-assemble them to figure out which beaches they could land at.

EDIT: In terms of war plans the pentagon most likely has, there's the obvious war plans against North Korea, Russia, China, and Iran. I'd expect there to be several variations of each of those: like one for rebuffing a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, another for a naval conflict in the South China sea, the North Korean war plans probably have different variants depending on whether or not China supports North Korea, etc. Probably some for interventions in various world hot spots: Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Somalia, Venezuela, Yemen, Sudan, the DRC, maybe the Gaza strip. And those plans would likely also have several variations based on the scale, from a couple special forces operations and an airstrike to a few peacekeeping troops to a full invasion involving multiple carrier groups and multiple divisions. In terms of far-fetched ones, I'd expect at least one preparing involving the breakup of NATO, like two NATO members going to war. One case where it's a NATO member attacking the US, another where two other NATO states go to war and the US tries to negotiate a peace, and maybe one where it's an all out civil war where each NATO member picks a side. Invasion plans for any of the US allies where the relationship is complicated or strained: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Turkey off the top of my head. Oh, and invasion plans for anywhere that control major sea lanes: Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, Panama, Egypt

[WJW]

Every new generation of officers to come out of the military colleges writes a few new ones. Nobody is born being good at planning, you have to practice.

[boomboomsubban]

The Pentagon had a plan for the invasion of Iraq that was loosely followed. The State department did not however, leasing to the mess predicted by the Pentagon's plan. Additionally, limited information is available about several North Korea plans.

Canada and Mexico may still have some plans, but the US's primary strategy is just to ensure an anti-US regime can never get power. So more the CIA's area.

[traes]

No, in fact there is reason to believe there's more of them.

[ashtonkem]

The pentagon produces a lot of documents. It’s unsurprising that there are some silly ones in there.

[karatestomp]

Reminds me of a story that made it onto HN some months (years maybe? how time flies) back about an entrance exam prompt to some British university program requiring the candidate to craft a message defending some unsavory deed on the part of the UK government. That kind of "gaming" is super-common and very valuable in (for example) political science circles, so wasn't, per se, a bit weird or bad or even unusual, but was made to seem so for a headline.

[EDIT] specifically I think the prompt was something like "It's 10 years in the future, such-and-such party has control of government and can be assumed to hold policy positions basically the same as they do now. General world situation is X. The government has just violently put down mass protests over [something]. Craft a statement for the prime minister defending these actions as necessary for the preservation of the government and protection of general welfare." Which is a completely normal—if simple—sort of poli-sci exercise.

[arethuza]

It was about Eton, a private high school, and the "unsavory deed" shooting by the Army of protestors:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21628900

[iso1631]

That seems a very odd take from the paper

"So Eton appears to have asked young boys how to justify police brutality against the general public…"

This is for an entrance exam, Eton expects people to already be able to justify it before they even get to Eton.

[karatestomp]

Yeah, that's the one. Fake "controversy" playing on ignorance.

[NicolasGorden]

I though school entrance exams, particularly at the high school level, should be selecting for meritocratic principles such as competence and intelligence.

The reason it's controversial to some of us is that currently schools seem to be moving more and more toward selecting for obedience. This creates a feedback loop where the system selects for those that will not want to change it, but instead will play along.

It seems that when a system declares a purpose for an exam and then doesn't comply with that purpose, reasonable people would question it.

It also seems the feedback loops can be so intense the system selects those so willing and desirous to submit to authorities that they categorize anyone even questioning the system as 'ignorant' without any irony.

Unfortunately Chomsky is mostly ignored by people who would need to understand his point the most: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn2JZaUrMGM

[kbenson]

Being able to craft a statement justifying such an event, with all the mental gymnastics that might be involved if it's not a position you would support normally, is one step in recognizing those statements in real life.

If the student does support the action, accurately anticipating the objections of the other side and explaining why the action is justified in a way meant to mollify them is also useful.

Bottom line, being able to (or attempting to) write a PR document at that level requires a lot of understanding and thinking, and being willing to forego your initial prejudices to explore an idea as fully as possible. That's exactly what a good student does, so I can see why they thought this might be a useful exercise. I don't think a writing exercise causes "obedience" in any way.

Truthfully, I'm much more worried about what I see as the common trend of only viewing and reacting to the surface level of any event or topic, and immediately seeking others lend support and credence to that interpretation rather than trying to understand the motivations and purpose. That's always happened, but it seems to have become much more common.

[boomboomsubban]

>That's always happened, but it seems to have become much more common.

That seems like one of those things that has always been extremely common, but is difficult to see when reading history rather than news. People always justify their own thoughts and goals over trying to understand another point of view.

[blaser-waffle]

> Being able to craft a statement justifying such an event, with all the mental gymnastics that might be involved if it's not a position you would support normally, is one step in recognizing those statements in real life.

I did a Poli-Sci degree and this was a standard thing: write me an essay on a position. Cool, now write me a paper that is 100% against that position.

We had an instructor, a former US Navy officer, that required us to write an essay that was a 100% earnest defense of Al Qaeda's worldview. I ended up leaning heavily on "Jihad Vs McWorld" and "Clash of Civilizations", though I think the latter (Clash) isn't really valid or useful anymore.

> Bottom line, being able to (or attempting to) write a PR document at that level requires a lot of understanding and thinking, and being willing to forego your initial prejudices to explore an idea as fully as possible. That's exactly what a good student does, so I can see why they thought this might be a useful exercise. I don't think a writing exercise causes "obedience" in any way.

PR releases are as much about what you think about the issue, but also what you think that others will think about the issue. That does a good job of bringing out your prejudices, and challenges you to think about what their true goals are and why.

[NicolasGorden]

> writing exercise causes "obedience" in any way

100% agree with you. But you are contradicting a point I never made. So... good job taking down your own strawman argument. It ironically really drives home the rest of your post.

[karatestomp]

I'll continue to take the assumption that asking a (prospective) student to conduct an exercise involving a thought experiment implies support of the premises of the exercise on the part of those asking it, an expectation that the student supports them, or an attempt to shape the student to support them, as a sign of ignorance within at least the confines of what those sorts of questions are used and useful for.

That the position the student is asked to assume is a bit uncomfortable is very likely part of the point. Seeing what they make of it—the tone, the message, what they choose to add or leave out, how and whether they fill in the gaps in the prompt WRT the events, circumstances, the state of mind of the prime minister, the mood of the people, and so on, which are numerous, how and whether they balance all this with the particular limitations and goals of the message itself, or hell, whether they reject the prompt and walk out in a huff (bad) or do something else by ignoring all or part of the prompt and its explicit and implied constraints (potentially very good if done just right)—can all be useful, and in ways "craft a message about how awful this was and why it should never happen again" wouldn't be.

[NicolasGorden]

Oh, I see the value in ironmanning indefensible arguments.

There was a specific decision to choose a pro-authority question to use as an ironmanning example for an entrance exam. This seems in line with a current trend to select for obedience over competence. So it makes sense it raises eye brows. If there was no such trend, you'd have more of a point. BTW, I'm not saying it was 100% that, I don't know the specific case, just that it falls within certain patterns that people have every reason to be cautious towards.

The question could have been asked to ironman a racist, pedophile or abusive parent. The whole point of ironmanning is an exercise in reasoning, empathy and ability to see other's points even when wrong. So the less reasonable arguments exist, the more the exercise is being applied.

You can ask to ironman any argument, I'm not against that, it's actually something I practice. Just because I don't agree with this doesn't mean I'm ignorant or don't understand things. You assume much, which is ironic for someone talking about ignorance.

[op03]

People have been making the point long before Chomsky. Education for the masses is about training people to fit into domination based hierarchies[1]. In the past such systems produced better outcomes.

As info explodes and people learn there are other structures besides Hierarchies that can produce outcomes (such as Networks) the Hierarchies start teetering. And training for obedience becomes less important.

[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7TONauJGfc

[nradov]

Bill Deresiewicz made a similar point in his book Excellent Sheep. Students are rewarded for conforming and following the designated educational path. But is that really what we want?

https://billderesiewicz.com/books/excellent-sheep/

[mrep]

Apparently a joke briefing, but the air force put some slides together about naruto running around the time of the area 51 raid [0].

[0]: https://old.reddit.com/r/memes/comments/cfbgj1/actual_air_fo...

[morty_s]

My thoughts exactly. People do this sort of thing to spice up training that must done. This is done in other fields as well like software development, eg. “in this tutorial we will be building a game with space zombies where...”

On the other hand, games are never just games there’s always a point.

[082349872349872]

I'm waiting for the pentagon plan for "nazis from the dark side of the moon advise the president on reelection messaging."