Defense in Depth - General James Mattis

[Doc Dutch]

National security isn't football where a single line defense can be easily utilized. The French found out the hard way that their single-line defense, the Maginot Line, cost them dearly in 1940. Germany did an end run around the Maginot Line and France fell in three weeks. The Germans marched into Paris unopposed.

General S. Patton once said "fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man" in reference to the fall of France.

A defense in depth is smarter since it provides better security. Better to have smaller lines of defense forcing an enemy to fight for every inch than to have one big line that can be breached leaving surrender as the only remaining option.

Star Wars fans have seen the "single line defense" AKA the Death Star result in defeat not once but twice.

General Mattis co-wrote the following article for Foreign Affairs magazine in support of defense in depth for US national security.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...e-depthDefense In Depth
Why U.S. Security Depends on Alliances—Now More Than Ever
The world is not getting safer, for the United States or for U.S. interests. Even before the coronavirus pandemic, the 2017 National Defense Strategy described an international environment of increased global disorder, long-term strategic competition, rapid dispersion of technologies, and eroding U.S. military advantages. Protecting the United States requires a strategy of defense in depth—that is, of identifying and dealing with global problems where they occur rather than waiting for threats to reach American shores....

...The best strategy for ensuring safety and prosperity is to buttress American military strength with enhanced civilian tools and a restored network of solid alliances—both necessary to achieving defense in depth. The pandemic should serve as a reminder of what grief ensues when we wait for problems to come to us.

[Cypress]

Yes indeed. NATO is the most successful political and military alliance in human history, and we need a president who will cultivate that relationship.


My favorite defensive fortifications in history are Hadrian's Wall, and the enormous walls and defensive fortifications of the Byzantine capital at Constantinople. For a fixed defensive strategy, those defensive structures protected the Byzantine emperors for almost a thousand years against repeated attacks by Muslims, Turks, and Ottomans, etc.

Maginot line was a joke. It was built for world war one.

[Doc Dutch]

Yes indeed. NATO is the most successful political and military alliance in human history, and we need a president who will cultivate that relationship.


My favorite defensive fortifications in history are Hadrian's Wall, and the enormous walls and defensive fortifications of the Byzantine capital at Constantinople. For a fixed defensive strategy, those defensive structures protected the Byzantine emperors for almost a thousand years against repeated attacks by Muslims, Turks, and Ottomans, etc.

Maginot line was a joke. It was built for world war one.

Agreed that walls worked through history and, to some extent, still work. That said, spending billions of taxpayer dollars building and maintaining a wall that can be easily nullified by illegal immigrants, terrorists and drug cartels is fucking stupid. In a border town? Yes. In the wide open desert? No. There are better and cheaper alternative.

Agreed 100% on NATO. A good thing Trump did was shake up the alliance to start acting like allies: they need to provide more money and more military support. OTOH, Trump went further than that and eroded our alliances in favor of hostile nations, primarily Russia.

[Cypress]

Agreed that walls worked through history and, to some extent, still work. That said, spending billions of taxpayer dollars building and maintaining a wall that can be easily nullified by illegal immigrants, terrorists and drug cartels is fucking stupid. In a border town? Yes. In the wide open desert? No. There are better and cheaper alternative.

Agreed 100% on NATO. A good thing Trump did was shake up the alliance to start acting like allies: they need to provide more money and more military support. OTOH, Trump went further than that and eroded our alliances in favor of hostile nations, primarily Russia.

Righty-O. A 2000 mile long massive wall on our southern border is a 12th century solution to a 21st century problem.

I am actually not sure how militarily effective Hadrian's wall was as a defensive fortification. The main thing it probably demostrated was that the Romans were terrified of the Picts.

A classic defensive in depth strategy was the battle of Kursk, where legions of Nazi tanks were allowed to advance, and then encircled and destroyed.

[Doc Dutch]

Righty-O. A 2000 mile long massive wall on our southern border is a 12th century solution to a 21st century problem.

I am actually not sure how militarily effective Hadrian's wall was as a defensive fortification. The main thing it probably demostrated was that the Romans were terrified of the Picts.

A classic defensive in depth strategy was the battle of Kursk, where legions of Nazi tanks were allowed to advance, and then encircled and destroyed.

Great analogy with "a 12th century solution to a 21st century problem".

It was effective when sufficiently manned by guards and scouts reported enemy movements but, as with Trump's wall, the cost outweighed the benefits. In the Roman's case, they took to using Anglo-Saxon mercenaries. In our case, a virtual wall around the entire USA, including Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico with only a few walls in border towns/cities is a better as walls go. A defense in depth with legislation on harboring, hiring or otherwise enticing illegal immigration would be the most effective strategy.

https://www.ancient.eu/Hadrians_Wall/
Archaeologists and historians have long debated whether Hadrian’s Wall was an effective military barrier…Whatever its military effectiveness, however, it was clearly a powerful symbol of Roman military might. The biographer of Hadrian remarks that the emperor built the wall to separate the Romans from the barbarians. In the same way, the Chinese emperors built the Great Wall to separate China from the barbarous steppe peoples to the north. In both cases, in addition to any military function, the physical barriers served in the eyes of their builders to reinforce the conceptual divide between civilized and noncivilized. They were part of the ideology of empire. (Ancient Civilizations, 313)