Talk:Millennium Challenge 2002/Archive 1

Minarets
Just because the commander of Red said he used the calls to prayer from minarets does not mean the opposing force could not have been Israel&mdash;there are Muslims in Israel.--SOCL 16:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No way, no how. I bet you do not even have a source for that one. You "think or you "heard" is nothing but OR, and should never be included. The Scythian 21:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Israel does have minarets but do they actually use them? I haven't been to Israel yet so I personally find it weird that the target nation would be Israel given the use of minarets in a predominantly Jewish society. Aside from that, should we also include this link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,786992,00.html) in the article? It depicts a clearer picture on the events of MC2002. (Psychoneko 08:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC))


 * Israel controls and occupies the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip, both of which are predominantly Muslim. In any event, the fact that Israel is mostly Jewish doesn't make it non-Muslim.  Minarets are located in the USA, yet the USA is predominantly Christian.  In any event, it's been cited time and again by various documentaries and even General Riper that the OpFor was Israel.--SOCL 00:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If the Opfor were really simulating Israel, then I'm not surprised the USA lost!;) Wikiphyte 12:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC) 72.227.229.229 06:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, then why would General Riper use suicide attacks against the US Expeditionary Fleet? Wouldn't that be against the whole point of Israel's development of survival-oriented vehicles?  (Psychoneko 09:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC))
 * I do not believe that's a question we can answer. General Riper did what any good commander of an OpFor would do: he used every, any, and all tactics and attacks available to him to gain a victory, or at least drive the main force crazy--it's the point of the OpFor.  What prevents Israel from using suicide attacks, especially against an enemy as large, well-armed, and well-prepared as the USA?  In any event, suicide attacks doesn't mean that the OpFor wasn't Israel.  General Riper stated that it was Israel--the matter rests.  I don't understand why this is continuing.--SOCL 15:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I saw the issue as still having a few kinks in it. I suppose we'll have to wait 25 years for official papers to be de-classified.(Psychoneko 09:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC))
 * What kinks? General Riper, the officer commanding the OpFor!, said it was Israel!  This was backed by the New York Times/Discovery Channel documentary A Perfect War.  I do not see any sources which claim that Israel was not the OpFor.  I have seen war games conducted with U.S. citizens as the OpFor using, get this, suicide bombings!  This has no bearing on what country they were from.  The simulation had them as U.S. citizens.  In that same sense, just because suicide bombers were used in this simulation of Israel as the OpFor has no bearing on anything else.--SOCL 13:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, then we'll just leave it at that then. (Psychoneko 04:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC))
 * Actually, if it were really the Israelis, then where did the Israeli Air Force disappear to? Not to mention the complete absence of Israel's prized missile boats of the Israeli Navy.  (Psychoneko 04:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC))
 * Whether or not opfor was Israel is immaterial. The likely opposition that we would face in the future would be an eastern state (and for 2002, either Iraq or Iran, now it is just Iran). Thus acting like an eastern style opponent would be desirable for a simulated eastern opponent. Suicide attacks are not beyond the realm of that. As a result I can see why van Riper was to say the least pissed off. All I can say is that I hope we learn the basic lesson of this, that a thinking opponent will not play to your strengths. I will also say this, it sure looks like van Riper got into his opponent's OODA loop. Good for him. Anyone know who the blue for commander was?
 * The remark was in jest. Israel is not located anywhere near the Persian Gulf. If you used acronyms like OODA in front of Van Riper he'll probably tell you to speak English! The people he wargamed against apparently were very fond of using acronyms. According to one of the links in the reference section of the article, the Bluefor commander was an Army Lieutenant General. Anyway the US would lose a war with Iran, and both sides know that. WikiphyteMk1 (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Van Ripper would know what OODA is: it is exactly what he used to "defeat" Blues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.29.71 (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of this seems to have been lifted from the rather awful book 'Blink' by Malcom Gladwell. - (HyperlogiK

Wargames were rigged
Autopsy of MC 2002 Van Riper: Exercise officials denied him the opportunity to use his own tactics and ideas

(he quit) to avoid presenting one of his Opposing Force subordinates with a moral dilemma. That subordinate was retired Army Col. George Utter, a full-time Joint Forces Command employee who, as the Opposing Force chief of staff, was responsible for taking Van Riper’s commands and making them happen in the simulation. But several days into the exercise, Van Riper realized his orders weren’t being followed.

“I was giving him directions on how I thought the OPFOR ought to perform, and those directions were being countermanded by the exercise director,” Van Riper said. The exercise director was Air Force Brig. Gen. Jim Smith, Utter’s real-life boss at Joint Forces Command. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.29.71 (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A Perfect War or The Perfect War ?
I'm having trouble finding the documentary on the net. Which is the correct title? --204.4.131.140 (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I found a news article (says "The") -- I added links to that article. 128.132.201.21 (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Dave Schwartz

Details on red's tactics and relation to Rumsfeld's decision
"Van Riper resolved to strike first and unconventionally using fast patrol boats and converted pleasure boats fitted with ship-to-ship missiles as well as first generation shore-launched anti-ship cruise missiles. He packed small boats and small propeller aircraft with explosives for one mass wave of suicide attacks against the Blue fleet. Last, the general shut down all radio traffic and sent commands by motorcycle messengers, beyond the reach of the code-breakers... At the appointed hour he sent hundreds of missiles screaming into the fleet, and dozens of kamikaze boats and planes plunging into the Navy ships in a simultaneous sneak attack that overwhelmed the Navy's much-vaunted defenses based on its Aegis cruisers and their radar controlled Gatling guns. "Rumsfeld's War Games military.com, April 26, 2006.91.39.81.110 (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Millennium Challenge 2002. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.military.com/opinion/0%2C15202%2C95496%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070104095322/http://www.oft.osd.mil/ to http://www.oft.osd.mil/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Counter-Claims against Ripper
Shouldn't this article reference some of the counter-claims against Ripper for his actions during Day 1? For instance, I've seen lots of internet claims that he disregarded rulings, materialized his boats into perfect firing position, used 19-foot, 5,000 pound missiles on 25-foot boats with only 5,200 lbs of displacement, teleporting magical motorbike couriers, and fabricated whole units into the exercise without ever notifying his superiors (thereby ruining the tests).

When viewed from that perspective, it's hard not to argue that the 'conspiracy' to manipulate the results actually came about because Ripper's commands were wasting a $250 million exercise for no good reason. 165.83.132.248 (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Sources, please? (Oh and "Internet claims" are not valid sources) --MaeseLeon (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Self-referential changes
Newbie here, not sure about protocol but was reading this article and noticed some suspicious phrasing. I looked further into the history and found that the change on 15-April-2014, 19:36, introduced a bunch of uncited unsubstantiated information in the "Pre-Exercise" section attempting to undermine Van Riper's claims. Another change (same edit) adds a quote/reference to a Mr. Guy Purser; note the author of this overall edit is one "purserg".

I would think that unless the changes to the Pre-Exercise section can be substantiated by proper sources, they should be removed.
 * I just noticed this too. And the [|changes] to the Exercise action section are even more suspicious. For example "At approximately the same times Red located Blue forces, operators of the Blue naval simulation were directed incorrectly to turn off all self defense capabilities by a senior Naval Officer who was not in command of the simulated forces nor current in the scenario." and "Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that destroyed sixteen warships while the JSAF simulator operators sat and watched without responding defensively or offensively." Those are pretty strong claims, and I haven't found any sources here or from a google search to back them up. I will revert Purserg's edits. Amaurea (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This article is told almost entirely from Van Riper's perspective and centres on a nonsensical conspiracy theory based around a frankly silly narrative of the wily unconventional maverick shocking the slow-witted establishment with his innovative tactics. If the USN was trying to hush up the initial result, why did they freely admit that the fleet was sunk and they were restarting the exercise? Why did they allow Van Riper to speak freely about his views rather than shut him up or issue a statement themselves?


 * According to the Blue Force Commander General William F. "Buck" Kernan:


 * "I'll tell you one of the things it taught us with a blinding flash of the obvious after the fact. But we had the battle fleet. And of course, it goes back to live versus simulation and what we were doing. There are very prescriptive lanes in which we are able to conduct sea training and amphibious operations, and those are very -- obviously, because of commercial shipping and a lot of other things, just like our air lanes. The ships that we used for the amphibious operations, we brought them in because they had to comply with those lanes. Didn't even think about it.


 * What it did was it immediately juxtaposed all the simulation icons over to where the live ships were. Now you've got basically, instead of being over the horizon like the Navy would normally fight, and at stand-off ranges that would enable their protective systems to be employed, now they're right sitting off the shore where you're looking at them. I mean, the models and simulation that we put together, it couldn't make a distinction. And we didn't either until all of a sudden, whoops, there they are. And that's about the time he attacked. You know?


 * Of course, the Navy was just bludgeoning me dearly because, of course, they would say, "We never fight this way." Fair enough. Okay. We didn't mean to do it. We didn't put you in harms way purposely. I mean, it just -- it happened. And it's unfortunate. So those are one of the things that we learned in modeling and simulation.


 * The simulation systems were designed for the services. Another one, for instance, is the defensive mechanisms, the self-defense systems that are on board all the ships. The JSAF [Joint Semi-Automated Forces] model, which was designed for conventional warfare out on the seas for the Navy, didn't allow for an environment much like we subjected it to, where you had commercial air, commercial shipping, friendly and everything else. And guess what was happening as soon as we turned it on? All the defensive systems were, you know, were attacking the commercial systems and everything else. Well, that wouldn't happen. So we had to shut that piece of it off."


 * TL:DR: Because the USN wanted to practice amphibious landing within the allotted time period for the massive exercise, the only possible place to do so was right on the shoreline in a tiny strip. However, because of a modelling error, the computer thought the ships had been teleported feet away from a massive armada of small boats and civilian planes that IRL could not have supported the weight alone (never mind the guidance and support systems) of the missiles they were firing point blank range into this fleet (the computer modelled the weapons as 5,700-pound, 19-foot P-15 Termit anti-ship missiles which were somehow being fired from from 25-foot, 5,200-lb displacement fibreglass speedboats, which Van Riper used because they were being ignored for purposes of the exercise, which is not done in real life). On top of that, the simulator that ran the ship's defences wasn't functioning properly due to the fact that the engagement was happening in the wrong area so it was turned off. Whoops. Oh, and the Blue Force had no idea this had happened until after the fact.


 * That section of the testing was scrapped for the very simple reason that the results were unusable. Bones Jones (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Quote can be found here. Bones Jones (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, Bones Jones, please note that rense.com does not meet Wikipedia's standards of reliable sources. As it stands, it appears that this is a fringe theory with no legitimate sources. Please refrain from further edits on the page until such time as you can participate in a more constructive manner that meets Wikipedia's content standards. Khalfani  Khaldun  03:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Focusing on the site where it's located rather than the content? Ok, here's the same quote at defense.gov. "As it stands," it appears you didn't bother to check the legitimacy of this claim at all before removing the NPOV tag, and you are the one being disruptive here by refusing to discuss why the tag was there in the first place. You want to stop with the personal attacks now? Bones Jones (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Bones Jones, I'm sorry you feel I've personally attacked you, but I have not done that. Accusing users of personal attacks is not something that should be taken lightly; please do not make such claims, and always assume good faith on the part of other users.
 * As for the neutrality of the article: quality of sources is very important to Wikipedia, and it is the responsibility of the party making a claim to provide a legitimate source to backup their arguments that are made on talk pages such as these. Prior to the defense.gov source you just provided, your claims had no reliable sources and even still remain based on original research, possibly a synthesis of published material (though I still don't see material which fully asserts your claims), which still leads me to believe you're trying to use this article to support a fringe theory. Please also note that it is the responsibility of the user making an NPOV claim on an article to support such claims in the talk page and point "to specific issues which are actionable within the content policies." (See: WP:NPOVD.) At this point, rather than continuing to add the template back into the article, might I suggest that you edit the article with reliable sources in such a way that you feel it is more neutral? If you are unsure of whether your edits would meet the general guidelines of Wikipedia, I would be happy to help you with it on this or your talk page. Khalfani  Khaldun  20:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Spare me the condescension and lies, you tell me you're not personally attacking me then come right back and attack my motives for adding an NPOV tag to the page in the very next paragraph. By now it is perfectly obvious that I do have proof that not all points of view are being represented in the article, and it seems to me it is you who has a vested interest in protecting the narrative currently present in the article by removing the statement that a particular perspective has been omitted. In fact, at present you're both insisting on removal of the NPOV tag and participating in the dispute that tag indicates exists. Here's an idea, how about rather than potholing thirty useless links to WP policies, you actually ask me what my argument is? Stoneman85 (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh no, did I not make it obvious enough this is my other account? I figured directly continuing a conversation would be a bit of a clue, but maybe that was a bit much to ask if someone who wants to simultaneously deny there's an NPOV dispute and participate in it. :D Stoneman85 (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV Template
I have removed the NPOV templated added here as there has been no discussion as what actually constitutes an NPOV violation and the edit summary simply says "practically a conspiracy page" which is neither helpful or true. It has been removed by 3 others users before now. Murchison-Eye (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Unjustified, given that I have stated what the problem is and cited a source regarding the missing POV (ie, that of the BLUEFOR commander regarding flaws in the exercise). Also, you are the one trying to change the page's content, and so the state the page should remain at during any discussion is with the NPOV tag, not without it. An NPOV tag isn't article "content" anyway, that's not what that rule is for. Bones Jones (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "cited a source regarding the missing POV" where? I see no linked source in linked edit or on the talk page 78.11.195.15 (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's due to the wonders of archive bots. Here:


 * This article is told almost entirely from Van Riper's perspective and centres on a nonsensical conspiracy theory based around a frankly silly narrative of the wily unconventional maverick shocking the slow-witted establishment with his innovative tactics. If the USN was trying to hush up the initial result, why did they freely admit that the fleet was sunk and they were restarting the exercise? Why did they allow Van Riper to speak freely about his views rather than shut him up or issue a statement themselves?


 * According to the Blue Force Commander General William F. "Buck" Kernan:


 * "I'll tell you one of the things it taught us with a blinding flash of the obvious after the fact. But we had the battle fleet. And of course, it goes back to live versus simulation and what we were doing. There are very prescriptive lanes in which we are able to conduct sea training and amphibious operations, and those are very -- obviously, because of commercial shipping and a lot of other things, just like our air lanes. The ships that we used for the amphibious operations, we brought them in because they had to comply with those lanes. Didn't even think about it.


 * What it did was it immediately juxtaposed all the simulation icons over to where the live ships were. Now you've got basically, instead of being over the horizon like the Navy would normally fight, and at stand-off ranges that would enable their protective systems to be employed, now they're right sitting off the shore where you're looking at them. I mean, the models and simulation that we put together, it couldn't make a distinction. And we didn't either until all of a sudden, whoops, there they are. And that's about the time he attacked. You know?


 * Of course, the Navy was just bludgeoning me dearly because, of course, they would say, "We never fight this way." Fair enough. Okay. We didn't mean to do it. We didn't put you in harms way purposely. I mean, it just -- it happened. And it's unfortunate. So those are one of the things that we learned in modeling and simulation.


 * The simulation systems were designed for the services. Another one, for instance, is the defensive mechanisms, the self-defense systems that are on board all the ships. The JSAF [Joint Semi-Automated Forces] model, which was designed for conventional warfare out on the seas for the Navy, didn't allow for an environment much like we subjected it to, where you had commercial air, commercial shipping, friendly and everything else. And guess what was happening as soon as we turned it on? All the defensive systems were, you know, were attacking the commercial systems and everything else. Well, that wouldn't happen. So we had to shut that piece of it off."


 * TL:DR: This exercise was conducted with a real fleet doing things in real life, engaging an enemy that only existed in a computer. Because the USN wanted to practice amphibious landing within the allotted time period for the massive exercise without disrupting shipping lanes, the only possible place to do so was right on the shoreline in a tiny strip. The computer was supposed to model the ships in open ocean, but instead placed them exactly where they were in real life. The result was the computer thought the ships had been teleported feet away from a massive armada of small boats and civilian planes that IRL could not have supported the weight alone (never mind the guidance and support systems) of the missiles they were firing point blank range into this fleet (the computer modelled the weapons as 5,700-pound, 19-foot P-15 Termit anti-ship missiles which were somehow being fired from from 25-foot, 5,200-lb displacement fibreglass speedboats, which Van Riper used because they were being ignored for purposes of the exercise, which is not done in real life). On top of that, the simulator that ran the ship's defences wasn't functioning properly due to the fact that the engagement was happening in the wrong area so it was turned off. Whoops. Oh, and the Blue Force had no idea this had happened until after the fact.


 * That section of the testing was scrapped for the very simple reason that the results were unusable unless the US Navy is planning to fight a wizard.


 * In other words, it omits one whole side of the story that completely changes the narrative of what happened during the exercise. Riper's problem was that he failed to grasp the difference between unconventional tactics and exploiting deficiencies and oversights in the simulation itself: he's also known to have deployed chemical weapons at a paratroop landing site to take advantage of the exercise only having access to C-17s for a matter of hours, so they'd have to drop the troops anyway even though there's no way that'd be a viable tactic in real life. I've also heard his method of simulating "bicycle couriers" was treating them as being as instantaneous as radio communications, but impossible to intercept. Bones Jones (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Would it not be best to state the official government/senior ranking opinion first, then the dissenting view. I have no great love for military bureaucracy, but putting the “conspiracy” first sets a bad example for other topics (if we run with the model that the top brass intentionally fudged the operation, to get the result they wanted and are now lying about it, that is a conspiracy, of the garden variety). (Dushan Jugum (talk) 10:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)).
 * No, that wouldn't be a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory is a perjorative because it refers to a wide ranging conspiracy between large numbers of people with no common interests or goals, in a way that is simply implausible. The idea that a section of the military would work with itself at the direction of a handful of senior officials is not a conspiracy theory and you sound like a clown for saying it is. I'm not saying anything regarding the accuracy of the article or the validity of the claim of a cover up but to label this a "conspiracy theory" is why noone takes that phrase seriously any more.178.16.12.22 (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A conspiracy theory does not have to "refer to a wide ranging conspiracy between large numbers of people with no common interests or goals", but is an explanation of an event when other explanations are more probable. The conspirators can also be a small group of powerful actors. Bones Jones provided a source with an arguably reasonable explanation, so calling it a conspiracy theory is, even if perjorative, accurate. I'd also like to remind you that calling others you disagree with clowns is hardly necessary. Caius G. (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)