"peter" wrote:

I think almost everyone is missing the point about assymetric warfare. All
the comments are based on US/NATO type equipment standards, and military
objectives. The whole point of assymetric warfare is that you don't follow
the standards, you go for what you can achieve where you can achieve it with
what you can get. 9/11 was a classic example.

Yep. 9/11 is a demonstration of what happens when you *don't* have a
strategy or an operations plan. You raise a great sound and fury, but
accomplish nothing.

Assymetric warfare is about doing the unexpected, with the unexpected by
surprise, that negates the defences and allows success.

That works when the asymmetries as small. (For instance the Japanese
never expected our submarine campaign.) It fails when the asymmetries
are large as there is not military way to overcome them.

If you haven't got the budget of the US, you dont try to emulate them and
expect to win, you have to think out of 'our' box.

If you haven't got the budget of the US, you are not going to win
many, if any, victories of sufficient size. Your goal instead must be
to win on the political front, and there the 2nd-2rd tier nations have
the advantage.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.