asymetric warfare

"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
...
ISTM that there are two possible objectives:

1) deterring the large power from starting a war

2) minimizing the damage a war does to the citizens

Countries involved in terrorist-risistance campaigns tend to be
unpleasant places to live. Resistance campaigns at home may have
some outcome influencing effect (Nam was sold to the American
publicv that way), but attacks on the larger country seem
counter-productive as Afghanistan and Chechnya (Sp?) are
discovering. Possibly non-terrorist strategies aimed at attacking
the big country at home would back-fire simillarly.

Probably some combination of being a tough nut to crack, giving
up something the aggressor wants and persuading others that their
interests are served by helping out is the winning strategy.

Two countries faced with large, belligerent neighbours in the
thirties were Poland and Finland. Neither neighbour could be
bought off. The latter did rather well, the former poorly. Are
there lessons in their experience?

1. First lesson - Geography matters. Poland is rather flat and good tank
country.
Finland is not. Even in modern times, nobody wanted to do a ground campaign
in
the Balkans - the terrain is too tough. Saddam Hussein, military genius,
twice
managed to manuever (or be manuevered) into playing tanks in a sandbox.
Good
idea if you got the quantity and quality. Bad idea otherwise.

2. See #1

Lance



Peter Skelton