asymetric warfare

In ,
Peter Stickney radiated into the WorldWideWait:
In article ,
"John" writes:
"phil hunt" wrote in

What would be sensible strategies/weapons for a middle-ranking
country to employ if it thought it is likely to be involved in a
war against the USA or other Western countries, say in the next 10
years?

To deal with the US Army...
Use SUVs with anti-tank rockets and a millimetric radar mounted on
the back. In iraq US gunners opened fire at 5miles. Since the
rounds travel at a mile/second, this would give an SUV 5 seconds
to dudge, which would be simple with guidence from the radar.
Meanwhile the top-attack missiles tear through the thin turret
roofs. Buy a few otto-76mm armed tanks with dual use surface/air
to deal with incomming aircraft/missiles/bombs/helicopters and to
rip enemy soldiers to pieces.

5 seconds to dodge... Dodge where, exqctly? In what direction? How
much? To be at the least effective, you're going to have to somehow
get 1 vehicle's size distance away from where you were. Since SUV's
don't move a 1 mile/second...
Oh, and what if the Rascally Americans don't open fire at 5 miles
Becasue there's in a city, or there's intervening terrain, or you're
not a visible target, and engave at a shorter distance? (Which is
what happens. Even 500m (1500') is long range when you're not
shooting at, say, Iraqi tanks in the open desert. In that case,
they wouldn't be engaging SUV-type things with Main Gun rounds.
('cause it would go through the SUV, and the SUV behind the SUV,
and the Tree behing the SUV behing the SUV, and the School behind
the tree - you get the idea) They'd use either the .50 cal MG on
the turret top, or teh .30 cal co-ax. (Don't discount the Coax.
It's got a dedicated gunner with a telescopic sight, a laser
rangefinder, and is mounted on a 65-ton tripod. In that case, you
don't have 1 round to dodge, but several dozen.

As for the top-attack missile - when is it going to be fired? Who's
going to guide it? How are they going to maintian guidance for the
20-60 seconds it will take to reach its target while riding in a
moving/evading/exploding SUV?

To deal with the US Air Force...
Buy old airliners and fit with reloadable missile launchers and
modern AA radar, counter measures, and refueling probe. Take old
fighter designs, and hang them fully fueled and armed from
ballons. That'll multiply thier endurance by a factor of ten at
least. Fit search-radar in envelope and have them patrol your
boarder. Network them together and you'll have an end to surprise
US attacks.

I'd pay good money to see an F-104/Mirage II/MiG-21 launched from a
balloon.If you could make that one work, Ringling Brothers would
give you a contract But Quick. As for refrobbing old airliners as
long-endurance Patrol Fighter AWACS - well, first, they're easy to
detect, and therefore, neutralize. You can either shoot them down,
or go around them. Being airliners, their ability to move
crossrange will be poor. They'll also need improved airbases, and,
as you mention, tankers. WHen the bases disappear, so does your
Air Defence. (It's always struck me as amusing how many folks seem
to think that all you need to improve aircraft range is a probe.
You also need tankers. Lats of tankers. Lots of big tankers.
Consider that in 1982, the RAF used its entire tanker force to get
one Vulcan from Ascention Island to Port Stanley. (Victors, in
this case - Not a lot of tankers, and not a lot of transfer fuel.
The same mission could have been flown, by the U.Ss. with 3
aircraft - 1 B-52, and 2 KC-135s. The U.S. tanker fleet alone
outnumbers most other nations entire Air Forces.

To deal with the US Navy...
Buy old torpedos and fit to larch home made rockets (see X-prize
entries) with 50-100 mile range. Get the rockets to dump the
torpedos within a few miles of a nimitz carrier groups and you're
garanteed to blow up something *really* expensive!

A _lot_ harder than you think. And the launches will be detected. A
Numitz at flank speed would be a significant distance from the
inital impact area before the Super ASROC you've described gets
there. At which point, the torp, if it survives the impact intact
(not a trivial thing), is goig to have a hard time finding a
profitable target. In the meantime, you've now 1: Revealed your
intentions in an unambiguous manner, and 2: Nicely marked all of
your launching sites. making it damned hard to clain that it wasn't
your doing. Teh end effect, even if you do hit a ship, would be an
awful lot like kicking a nest of Africanized Bees.

Alternatively buy the following:
1 million RPG-7s
5 million RPG-7 rounds
10 million AK-74s
1 billion bullets
Distribute evenly through out your population, train them, set up a
Swiss-style monitoring system, and let the Americans invade. Then
blow up everything of value they own the second they let their
guard down. They'll leave in a few months and you can go back to
normal.


In order to do that, you have to have a population that thinks the
country you're leading is worth fighting for. But then, countries
that its citizens thing are worth fighting for tend not to be high
profile targets to the U.S.

Alternatively fly a few airliners into american nuclear power
stations. The aftermath of multiple chernobles will destroy
America as an effective strategic power.

Well, the onlu problem with _that_ one is that Chyernoble, bas as
it was, didn't depopulate large stretches of the Ukraine or Russia.
U.S. racotrs have far superior containment, and, in fact, are
required to be designed such that they can shrug off a direct hit
from a large airliner.

You are the illegitemate son of Robert S. Macnamara, and I claim my
5.00!

I support Peter's claim to the Fiver.
John's cutesy-pie combat methods were interesting, slightly, but
suited to a 1930's Boys' Book of How to Have a War.
Peter did a fine job of dismissing them all.
And I especially agree with the last one - countries where all the
citizens are heavily armed are not countries like Iraq, where people
the ruler doesn't like get fed alive into shredding machines. So they
aren't the kind of country we'd be needing to invade.