A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

asymetric warfare



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old December 23rd 03, 12:33 AM
John Schilling
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"peter" writes:

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.


If some one out there is planning on using cruise missiles for example, he
wont build them to Tomahawk standards, he wont select tomahawk like targets
and so on.


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


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.



Aren't you forgetting something? In addition to Thinking Outside The
Box, don't they have to implement a Paradigm Shift or something like
that?

You're about ten years too late to pat yourself on the back for dispensing
privileged knowledge to the masses on this one. Everyone here gets the
point about Asymmetric Warfare. We understand it, really.

We are trying to explain to you that Asymmetric Warfare is not a Magic
Word that wipes away some very hard problems in weapons technology or
military science. There are *reasons* the US/NATO do things the way
they do, and if it is't the most efficient way possible it does at
least allow the concentration of enormous resources on those Very Hard
problems with the result that the US/NATO and company have some Very
Impressive capabilities.

Invoking the Asymmetric Warfare buzzword does nothing to counter those
capabilities. It isn't clear that they even *can* be countered, save
in kind, but if it is possible it will involve a whole slew of very
hard problems in its own right, and that the amateurish solutions
posited here are not going to cut it.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *







 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Australia F111 to be scrapped!! John Cook Military Aviation 35 November 10th 03 11:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.