![]() |
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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Australia F111 to be scrapped!! | John Cook | Military Aviation | 35 | November 10th 03 11:46 PM |