asymetric warfare

(Derek Lyons) wrote:
"Jarg" wrote:
An interesting if, but the Soviets, though at an apparent disadvantage,
weren't faced with such overwhelming military power, and had a history of
successfully repelling invaders.

The Russians could, and on multiple occasions did, trade space for
time, forcing the invader endure their winter. No other nation shares
this unique combination of vast space for mobilty with climactic
advantages.

Canada? The original question was about a "mid-tier" country; didn't specify
whether that meant tech level or size or population or what.

I'm told North Korea did something similar in the Korean War, despite having
much less space. Withdraw, leading US forces up into a valley, and
counter-attack with forces and winter.

Alaska in a secession war? Actually that might be a more interesting
candidate for this scenario than "Elbonia". Say the Free State Project went
there instead of New Hampshire, and actually took off. We're probably still
dealing with a relatively pipsqueak population, barring a boom or two, but
could they make it too expensive to keep them by force? It didn't work in the
Civil War but (a) tech has changed (b) the geography is different and (c) the
rest of the US may not have the same tolerance of casualties, especially when
a moral issue like slavery isn't on the table.

Moving beyond winter to other "mid-tier" scenarios: California trying to
secede from a theocratic US. A militaristic US invading Canada or Mexico,
with the invadees having had time to build up defenses as they saw the
militaristic party take hold (invasion could be for conquest, or in response
to Canada legalizing drugs, or being a haven to resistance within a theocratic
US.) Australia becoming a drug and cloning haven. War with Indonesia for
some reason...

Basically, can a small or lower-tech democracy with non-corrupt government and
motivated citizenry make invasion too expensive to work?

-xx- Damien X-)