asymetric warfare

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
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?

One word: Surrender

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:11:31 -0500, "Ray Drouillard"
wrote:


"phil hunt" wrote in message
...
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?

One word: Surrender

And don't wait - surrender right now! We are Borg, your ass will be
immolated.

(Sorry, but I couldn't resist).

"Ray Drouillard" wrote in message ...
"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
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?

One word: Surrender

Precisely, and make that about March 10th 2003. It's the Grand Fenwick
strategy, you lose, retain all of your weaponry that counts, and drag
the opponent into a situation where he can't win. An armory of AK-47s,
ammo, RPGs, ammo, Land mines, Mortar rounds, whatever you can bury in
your front, or back, yard. General Van Riper told us this back in
August 2002. We said he was cheating. No one remembers 'alls fair
in...'

http://sgtstryker.com.cr.sabren.com/...?entry_id=2887
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

On 19 Dec 2003 15:42:36 -0800, (Jack
Linthicum) wrote:

"Ray Drouillard" wrote in message ...
"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
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?

One word: Surrender

Precisely, and make that about March 10th 2003. It's the Grand Fenwick
strategy, you lose, retain all of your weaponry that counts, and drag
the opponent into a situation where he can't win. An armory of AK-47s,
ammo, RPGs, ammo, Land mines, Mortar rounds, whatever you can bury in
your front, or back, yard. General Van Riper told us this back in
August 2002. We said he was cheating. No one remembers 'alls fair
in...'

Or just avoid the whole invasion to begin with. Right up until the
final ultimatum, Saddam probably could have avoided an invasion with
unconditional surrender of all bases, etc, to U.S. inspection.
Would we have let him stay in power? Would he have survived the
loss of prestige? I don't know, but his chances were sure as hell
higher than getting into a shooting match with the United States.

"Charles Gray" wrote in message
...
On 19 Dec 2003 15:42:36 -0800, (Jack
Linthicum) wrote:

"Ray Drouillard" wrote in message
...
"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
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?

One word: Surrender

Precisely, and make that about March 10th 2003. It's the Grand
Fenwick
strategy, you lose, retain all of your weaponry that counts, and drag
the opponent into a situation where he can't win. An armory of
AK-47s,
ammo, RPGs, ammo, Land mines, Mortar rounds, whatever you can bury in
your front, or back, yard. General Van Riper told us this back in
August 2002. We said he was cheating. No one remembers 'alls fair
in...'

Or just avoid the whole invasion to begin with. Right up until the
final ultimatum, Saddam probably could have avoided an invasion with
unconditional surrender of all bases, etc, to U.S. inspection.
Would we have let him stay in power? Would he have survived the
loss of prestige? I don't know, but his chances were sure as hell
higher than getting into a shooting match with the United States.

He was left in power ten years ago. I think that GWB has learned from
his father's mistake, however.

In other cases, a non-despotic leader will probably be able to retain
power.



Ray Drouillard

In article ,
(Jack Linthicum) wrote:

Precisely, and make that about March 10th 2003. It's the Grand Fenwick
strategy, you lose, retain all of your weaponry that counts, and drag
the opponent into a situation where he can't win. An armory of AK-47s,
ammo, RPGs, ammo, Land mines, Mortar rounds, whatever you can bury in
your front, or back, yard. General Van Riper told us this back in
August 2002. We said he was cheating. No one remembers 'alls fair
in...'

http://sgtstryker.com.cr.sabren.com/...?entry_id=2887
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

He got a "freebie" in the first part of the exercise, and managed to
"sink" a lot of the US fleet (which would *not* have happened in real
life, with the intel and resources he had available) so they reset the
exercise. This is "gaming the exercise, not the scenario," and it takes
advantage of holes in the exercise that aren't meant to model the real
world.

He then went to a low-tech communications mode, to "beat" the high-tech
intel that the US normally gets when fighting against pretty much anyone
else in the real world, and expected to have 100% effectiveness in
fighting the game. Of course, his low-tech methods (motorcycle couriers
and personal communications) were degraded by the exercise monitors,
like they would be in real life.

Some of the other results were very much non-real, like sneak attacks
that only succeeded because the one guy sitting at a terminal was
looking something up, and missed the first warnings - something that
couldn't happen in reality, with hundreds of people out there to notice
troop movements.

The funny thing is that the *real* world results were even more
optimistic than the expected results from the exercise... a fraction of
the deaths and a shorter war.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby wrote in message . com...
In article ,
(Jack Linthicum) wrote:

Precisely, and make that about March 10th 2003. It's the Grand Fenwick
strategy, you lose, retain all of your weaponry that counts, and drag
the opponent into a situation where he can't win. An armory of AK-47s,
ammo, RPGs, ammo, Land mines, Mortar rounds, whatever you can bury in
your front, or back, yard. General Van Riper told us this back in
August 2002. We said he was cheating. No one remembers 'alls fair
in...'

http://sgtstryker.com.cr.sabren.com/...?entry_id=2887
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

He got a "freebie" in the first part of the exercise, and managed to
"sink" a lot of the US fleet (which would *not* have happened in real
life, with the intel and resources he had available) so they reset the
exercise. This is "gaming the exercise, not the scenario," and it takes
advantage of holes in the exercise that aren't meant to model the real
world.

He then went to a low-tech communications mode, to "beat" the high-tech
intel that the US normally gets when fighting against pretty much anyone
else in the real world, and expected to have 100% effectiveness in
fighting the game. Of course, his low-tech methods (motorcycle couriers
and personal communications) were degraded by the exercise monitors,
like they would be in real life.


Present situation seems to duplicate that low tech communications
mode. So far.

Some of the other results were very much non-real, like sneak attacks
that only succeeded because the one guy sitting at a terminal was
looking something up, and missed the first warnings - something that
couldn't happen in reality, with hundreds of people out there to notice
troop movements.

You are assuming 'troop movements' the present situation is guys
hiding in mosques or behind children ambushing GIs who get out of the
protective zone.

The funny thing is that the *real* world results were even more
optimistic than the expected results from the exercise... a fraction of
the deaths and a shorter war.

We expected a war from March to way past December?

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
om...
Chad Irby wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
(Jack Linthicum) wrote:

Precisely, and make that about March 10th 2003. It's the Grand Fenwick
strategy, you lose, retain all of your weaponry that counts, and drag
the opponent into a situation where he can't win. An armory of AK-47s,
ammo, RPGs, ammo, Land mines, Mortar rounds, whatever you can bury in
your front, or back, yard. General Van Riper told us this back in
August 2002. We said he was cheating. No one remembers 'alls fair
in...'

http://sgtstryker.com.cr.sabren.com/...?entry_id=2887

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

He got a "freebie" in the first part of the exercise, and managed to
"sink" a lot of the US fleet (which would *not* have happened in real
life, with the intel and resources he had available) so they reset the
exercise. This is "gaming the exercise, not the scenario," and it takes
advantage of holes in the exercise that aren't meant to model the real
world.

He then went to a low-tech communications mode, to "beat" the high-tech
intel that the US normally gets when fighting against pretty much anyone
else in the real world, and expected to have 100% effectiveness in
fighting the game. Of course, his low-tech methods (motorcycle couriers
and personal communications) were degraded by the exercise monitors,
like they would be in real life.


Present situation seems to duplicate that low tech communications
mode. So far.

You know that for a fact, Jack?


Some of the other results were very much non-real, like sneak attacks
that only succeeded because the one guy sitting at a terminal was
looking something up, and missed the first warnings - something that
couldn't happen in reality, with hundreds of people out there to notice
troop movements.

You are assuming 'troop movements' the present situation is guys
hiding in mosques or behind children ambushing GIs who get out of the
protective zone.

You were trying to use Van Riper as your example--he was NOT modeling
two-three man sniper attacks during that simulation though, was he? The
biggest problem with van Riper was that he allowed his ego to outgrow the
goals of the exercise and tried to effectively hijack it midstream. He was
unprofessional and extremely unrealistic--if you are running a corps-plus
level exercise, you are not going to be creating accurate models of low
level combat in the first place, and every swinging Richard who has ever
played in the BBS-CBS arena knows that.


The funny thing is that the *real* world results were even more
optimistic than the expected results from the exercise... a fraction of
the deaths and a shorter war.

We expected a war from March to way past December?

Recommend you go back to misunderstanding the wierd world of your mythical
micro-nukes, Jack--this subject is obviously beyond your comprehension
level.

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...

The funny thing is that the *real* world results were even more
optimistic than the expected results from the exercise... a fraction of
the deaths and a shorter war.

We expected a war from March to way past December?

Recommend you go back to misunderstanding the wierd world of your mythical
micro-nukes, Jack--this subject is obviously beyond your comprehension
level.

Then we did expect a war to last from onset to at least nine months?
It is still going on you know.

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
om...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

The funny thing is that the *real* world results were even more
optimistic than the expected results from the exercise... a fraction
of
the deaths and a shorter war.

We expected a war from March to way past December?

Recommend you go back to misunderstanding the wierd world of your
mythical
micro-nukes, Jack--this subject is obviously beyond your comprehension
level.

Then we did expect a war to last from onset to at least nine months?
It is still going on you know.

Intelligent individuals with half a clue realized that during the
stabilization/support/reconstruction phase there would be continued
violence. It did not surprise the military--that you were apparently caught
flat-footed implies something a bit different.

Brooks