asymetric warfare

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:40:27 -0800, Steve Hix wrote:

One problem here; totalitarian regimes tend not to tolerate lots of
initiative in their underlings, which makes preparing for this sort of
fighting somewhat harder.

True, but there are exceptions, Nazi Germany being an obvious one.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:40:27 -0800, Steve Hix
wrote:

One problem here; totalitarian regimes tend not to tolerate lots of
initiative in their underlings, which makes preparing for this sort of
fighting somewhat harder.

True, but there are exceptions, Nazi Germany being an obvious one.

Hardly, the Wehrmacht certainly encouraged soldiers to use their
initiative at the tactical level but when it came to strategy $Godwin
insisted on micro managing the war down to battalion level.

The Panzer reserve was held back on D-Day because only
the Fuhrer could release them and he had taken a sleeping
pill and couldnt be wakened.

Keith

In message , phil hunt
writes
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:40:27 -0800, Steve Hix sehix@NOSPAM
speakeasy.netINVALID wrote:
One problem here; totalitarian regimes tend not to tolerate lots of
initiative in their underlings, which makes preparing for this sort of
fighting somewhat harder.

True, but there are exceptions, Nazi Germany being an obvious one.

The Wehrmacht had a good system of mission command at company level and
below, but was absolutely devoid of initiative at the operational level:
witness Hitler's orders that forbade any retreat under any
circumstances, even a false withdrawal to draw the enemy into a prepared
killing zone being forbidden (to say nothing of 'move it or lose it'
escapes)

It was obvious as early as 1940 (the Luftwaffe's fighters are most
effective high above the bombers they're protecting, but the bomber
crews want to _see_ their escorts, so the fighters get ordered to fly
slow weaves next to the bombers) and continued through the war.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Steve Hix skrev i meddelelsen ...
In article ,
"Carl Alex Friis Nielsen" wrote:

The entire idea behind assymetric warfare is to refuse to play by the
enemy's rules - so if fighting the US use a doctrine not reqirering an
C3I
infrastructure, which can be attacked - have lots of small dispersed
units capable of
operating on their own initiative.

One problem here; totalitarian regimes tend not to tolerate lots of
initiative in their underlings, which makes preparing for this sort of
fighting somewhat harder.

Why do you assume the US will only fight totalitarian regimes ?

Or that totalitarian regimes can't exist with the suport of the population
- remember that only about 20 % of the worlds population share
our western values.

--------------------------------------
Carl Alex Friis Nielsen

Love Me - take me as I think I am

"Carl Alex Friis Nielsen" wrote:

Why do you assume the US will only fight totalitarian regimes ?

Name a non-totalitarian regime that has a good chance of going up
against the US militarily in the next 20 years.

Or that totalitarian regimes can't exist with the suport of the
population - remember that only about 20 % of the worlds population
share our western values.

Name a true regime of that sort with real popular support. Should be
simple, right?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

A "not so smart" bomb made out of an inflatable boat, 2 suicidal maniacs
and a lot of explosives almost taking out the Cole - thats assymetric
warfare.

The term "Asymetric warfare" does not neccesarily indicate a low technology
approach aganist a mighty opponent,it might also contain the highest end
approach.
For example,Imperial Germanys decision to counter surface might of RN with
submarines is a classical example of "Asymetric warfare" even though submarines
were not the products of lower technology than surface ships.

So in future, advanced nations might try to take out everything their opponents
have by using weapons based on emerging technologies,while less capable nations
or organizations might try to achieve something by digging soil near fiberoptic
junctions.
Both could be called "Asymetric warfare" by definition.

On 25 Dec 2003 06:26:52 GMT, Denyav wrote:

The term "Asymetric warfare" does not neccesarily indicate a low technology
approach aganist a mighty opponent,it might also contain the highest end
approach.
For example,Imperial Germanys decision to counter surface might of RN with
submarines is a classical example of "Asymetric warfare" even though submarines
were not the products of lower technology than surface ships.

Good example.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

In article ,
ess (phil hunt) wrote:

On 25 Dec 2003 06:26:52 GMT, Denyav wrote:

The term "Asymetric warfare" does not neccesarily indicate a low technology
approach aganist a mighty opponent,it might also contain the highest end
approach.
For example,Imperial Germanys decision to counter surface might of RN with
submarines is a classical example of "Asymetric warfare" even though
submarines
were not the products of lower technology than surface ships.

Good example.

As is dropping one $50,000 smart bomb on the house of the leader of the
enemy country while he sleeps.

Or blowing up a handful of ammo dumps with smart munitions.

....if you're broadening the definition that direction.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:46:51 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote:



You and Phil, and to a lesser extent George, who should know better,
don't seem to realize that killing the enemy C&C is how the US fights
wars today. The days of grinding towards the Capital worrying only
about the front line and hoping a golden bullet takes out the Leader
are dead and gone. This is 2003 not 1943.

I think there are technologies that our fictitious nation of Elbonia
can use that will make disrupting their C&C structure a lot more
difficult. I would even go so far as to say that investing in a
modern C&C infrastructure would probably be the best first investment
Elbonia could make. Probably the best approach would be to grow their
own experts (rather than to rely on commercial systems of others and
think that they can just buy one).

This isn't the position I started out with, BTW, but as the discussion
proceeded the point sort of grew on me.

I think that the US is well aware of this, and is doing its level best
to suppress and discourage such actions. Hence some of our
silly-seeming export regulations that ban this, that, and the other
thing for export. (I don't expect these regulations will actually
accomplish much, BTW.)

I also think there will be an increase in the use of nuclear weapons,
and that the wave of current US military actions will, as a side
effect, encourage nuclear proliferation. I don't think that this will
be widely announced, though - I think that everyone will claim not to
have weapons of mass destruction, and when intelligence turns up
irrefutable evidence of nuclear weapons, they will merely blink and
calmly state that said weapons are purely defensive for use against
military targets only and are in no way classifiable as being WMD.

pervect wrote:
I think there are technologies that our fictitious nation of Elbonia
can use that will make disrupting their C&C structure a lot more
difficult.

Certainly, but homegrowing them as you suggest below is the work of
decades, not weeks or months.

I would even go so far as to say that investing in a
modern C&C infrastructure would probably be the best first investment
Elbonia could make.

Simply making it modern doesn't reduce it's vulnerability. What does
do so it a lot of hard thinking about it's vulnerabilities, and how to
patch those without introducting too much additional complexity,
cruft, or new vulnerabilities.

Probably the best approach would be to grow their
own experts (rather than to rely on commercial systems of others and
think that they can just buy one).

That approach has to start in the elementary schools... And the last
thing the Elbonian dynasty wants is a well educated middle class.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.