asymetric warfare

Derek Lyons skrev i meddelelsen ...

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 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.
If you can devise a doctrine without a conventional decision cycle noone
can get inside it.

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.

Forget about taking and holding terrain - just inflict casualties.

If you can't beat the enemy's physical strenght attack his will to fight.

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

Love Me - take me as I think I am

"Carl Alex Friis Nielsen" wrote:

Derek Lyons skrev i meddelelsen ...

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 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.

Which sounds pretty on paper, but the reality is that those units will
be picked off and killed individually, they emphatically won't win the
war for you. They won't stop your country from being occupied, they
won't accomplish much beyond dying gloriously. (And they won't exist
in the kind of country that's most likely to take on the US because of
internal politics.)

If you can devise a doctrine without a conventional decision cycle noone
can get inside it.

OK, you first.

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.

ROTFLMAO. That's suicide. Or did you notice the attack didn't touch
the heart of the CVBG?

Forget about taking and holding terrain - just inflict casualties.

If you can't beat the enemy's physical strenght attack his will to fight.

It might work, but it probably won't.

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.

Derek Lyons skrev i meddelelsen ...
"Carl Alex Friis Nielsen" wrote:

Derek Lyons skrev i meddelelsen ...

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 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.

Which sounds pretty on paper, but the reality is that those units will
be picked off and killed individually, they emphatically won't win the
war for you. They won't stop your country from being occupied, they
won't accomplish much beyond dying gloriously. (And they won't exist
in the kind of country that's most likely to take on the US because of
internal politics.)

Ok, but remember while the Israelis have occupied land outside their
recognized borders for decades without the locals ever being able
to throw them out the price hasn´t really been low - or do you really
view Israel as a nice place to live. Is their military might really
effective at protecting them ?

If you can devise a doctrine without a conventional decision cycle noone
can get inside it.

OK, you first.
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.

ROTFLMAO. That's suicide. Or did you notice the attack didn't touch
the heart of the CVBG?

Almost eliminating a billion dollar warship and taking it out of action for
over a year plus killing 17 US sailors in the process is a laughing
matter to you ?

That sort of arrogance is probably the largest vulnerability of the US
- don't expect the rest of the world to be as defeatist as you wish them to
be.

People refusing to give in even in the face of impossible odds have been
known to end up winning in the end on several ocasions.

Forget about taking and holding terrain - just inflict casualties.

If you can't beat the enemy's physical strenght attack his will to fight.

It might work, but it probably won't.

It worked in Somalia, it worked in Vietnam, it worked in Iran, it worked in
Lebanon - why not toss the dice again ?

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

Love Me - take me as I think I am

In article ,
"Carl Alex Friis Nielsen" wrote:

Ok, but remember while the Israelis have occupied land outside their
recognized borders for decades without the locals ever being able
to throw them out the price hasn´t really been low - or do you really
view Israel as a nice place to live. Is their military might really
effective at protecting them ?

Extremely so, when you consider the huge amount of money and time
invested in their destruction by pretty much every country that borders
them. They've got a higher standard of living than all of their
neighbors, they live longer, and have a moderate guarantee that they're
going to be in the same place for a while.

Overall, the Israeli military solution seems to be good enough so far.

ROTFLMAO. That's suicide. Or did you notice the attack didn't touch
the heart of the CVBG?

Almost eliminating a billion dollar warship and taking it out of action for
over a year plus killing 17 US sailors in the process is a laughing
matter to you ?

I can certainly see why someone might be upset that a one-shot,
not-to-be-repeated attack isn't as effective in the long run, and I can
certainly see why someone might think it's funny that other prople can
rely on it for their future military actions.

That sort of arrogance is probably the largest vulnerability of the
US - don't expect the rest of the world to be as defeatist as you
wish them to be.

Why not? It's worked pretty well so far.

"The US will get slaughtered in Afghanistan, like everyone else."
"The US will be in another Ivetnam when they invade Iraq."
"The Libyans caved in due to worldie pressure."

People refusing to give in even in the face of impossible odds have been
known to end up winning in the end on several ocasions.

....and have gotten beat into a pulp on many more. Not to mention that
most places don't have the "victory or death" mindset that the popular
literature hopes for. Especially when fighting against someone who's
really not that interested in invading those countries for direct
profit, like everyone else seems to do.

It worked in Somalia, it worked in Vietnam, it worked in Iran, it worked in
Lebanon - why not toss the dice again ?

Because it didn't work in Afghanistan and Iraq, in a very blatant and
obvious fashion. And without another opposing superpower to pay for it,
you won't get another Vietnam.

Many folks can't learn, but a lot of countries have gotten the message
that the US has figured out how to beat them at their own game.

The photos of Saddam put the final nail in that coffin.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 21:42:11 +0100, "Carl Alex Friis Nielsen"
wrote:

Derek Lyons skrev i meddelelsen ...
"Carl Alex Friis Nielsen" wrote:

Derek Lyons skrev i meddelelsen ...

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 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.

Which sounds pretty on paper, but the reality is that those units will
be picked off and killed individually, they emphatically won't win the
war for you. They won't stop your country from being occupied, they
won't accomplish much beyond dying gloriously. (And they won't exist
in the kind of country that's most likely to take on the US because of
internal politics.)

Ok, but remember while the Israelis have occupied land outside their
recognized borders for decades without the locals ever being able
to throw them out the price hasn´t really been low - or do you really
view Israel as a nice place to live. Is their military might really
effective at protecting them ?

If you can devise a doctrine without a conventional decision cycle noone
can get inside it.

OK, you first.
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.

ROTFLMAO. That's suicide. Or did you notice the attack didn't touch
the heart of the CVBG?

Almost eliminating a billion dollar warship and taking it out of action for
over a year plus killing 17 US sailors in the process is a laughing
matter to you ?

Well, remember, that there were concerns about docking the cole
there, that were overrruled for political reasons. So killing the
Cole at peacetime, and killing it in wartime, when it would presumably
be allowed to sink any shipo approaching it are two different things.
As an opening move, it has some plausibility, but it woudl quickly
cease to be a viable tactic.


That sort of arrogance is probably the largest vulnerability of the US
- don't expect the rest of the world to be as defeatist as you wish them to
be.

Not arrogance-- but I do think the U.S. has always had the problem
of discounting non-technological solutations. Witness 9/11-- before
that every magazine was full of articles about terrorist
nukes/bios/emp weapons-- but that was how an *american* woudl likely
do things, going for the technological knock out blow. It's a bit of a
blind spot with us.


People refusing to give in even in the face of impossible odds have been
known to end up winning in the end on several ocasions.

Not always-- usually what happens is that they hold on until
outside events conspire to bring them victory. The resitance in
Europe and the phillipines is an example-- they were unable to drive
the enemy away, but did hold down large portions of his forces.



Forget about taking and holding terrain - just inflict casualties.

If you can't beat the enemy's physical strenght attack his will to fight.

It might work, but it probably won't.

It worked in Somalia, it worked in Vietnam, it worked in Iran, it worked in
Lebanon - why not toss the dice again ?


It depends on what sort of fight we're in. Vietnam and Iran ddn't
come in the aftermath of an attack on the U.S.,a nd neither did
lebanon. The whole 9/11 thing did change the political equation--
whether or not it will continue to do so remains to be seen,
especially should Al Qaeda not launch another assualt.
Often, the exterior factor that counts is U.S. public opinion. To
fight that you have to make yourself sympathetic or make them think
that occupation will only make things worse. In that case, the
current war shows the danger of a dramatic first strike-- while many
americans aren't completely on board with Bush's strategy (ranging
from mild disagreement with some tactics to major strategy
disagreemens), I doubt there are many here who advocate "doing nothing
and hoping Bin Laden retires".
Thats one factor of Asymetric warfare that we haven't talked about
too much-- making certain your methods don't create such rage that
they actually end up being counterproductive. If the U.S. is invading
you with a division, blowing up Down Town LA won't get them sent home,
It'll get them reinforced.

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

Love Me - take me as I think I am

"Carl Alex Friis Nielsen" wrote:
Ok, but remember while the Israelis have occupied land outside their
recognized borders for decades without the locals ever being able
to throw them out the price hasn´t really been low - or do you really
view Israel as a nice place to live. Is their military might really
effective at protecting them ?

Which is a nice way of avoiding addressing the issues I raised.

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.

ROTFLMAO. That's suicide. Or did you notice the attack didn't touch
the heart of the CVBG?

Almost eliminating a billion dollar warship and taking it out of action for
over a year plus killing 17 US sailors in the process is a laughing
matter to you ?

From a strategic viewpoint, it is worth a laugh or two. Again, you
resort to an emotional argument to avoid addressing the hard facts.

That sort of arrogance is probably the largest vulnerability of the US
- don't expect the rest of the world to be as defeatist as you wish them to
be.

It's not arrogance, it's simple cold facts. Killing the Cole barely
scratched the combat power of the CVBG. And in a real war, *that* is
what matters.

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.

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.

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

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.

And somebody,no other than Rommel assured Hitler only a couple of days ago that
the invasion could only come from Calais so that the could sleep well.
(Historians treat the legends gently !)