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-)

"Damien R. Sullivan" wrote in message
...
(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.

Not a very accurate example. The DPRK did NOT lure US forces
northwards--they instead were sent reeling northward (they had no other
direction to run). They were saved from outright annihilation by the timely
intervention of the PLA, which apparently did not intend to enter the fray
unless UN forces approached the Yalu. Some indications are that the PLA even
tried to signal the UN, and MacArthur, of their intent in an effort to get
him to stop short of the Yalu. In the end the DPRK did nothing much in terms
of a CATK--that was the screaming hordes of the PLA. What DPRK forces that
remained (either dead or already in UN PW camps) would have to lick their
wounds for a while before reentering the combat picture in any forcable
manner.

Brooks

snip strange what-if's

"Damien R. Sullivan" wrote in message
...


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.


Not exactly, they were routed and withdrawing in a
panic when the Chinese intervened, it was the
army of the PRC that launched the counterattack.


Keith

On 2004/01/18 10:05, in article , "Damien
R. Sullivan" wrote:


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

Possibly not today, but back in 1776....



Jack

In article , Jack
wrote:

On 2004/01/18 10:05, in article ,
"Damien
R. Sullivan" wrote:


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

Possibly not today, but back in 1776....


Exactly. I am _not_ in favor of gun confiscation, but I really can't
accept the idea of the unorganized militia, with sporting weapons,
deterring either regulars or invaders. With a laptop and intimate
knowledge of communications networks, I can be a MUCH nastier deterrent.

On 2004/01/18 21:32, in article ,
"Howard Berkowitz" wrote:

... I am _not_ in favor of gun confiscation, but I really can't
accept the idea of the unorganized militia, with sporting weapons,
deterring either regulars or invaders. With a laptop and intimate
knowledge of communications networks, I can be a MUCH nastier deterrent.

....until you have reduced the ability of the high tech forces to a level
less out of line with those of the your indigenous forces, at which point
the ability to do something more than strangle them with your power cord
will certainly be required.

They will maintain the advantage of a trained frontline force with modern
weapons. You will have to overcome that with sufficient numbers of fighters
and adequate weapons, intimate knowledge of all sorts of local and regional
networks -- both of infrastructure and of human resources, and great
leadership.

Which leg of that triad do you really think you could do without?

Of course we don't have anything like "a well ordered militia" today, so
perhaps you would like to suggest a replacement that can carry us to the
next level of protection beyond that provided by video gamers? Once you have
done your stuff with the laptop weapon, the conflict will become very
conventional "unconventional" warfare -- something the so-called "high tech"
forces, and not just in the US, are now better prepared to fight than they
have ever been, even without the tech.



Jack

In article , Jack
wrote:

On 2004/01/18 21:32, in article
,
"Howard Berkowitz" wrote:

... I am _not_ in favor of gun confiscation, but I really can't
accept the idea of the unorganized militia, with sporting weapons,
deterring either regulars or invaders. With a laptop and intimate
knowledge of communications networks, I can be a MUCH nastier
deterrent.

...until you have reduced the ability of the high tech forces to a level
less out of line with those of the your indigenous forces, at which point
the ability to do something more than strangle them with your power cord
will certainly be required.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. A high tech force may withdraw and regroup if its
C3I is significantly degraded.

They will maintain the advantage of a trained frontline force with modern
weapons. You will have to overcome that with sufficient numbers of
fighters
and adequate weapons, intimate knowledge of all sorts of local and
regional
networks -- both of infrastructure and of human resources, and great
leadership.

Which leg of that triad do you really think you could do without?

In one scenario, I can't. In another scenario, I'm talking about
deterrence, not victory. In yet another scenario, I put the "adequate
weapons" far below the leadership and the logistics.

I also want a better assessment of the potential threat. While you
haven't used the vague phrase "tyranny" that others have, I still want
to know, in sufficient detail to plan resistance, why the opposition is
there, how it is led and motivated, and whether its formation could have
been prevented by nonmilitary means -- as has been the historical case
in the US.

Of course we don't have anything like "a well ordered militia" today, so
perhaps you would like to suggest a replacement that can carry us to the
next level of protection beyond that provided by video gamers? Once you
have
done your stuff with the laptop weapon, the conflict will become very
conventional "unconventional" warfare -- something the so-called "high
tech"
forces, and not just in the US, are now better prepared to fight than
they
have ever been, even without the tech.

And I have yet to see a plausible scenario for that threat emerging,
much as John Ashcroft might like to introduce his version of muwatain.

Howard Berkowitz opined

In article , Jack
wrote:

On 2004/01/18 10:05, in article ,
"Damien
R. Sullivan" wrote:


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

Possibly not today, but back in 1776....


Exactly. I am _not_ in favor of gun confiscation, but I really can't
accept the idea of the unorganized militia, with sporting weapons,
deterring either regulars or invaders. With a laptop and intimate
knowledge of communications networks, I can be a MUCH nastier deterrent.

But hunters with guns can make invasions more expensive, and give you and your
laptop time to be effective.


-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

In article , "Ash Wyllie"
wrote:

Howard Berkowitz opined

In article , Jack
wrote:

On 2004/01/18 10:05, in article ,
"Damien
R. Sullivan" wrote:


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

Possibly not today, but back in 1776....


Exactly. I am _not_ in favor of gun confiscation, but I really can't
accept the idea of the unorganized militia, with sporting weapons,
deterring either regulars or invaders. With a laptop and intimate
knowledge of communications networks, I can be a MUCH nastier deterrent.

But hunters with guns can make invasions more expensive, and give you and
your
laptop time to be effective.


Aren't there some assumptions here about the level of force the invaders
will use? Soviet doctrine, in suppressing the Budapest uprising in 1956,
was "one shot from a building, level the building. Many shots from a
building, level the block." A much more humane force, the 82nd Airborne
in Detroit is 1967, was not seriously inconvenienced by urban shooters.

In article ,
Howard Berkowitz wrote:

Aren't there some assumptions here about the level of force the
invaders will use? Soviet doctrine, in suppressing the Budapest
uprising in 1956, was "one shot from a building, level the building.
Many shots from a building, level the block." A much more humane
force, the 82nd Airborne in Detroit is 1967, was not seriously
inconvenienced by urban shooters.

....was not seriously inconvenienced by a *very* few urban shooters, who
weren't really defending their homes from invasion.

Another advantage modern Americans would have in an invasion situation
would be the startling amount of useful information available to the
average citizen. Given a few organizers, you'd literally have to level
an American city to "pacify" it with any reasonable certainty.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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