asymetric warfare

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 08:31:34 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
pervect wrote:

The thought of relying on the internet as-is, or some future wireless
version therof, for military purposes scares me. Badly.

Or not...

Dear Mr. USAF,
My name is Robert Nkrume, and I represent a number of military
interests in Nigeria. I have recently come into the possession of a
number of cruise missiles, and need help in delivering them to the
United States. All I need is your banking information and an address to
deliver them to.

Hackers right now cause enough problem on the internet just for kicks.
Give them some significant funding for bribes, some people who are
good at breaking & entering to substitute a few key CD'rom with
identical looking copies, and you could have a real party. Now
imagine military weapons being online and controlled through said
interent. Thanks, but I'll pass.

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 19:09:09 +1100, Bernardz
wrote:



This class of weapon system is quite easy to build. A decent machine
shop can build them. For example a V1 rocket in WW2 could be constructed
from very simple material, relatively unskilled labor and took about 500
man hours to complete.


And required maitenance and was no where near a "store and fire"
weapon. You would need fueling facilities and that means taht "wooden
rounds" where you simply stick it in a container until you need to
shoot, are right out.
Also, you might consider that a large body of opinion holds that
the German's concentration on V weapons, rather than useful things,
such as fighters, may have hurt them worse than the weapons hurt the
allies-- in other words, the wonder weapon was a neat weapon-- for OUR
side.

John Schilling opined

Chad Irby writes:

In article mail-0E43D5.00500922122003@localhost,
Michael Ash wrote:

North Korea, on the other hand, has enough artillery on the border to
completely level Seoul within a few hours, from what I understand. That
alone is enough to stop any plans for an invasion. In a way, it's even
worse than the nuclear problem. Unlike a nuke and its delivery system,
there's no possible way to take out mumble-thousand pieces of artillery
before the deed has been done.

Kinda makes you wonder how well they can coordinate those artillery
pieces... they can't even feed their troops.

Out of the tens of thousands of cannons sitting on the north side of the
border, anyone want to bet that no more than a couple of hundred
actually get to fire? Especially with a few dozen MLRS launchers and a
couple of hundred attack aircraft cranking out a few million
submunitions across their firing positions... while reducing their
command centers to smoking holes in the ground and jamming
communications.

How do you jam a homing pigeon?

Big magnet.


-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

Bernardz wrote:

This class of weapon system is quite easy to build. A decent machine
shop can build them. For example a V1 rocket in WW2 could be constructed
from very simple material, relatively unskilled labor and took about 500
man hours to complete.

Well, not quite. It was *assembled* by relatively unskilled labor.
Many components (warhead, guidance) required skilled labor, and much
of the machining required fairly skilled labor, but connecting the
parts built by skilled labor could be done by relatively unskilled
labor.

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.

Charles Gray wrote:

And required maitenance and was no where near a "store and fire"
weapon. You would need fueling facilities and that means taht "wooden
rounds" where you simply stick it in a container until you need to
shoot, are right out.

And that's the big sticking point with a defense system built around
garage built el cheapo vunderveapons. I'll buy that you could
assemble them and fire them off, and get a flyaway cost under $10K and
a PK of .25 or so. But I won't buy that the same will hold true once
the weapons are stored a month or two, or a couple of years.

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 ,
(Derek Lyons) wrote:

And that's the big sticking point with a defense system built around
garage built el cheapo vunderveapons. I'll buy that you could
assemble them and fire them off, and get a flyaway cost under $10K
and a PK of .25 or so. But I won't buy that the same will hold true
once the weapons are stored a month or two, or a couple of years.

....especially when your maintenance/supply troops get bored, or decide
they're not making enough money, and start appropriating parts from
those missiles to use for other purposes.

The drinking of aclohol-based radar coolant by Soviet-era troops comes
to mind, but since we have a couple of thousand SUVs in a not-nice
country, there would be a huge tendency for the troops to "borrow" the
vehicles for quick defections to wherever seemed nicer.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Andrew McCruden" wrote in
:

[snip]

This doesn't match previous descriptions of the Record breaking shot
i've seen, All previous accounts describe the Target as a T-55, the
range I've seen variously quoted as 5000m, 5000yds and 5 miles, 3000m
is the lowest range figure by far

French? Nope....
As I remember, it was the CO's tank of a British regiment
( 7th Hussars? ) and was at a range just over 5km.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

Nuclear buckshot will kill most things, and doesn't need to be too accurate
either.

Who needs nuclear buckshots if your opponent has nuclear weapons in storage or
in silos,but unfortunately you do need to be utmostly precise.

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.

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 !)