asymetric warfare

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 Thu, 25 Dec 2003 21:28:02 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

"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?


Well, a lot of it depends on what you mean by totalitarian. Some
people would call Iran that, but the government enjoys a fair amount
of support, and even many of those who dislike it don't do so enough
to cooperate with a U.S. invasion.
China is another example where many of the citizens support the
government, and while the government is authoritarian, I wouldn't call
it totalitarian in the Hussein mode, but it might be coming into
conflict with the U.S. at some point.

And you migth consider that a democracy has the problem that if
somethign blows up to create great public outcry, the elected leaders
might have to go along with it, even though they wish to avoid the
conflict.
Although not a democracy, China had this problem with the EP3
incident. They called out the demonstraters, but once nationalism got
involved the demonstrations quickly started to escalate beyond what
the leadership wanted. Scared them badly, by some accounts.

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

In article ,
Charles Gray wrote:

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 21:28:02 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

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

Well, a lot of it depends on what you mean by totalitarian. Some
people would call Iran that, but the government enjoys a fair amount
of support, and even many of those who dislike it don't do so enough
to cooperate with a U.S. invasion.

"Support" and "fear" are two very different things. And the question in
Iran isn't how much do the people support the government (not as
strongly as you'd think) but how much do they fear everything else (a
lot, due to years of internal propaganda)?

Up until about late March, a lot of folks were telling us about all of
that "popular support" in Iraq, and we all know how that went. Ditto
for last year and Afghanistan...

China is another example where many of the citizens support the
government, and while the government is authoritarian, I wouldn't call
it totalitarian in the Hussein mode, but it might be coming into
conflict with the U.S. at some point.

China has been going in the opposite direction from totalitarianism,
because the government has figured out that they could do better by
opening up than by closing down.

And you migth consider that a democracy has the problem that if
somethign blows up to create great public outcry, the elected leaders
might have to go along with it, even though they wish to avoid the
conflict.

That's why they're not called "totalitarian." It helps keep some of the
power out of the hands of people who would use it *only* the way they
feel, without input from their populace.

Although not a democracy, China had this problem with the EP3
incident. They called out the demonstraters, but once nationalism got
involved the demonstrations quickly started to escalate beyond what
the leadership wanted. Scared them badly, by some accounts.

Like Tienanmen... a government that hold power by fear alone is not
exactly what you'd call "popular."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 00:13:11 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 21:28:02 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

"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?

Well, a lot of it depends on what you mean by totalitarian. Some
people would call Iran that,

Only people who don't know what totalitarian means.

but the government enjoys a fair amount
of support,

So have many repressive regimes, for example Nazi Germany (at least
in the early years).

--
"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).

: Name a true regime of that sort with real popular support. Should be
: simple, right?
:
: Well, a lot of it depends on what you mean by totalitarian. Some
: people would call Iran that, but the government enjoys a fair amount
: of support, and even many of those who dislike it don't do so enough
: to cooperate with a U.S. invasion.

: "Support" and "fear" are two very different things. And the question in
: Iran isn't how much do the people support the government (not as
: strongly as you'd think) but how much do they fear everything else (a
: lot, due to years of internal propaganda)?

While Iran is not exactly sparkling with freedom, it is one of the
more democratic nations in the Middle East. Indeed, that is one reason the
US fears it so. If it were not for totalitarian rulers resisting popular
will, nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia would be *very* anti-US. I would
suggest that widespread support for the Iranian government is much stronger
than you imply, though there are certainly those who want to see it
modified. In particular, even a lot of those who dislike heavy handed
social regulation still support an anti- or at best neutral stance towards
the U.S.
You realize, of course, that Iran is a democracy? Power is split
between the more 'secular' legislative and the more religious 'judicial/
executive' portions, but even the Ayatollah is elected (albeit indirectly,
just as the US used to do with State Senators). Lifetime appointment can
be a bitch, but just ask a critic of our Supreme Court about that.


: China is another example where many of the citizens support the
: government, and while the government is authoritarian, I wouldn't call
: it totalitarian in the Hussein mode, but it might be coming into
: conflict with the U.S. at some point.

: China has been going in the opposite direction from totalitarianism,
: because the government has figured out that they could do better by
: opening up than by closing down.

I don't think this is quite so. China is rapidly evolving its
economy, but politically retains very oligarchal. I think a better model
for China is "totalitarian capitalism", like that practiced by Nazi Germany.
Relatively great economic freedom combined with extreme government power,
often used to support "a strong economy". For all is faults, Nazi Germany
had quite an economic turnaround and did some pretty amazing things with
regards to economy and production before and during WWII. It is a somewhat
sobering analogy -- Nazi leadership (and complicity by the 'conservative'
business class) took Germany from ashes and poverty to World Power -- if
only right into a destructive war.

regards,
-------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 03:18:13 +0000 (UTC), Steven James Forsberg
wrote:


I don't think this is quite so. China is rapidly evolving its
economy, but politically retains very oligarchal. I think a better model
for China is "totalitarian capitalism", like that practiced by Nazi Germany.
Relatively great economic freedom combined with extreme government power,
often used to support "a strong economy". For all is faults, Nazi Germany
had quite an economic turnaround and did some pretty amazing things with
regards to economy and production before and during WWII. It is a somewhat
sobering analogy -- Nazi leadership (and complicity by the 'conservative'
business class) took Germany from ashes and poverty to World Power -- if
only right into a destructive war.

regards,
-------------------------------------------------------------


Or as another example, South Korea for most of the 20th century. A
pretty much "anything goes" economic model, but still rather
repressive politically.

In article ,
Steven James Forsberg wrote:

If it were not for totalitarian rulers resisting popular
will, nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia would be *very* anti-US.

If it weren't for their governments feeding propaganda against the US
and Israel (with US dollars paying for it in the case of Egypt), most of
the people in these places wouldn't have any real reasons to dislike or
fear the US. Look at the recent government-sponsored broadcast of "The
Protocols of the Elders of Zion" in Egypt, for example.

As far as that goes, try to find a modern anti-US movement in the
Mideast that *wasn't* at least partly funded by one government or
another. Even Al-Qaeda was formed and supported by a member of the
Saudi Royal Family.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"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.

"Steven James Forsberg" wrote in message
...
: Name a true regime of that sort with real popular support. Should be
: simple, right?
:
: Well, a lot of it depends on what you mean by totalitarian. Some
: people would call Iran that, but the government enjoys a fair amount
: of support, and even many of those who dislike it don't do so enough
: to cooperate with a U.S. invasion.

: "Support" and "fear" are two very different things. And the question in
: Iran isn't how much do the people support the government (not as
: strongly as you'd think) but how much do they fear everything else (a
: lot, due to years of internal propaganda)?

While Iran is not exactly sparkling with freedom, it is one of the
more democratic nations in the Middle East. Indeed, that is one reason the
US fears it so. If it were not for totalitarian rulers resisting popular
will, nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia would be *very* anti-US. I
would
suggest that widespread support for the Iranian government is much
stronger
than you imply, though there are certainly those who want to see it
modified. In particular, even a lot of those who dislike heavy handed
social regulation still support an anti- or at best neutral stance towards
the U.S.
You realize, of course, that Iran is a democracy? Power is split
between the more 'secular' legislative and the more religious 'judicial/
executive' portions, but even the Ayatollah is elected (albeit indirectly,
just as the US used to do with State Senators). Lifetime appointment can
be a bitch, but just ask a critic of our Supreme Court about that.

LOL

You do realize Iran ISN'T a democracy of any real sense don't you? It is a
Theocracy with a limited fake democracy cover.

If a non-elected government branch can kill, imprison, or remove from the
ballot any politician who doesn't get the "Good Islamic Stamp Of Approval"
before or after the election - its not a democracy.

Plus veto any legislation they don't like. This is why the 30 majority
has been on the verge of staging a revolution for a few years.

Which is why a "real" democracy next door in Iraq should be scaring them so
bad.

The Islamic "priests" seam to still be beating the "rule by divine right"
drum since they seam to think they should be ruling not just the current
"royalty" of their countries. Remember the ones in Afghanistan ranting that
it was a SIN to accept a democratic government there.

[trim]