asymetric warfare

In article ,
says...
From: Bernardz
Date: 12/25/2003 2:30 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: MPG.1a554b3a5ecb7c2c9897dd@news

In article ,
says...

"Bernardz" wrote in message
news:MPG.1a53f4b4844803a89897d1@news...


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.


The V-1 was a pulse jet not a rocket ,

You are right! It was a slip by me.

and was just about accurate to hit
a target as big as London from 150 miles away.

Yep.

As a military weapon
it was a failure except in so far as it tied down allied assets to
counter it.

Agreed. Although I would say psychologically it gave hope to the German
people that they were too were hitting the enemy back. Useless but a
doomed people will clutch at straws.



Keith


Not all that useless considering the U.S. made copies called the "Loon" and
intended to use them in the invasions of Japan. You can still see the remains
of the launchers on the beach of the Eglin AFB reservation. There are examples
of the Loons at Lackland AFB, Air Force Armament Museum and I am sure a few
other places.

Interestingly a bit earlier, in the US the American version of the V1,
the JB-2 was rejected by Washington as it was felt that they would
interfere with supplies of labor, production of bombs and artillery and
also port capacity might also be strained.

Apparently the idea was resurrected afterwards in the Pacific as you
stated.



Then again the U.S. also considered using cheimcal weapons in the invasions.

I doubt that they ever intended to use gas despite some plans that have
been displayed.


Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired




--
What our descendants think of us and our ancestors will depend on what
we do now!

23th saying of Bernard

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 07:20:34 GMT, "Robert"
wrote:


"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]

Actually, it is closer to a authoritarian democracy than not.
There are very severe limits on what elected officials can achieve,
but the Mullahs desire the imprint of "popular" rule, so they do not
outright eliminate all opposition. Also, you make an error in calling
the Islamic rulers as "priests"-- there are conservtiive, moderate and
liberal branches, some of them quite interested in democratic reform.
Note that recently there was an open letter by about 200
legislators calling for democratic reform-- and they're all alive and
unimprisoned. A far cry from either Iraq or Taliban Afghanistan.
For that matter, it's a very, VERY far cry from our good friend the
Shah of Iran's government. I know Iranian exiles missing teeth and
fingernails as a result of coming to his bully boy's attention in a
bad way.

You miss, one of the great enemies of a truly democratic iran, the
United States of America, which has a nasty habit of making loud
pronouncments about the democratic movement in Iran, which goes over
about as well as Stalin giving his seal of approval to any movement in
the U.S., circa 1950. Most of the democratic reformers woudl prefer
we keep our yap shut.
As for a revolution-- very, very unlikely. Even many of the exile
Iranians prefer to avoid that-- IRan has had a major external war, a
repressive government of the Shah and the unpleasantness that came
after his fall, and many would generally prefer about any other
possible alternative to a revolution. Many of the reformers, most
young, are simply interested in outliving the hard line mullahs, who
are mostly old.

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 03:26:27 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:

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

Being repressive politically doesn't make a state totalitarian.
Totalitarianism is when a state tries to completely control the
thoughts of the people.

Stalin's Russia was totalitarian, but Brezhnev's Russia was merely
authoritarian.

--
"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).

Charles Gray wrote in message . ..
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 07:20:34 GMT, "Robert"
wrote:


"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]

Actually, it is closer to a authoritarian democracy than not.
There are very severe limits on what elected officials can achieve,
but the Mullahs desire the imprint of "popular" rule, so they do not
outright eliminate all opposition. Also, you make an error in calling
the Islamic rulers as "priests"-- there are conservtiive, moderate and
liberal branches, some of them quite interested in democratic reform.
Note that recently there was an open letter by about 200
legislators calling for democratic reform-- and they're all alive and
unimprisoned. A far cry from either Iraq or Taliban Afghanistan.
For that matter, it's a very, VERY far cry from our good friend the
Shah of Iran's government. I know Iranian exiles missing teeth and
fingernails as a result of coming to his bully boy's attention in a
bad way.

You miss, one of the great enemies of a truly democratic iran, the
United States of America, which has a nasty habit of making loud
pronouncments about the democratic movement in Iran, which goes over
about as well as Stalin giving his seal of approval to any movement in
the U.S., circa 1950. Most of the democratic reformers woudl prefer
we keep our yap shut.


It's doesn't matter what Democratic reformers want.
Since the Republican reformers told the
moronic Democratic reformers circa 1960,
that you since idiots couldn't reform a
pile of sand, or even a Cambodian tree farm,
it's not like we're going to let the Carter-Clinton-Gore
zero-goal education reform team, reform
anything other than than their
cameras, their Department of Education apologists,
their "Autobiography" editor team from
the Washington Post Style Guide To Every Redneck
Restaurant In The Australian Universe That You Didn't Want
To Visit, and their comb-overs.




As for a revolution-- very, very unlikely. Even many of the exile
Iranians prefer to avoid that-- IRan has had a major external war, a
repressive government of the Shah and the unpleasantness that came
after his fall, and many would generally prefer about any other
possible alternative to a revolution. Many of the reformers, most
young, are simply interested in outliving the hard line mullahs, who
are mostly old.

Since the mullahs aren't even from Iran, and
they're even older than Jewish Rabbis,
many of us real Democratic reformers,
with non-zero IQs have always told the
US Democratic "Reformers" that we don't
we really care if you retards walk,
just as long as you walk like an Egyptian.

t 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.


I think you forgat a small detail,Germany before ashes and powerty was a
scientific,technological and military powerhouse,even in the middle of ashes
and powerty,Germans produced many all stars of science and technology.
But the powerty has also produced worlds largest communist party outside SU and
that was the reason why corporate Germany supported Nazis.
Without NSDAP and with more clever leadership Germany could dominate whole
world even without firing one shot in anger.
Germany did not lose WWII in 1942,they lost it in 1933.

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" writes:
Not really, no. The UK buys the strategic lift and the support
infrastructure to be able to put troops, tanks, ships and aircraft far
overseas and fight: other countries concentrate on headline-grabbing
numbers of frontline assets but aren't able to send them anywhere (and
aren't tested in their ability to commit them to combat).

And then sells off the Air and Sealift assets just when they're
needed.
I seem to recall that as part of the post-Flklands War buildup of
defences on the Falklans, that equipment and material were being flown
down in TAC/Heavylift Shorts Belfasts - The same ones that the RAF had
sold them a couple of years before.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" writes:
In message , Peter Stickney
writes
Actually, John, you don't seem to have much of an understanding of how
tanks work, or what the typical engangement ranges are.
Five miles is right out.
The longest range kill achieved by a tank to date is a 3,000m (roughlt
1.5 Statute Mile shot by a British Challenger II vs. an Iraqi T72 in
the 1990-91 Gulf War.

5,150 metres by a Challenger 1. (Allegedly a first-shot hit)

Thanks, Paul & Andew - I knew it was an exceptional shot, but had the
details a bit mungled up. It doesn't change the point, though.

Even in open country like Iraq, the usual
longest range for a Main Gun shot on an opposing tank was 2000m. In a
European rural environment, the most likely engagement range would be
1000m. In more closed country, like, say, the Northeastern U.S., or
Maritime Canada, engagement ranges as close as 50-100m are not
unlikely.

Open-fire ranges tend to be considerably longer, 2-2.5 kilometres being
frequent when visibility permits: however, the enemy rarely agrees to
cooperatively sit at that range.

Sure. It only makes sense to shoot at the longest viable range.
Hand-to-Hand Combat is what you do when you're unarmed, naked, and one
foot is nailed to the floor, after all.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

In article ,
"John" writes:
"Peter Stickney" wrote...

Actually, John, you don't seem to have much of an understanding of how
tanks work, or what the typical engangement ranges are.
Five miles is right out.

I can only go by what I read. On sedcond thoughts, that does sound a bit far
though....

You need to read more, then. No insult intended.

Also consider that your millimeter-wave emitting SUV is ligking itself
up like a neon sign in a part of the radio spectrum that nothing else
is on. A couple of sinple horn antannae on the turret sides (Sort of
like the old coincidence rangefinder ears) for DFing, and an
omnidirectional antenna up with the Wind Sensor on the turret roof for
general detection, and you won't, say, be able to hide your
Tank-Killer SUV in Madman Morris's SUV Dealership's parking lot.

On the other hand five miles is about the right range for AT-missiles. So if
your tanks want to get to point blank range they'll still need to drive
through a kill-zone. At 40mph that'll take seven and a half minutes. How
many tanks will die in that time before they even get off a single shot?

No, 5 miles is about twice the maximum range of an AT missile.
And an AT missiles, especially a havyweight long range job like a TOW
or HOT has three severe drawbacks. They have a very impressive firing
signature - all manner of smoke, flame, and debris kicked out of the
back, (and picked up off the ground & flung about by the backblast),
They have a long time of flight - It'll take about 25-30 secinds to
travel downrange. Going much faster makes teh guidance problems
difficult - you don't have time to steer - and degrades the
performance of the HEAT warheads they carry. They also need to be
fired from a stable platform. A fast-moving, jinking SUV isn't going
to cut it.
So, as soon as you've fired, you've revealed your position. (After,
of course, beaconing yourself with the mm-wave radar. You're shooting
a slow-moving (relatively) missile that requires a steady platform, so
you need to be a steady target. In that time, the target vehicle can
get between 3 and 5 main gun rounds off. (That's one of the reasons
that U.S. tanks use manually loaded guns with 4 man crews - An
autoloader can't stand radio watch, or man an OP, or help break track,
or make the coffee, and it doesn't get excited in crunch situations
and load 3 rounds in 12 seconds. - I've seen it done, and on the move,
at that.) So, yeah, it'll be a killing zone. But not the one you're
thinking of. Helicopters, BTW, aren't much better. They also have to
be steady platforms - either hovering or flying fairly straight, and
have to be at low altitudes. Normal U.S. Doctrine is to shoot a main
gun round at him as you begin to evade. You stand a significant
chance of hitting, and even if you miss, you'll negate the attack.


Of course helicopters would be sent first, but you can buy 100 SUVs for the
cost of a single tank. The helicopters may simply run out of missiles.
Unlike tanks the SUVs may well be able to see as well as they can. And
unlike tanks, the SUVs can fire-back.

At this point, you're passing Balloon Gas.

Time of Flight of IRBM, 30 minutes. Speed of CVBG, 25 kts. Detection
of launch, instantaneous. DSP Sats, y'know. Radius of circle that
could contain the target - 12.5 Nautical Miles.

35 knots (let's be generous) and half an hour means a ship or convoy could
get 32410m away from the target point. This gives an area of
3,299,954,370m2. UK trident-II missiles can 8 475kT warheads which will
start fires at 9km, meaning they'll make the fuel onboard a carrier explode
within an area of 254,469,005m2. So you need a total of 12 warheads (or two
missiles) to kill the convoy. This assumes the US has perfect reaction
times, and can instantly guess the target at the moment of launch, which it
can't. As I said, nuclear buckshot will kill most things.

Analysis of the trajectory to be able to predict the point where the
warheads calve would be about 20 seconds. This is something we're
very good at. You might also consider the Flaming Datum problems that
you have here, as well. Postulating a U.K. sized military, you're
only going to have 1 missile sub at sea. (That's why they bought 4 of
the original Polaris boats - to be able to have 1 at sea, at any given
time. Nuking anything is, shall we say, a pretty definitive Statement
of Intent. At that point, even if you're postulating Massive
Retaliation against the U.S., you've not only marked your only viable
launch platform, in the worst possible way, you've expended 1/8 of
your missile & warheads on a relatively minor target. When the
Pointy-Haired Cannibal Hordes come pouring out of the wreckage of your
cities and drag you out of your bunker to invite you to dinner, well,
let's just say that you'll be well served.


Time of arrival of U.S. ICBM ('cause we're Nice Guys, and aren't going
to unleash somethig on the order of 10 Trident MIRVs on your country,
and only take out single targets, roughtly 1.0-1.5 hours after launch.
Your Command Centers and missile bases, or Missile Sub ports don't
move, and you made the mistake of going Nuclear first.

Attacking a military convoy (particularly of an agressor) is very different
from attacking a civilian or semi-civilian target. Particularly when the
fall-out will drift over large parts of europe, who will not exactly thank
you in exchange. Again, there is no international law that says, "Thou shalt
not attack the US." The US would also *not* launch against the british
islands without making damn sure they'd knocked out our ballistic submarines
first. Otherwise a single sub can destroy america. MAD remember?

Points: Not it its your convoy. We tend to take such things
personally.
It's not a case of Missile Subs, it's Missile Sub. (You've got 3, one
of which _may_ well, would be at sea, or you wouldn't be in a position
to screw up so mightily. The boats that are in port are gone.
Even if your boat at sea can avoid destruction, well, I hate to tell
you, but even a full load isn't going to do anythig but mightily ****
us off. Yes, we'll lose cities, but you're talking 14-16 missiles.
While you might have MIRVed warheads, they can only deviate from the
initial trajectory by a small amount. We're a big country, with stuff
fairly widely seprated. Hell, if you nuked Texas, we might not nitice
for years. If you nuked Nevada, property values would increase.
As for fallout, that is something that can be mitigated by, among
other things, the height of burst required to produce maximum effect.
Not that the Continental Euros might notice anything different - the
Eastern Midlands Coal Board puts several hundredweights of Thorium,
not to mention Uranium, particulates, and Sulfer compounds into the
European air without the slightest concern. (Did the number crunching
for an Internation Acid Rain Symposium back inthe '80s. Now I'm not a
Strict Environmentalist by any means, but these guys were/are daft!)
With the improvement in air quality, and the introduction of the
Gauloise shipments, life expectancy in France might actually increase



Besiodes which we have no silos or command centers! Have you seen the state
of London traffic? There's be no way the PM could get out in time! ^.^

Hmm. You should have thought about that before you started playing.

(And where in the British Isles could you get a 5 mile Line of Sight
to _anything_?

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:36:14 +1000, "Damo"
wrote:

military weapon of course but indicates how far and cheap off-the-shelf
civilian technology can get you these days. Scary thought if some terrorists
were clever enough to come up with like this.

Given that the guy who built it admits he's not exactly a genius,
just a part time hobbyist; and that all this information is pretty
much common knowledge to anyone with a minimal amount of aeronautical
engineering education, it's a sure bet that any terrorist group who
wants this information already has it.

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 02:56:36 -0800, Erik Max Francis
wrote:

Damo wrote:

A civilian is making a cruise missile in his garage in New Zealand for
less
then 5000 dollars.

He has apparently been thwarted by his own government, although his news
page isn't terribly clear:

http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/

Quite frankly, I'm not terribly impressed with his comments; he
half-invokes conspiracy theory arguments which one hardly would need to
consider. It's common sense that, hey, you're probably violating about
a thousand different regulations with the project; the government would
have to be completely stupid not to take interest in stopping the
project for any number of common sense reasons.

The government of New Zealand told him that he was breaking no laws
or regulations with his project; they are going after him for a tax
issue. Pretty much the same way Al Capone got nailed once the feds
realized they couldn't prove he was involved with any criminal
activity.

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft