asymetric warfare

In article ,
says...
Bernardz wrote:

:Say I built heaps of multiple-rocket launchers built an improved WW2, V1
:jet to hit a city say at 200 miles and then targeted them at an US ally
:cities.
:
:Aiming would be pretty trivial, most modern cities are pretty big anyway
:and so what if a a lot miss? Its not like they cost me much anyway each
:missile.
:
:My missiles shot down are a lot cheaper then the anti missiles the US
:uses anyway.
:
:The make sure that this US ally is aware of your capability. That might
:keep the US out of the conflict.

You've got to build them somewhere.

I presume that they would be built long before the conflict started.


They have to launch from
somewhere. Both of those 'somewheres' can be targeted and obliterated
in pretty short order.

We could not do it in Iraq. Mobile launchers are very difficult to take
out.




:This strategy seems to work for the North Koreans.

Well, no. What works for the North Koreans is a bunch of artillery
and a huge army sitting poised to attack South Korea, whose capital is
right up there by the border.

Its a bit of both. In the event of a conflict the army gives the North
Koreans time to attack Seoul by long range artillery and rocket
launchers. Most of their artillery is short and medium range artillery
built to hit the DMZ and the area south of it, it cannot reach Seoul.


Jane's International Defense Review however states that

North Korean long range artillery can deliver 1,5kT of high explosives
in Seoul within one hour using 28,152 artillery rounds and rockets.

1,5kT/hour mean 36kT/day, which is something like 2 Nagasaki-size atom
bombs a day.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-5027.htm

States that "North Korea has about 500 long-range artillery tubes within
range of Seoul...is within range of the 170mm Koksan gun and two hundred
240mm multiple-rocket launchers...The proximity of these long-range
systems to the Demilitarized Zone threatens all of Seoul with
devastating attacks."

Such an attack might result in a 100,000 dead in Seoul in the first day.

IRBMs and nuclear warheads help, too.



Agreed. Particularly as they maybe able to hit Japan.



--
The rich and the poor want the same thing, money.

21st saying of Bernard

In article MPG.1a519da6af0338a89897c2@news,
Bernardz wrote:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-5027.htm

States that "North Korea has about 500 long-range artillery tubes within
range of Seoul...is within range of the 170mm Koksan gun and two hundred
240mm multiple-rocket launchers...The proximity of these long-range
systems to the Demilitarized Zone threatens all of Seoul with
devastating attacks."

Such an attack might result in a 100,000 dead in Seoul in the first day.

....if nobody bothers with counterbattery fire, or drops a bunch of high
explosives in the area of the artillery to make them stop shooting.

We *know* where these cannons are going to be firing from. Wh know
where their hardened shelters are. We know where their radar defenses
are.

If the North doesn't start with a completely unprovoked surprise attack,
they've got a good chance of getting erased very quickly.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Bernardz wrote:

:In article ,
says...
: Bernardz wrote:
:
: :Say I built heaps of multiple-rocket launchers built an improved WW2, V1
: :jet to hit a city say at 200 miles and then targeted them at an US ally
: :cities.
: :
: :Aiming would be pretty trivial, most modern cities are pretty big anyway
: :and so what if a a lot miss? Its not like they cost me much anyway each
: :missile.
: :
: :My missiles shot down are a lot cheaper then the anti missiles the US
: :uses anyway.
: :
: :The make sure that this US ally is aware of your capability. That might
: :keep the US out of the conflict.
:
: You've got to build them somewhere.
:
:I presume that they would be built long before the conflict started.

So kill the factories and wait 5 years. Most of them won't work.

: They have to launch from
: somewhere. Both of those 'somewheres' can be targeted and obliterated
: in pretty short order.
:
:We could not do it in Iraq. Mobile launchers are very difficult to take
ut.

For onesy-twosy launches this is true, but that's not really what's
being talked about here, is it?

: :This strategy seems to work for the North Koreans.
:
: Well, no. What works for the North Koreans is a bunch of artillery
: and a huge army sitting poised to attack South Korea, whose capital is
: right up there by the border.
:
:Its a bit of both. In the event of a conflict the army gives the North
:Koreans time to attack Seoul by long range artillery and rocket
:launchers. Most of their artillery is short and medium range artillery
:built to hit the DMZ and the area south of it, it cannot reach Seoul.

Well, no, it's not "a bit of both" and I note that you clipped the
original statement.

:Jane's International Defense Review however states that
:
:North Korean long range artillery can deliver 1,5kT of high explosives
:in Seoul within one hour using 28,152 artillery rounds and rockets.
:
:1,5kT/hour mean 36kT/day, which is something like 2 Nagasaki-size atom
:bombs a day.
:
:http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-5027.htm
:
:States that "North Korea has about 500 long-range artillery tubes within
:range of Seoul...is within range of the 170mm Koksan gun and two hundred
:240mm multiple-rocket launchers...The proximity of these long-range
:systems to the Demilitarized Zone threatens all of Seoul with
:devastating attacks."
:
:Such an attack might result in a 100,000 dead in Seoul in the first day.

It's not just the dead. It obliterates the largest city in the South
and creates a lot of refugees, who then interfere with the movement of
troops north.

: IRBMs and nuclear warheads help, too.
:
:Agreed. Particularly as they maybe able to hit Japan.

They are most definitely able to hit Japan, since they've fired OVER
Japan in tests. They MAY be able to hit LA.

--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:33:33 GMT, Thomas J. Paladino Jr. wrote:

Another target for LCCMs would be surface ships. Telling tghe
difference between a ship and water is easier than detecting land
vehicles (detecting what sort of ship it is would also be quite
easy, I imagine). Anti ship missiles would probably want ot have a
bigger warhead than anti-land force missiles (or a 'swarm' option
could be used).

While 'swarming' ships with cruise missiles could possibly overwhelm their
anti-missile systems, it is still not a feasible plan for an effective
weapon system. Think about it; how many missiles would be needed to get
through the anti-missile defenses and still cause major damage? 75? 100?
More? Per ship? Where are all of these missiles going to be set up and
launched from, and how are you going to keep them from being destroyed by a
B-2 in the first 10 seconds of the war?

Why would all the missiles have to be launched from the same
location?

--
"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 Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:33:33 GMT, Thomas J. Paladino Jr.
wrote:

Another target for LCCMs would be surface ships. Telling tghe
difference between a ship and water is easier than detecting land
vehicles (detecting what sort of ship it is would also be quite
easy, I imagine). Anti ship missiles would probably want ot have a
bigger warhead than anti-land force missiles (or a 'swarm' option
could be used).

While 'swarming' ships with cruise missiles could possibly overwhelm
their
anti-missile systems, it is still not a feasible plan for an effective
weapon system. Think about it; how many missiles would be needed to get
through the anti-missile defenses and still cause major damage? 75? 100?
More? Per ship? Where are all of these missiles going to be set up and
launched from, and how are you going to keep them from being destroyed by
a
B-2 in the first 10 seconds of the war?

Why would all the missiles have to be launched from the same
location?


LOL.... now you're talking about *multiple* lauch & storage facilities, for
potentially 500-1000+ missiles, all cooridinated with each other to hit the
same small targets *simultaneously*? The infrastructure and technology for
that undertaking would be even more cost prohibitive, but just as futile.
Even if they were somehow built and tested (extraordinarily unlikely);
again, what would stop *all* of these facilities from being taken out in the
first 10 seconds of the war? (And keep in mind that if just a couple of the
facilities were disrupted it would exponentially decrease the effectiveness
of the entire system). These systems would be nearly impossible to conceal,
and would be eliminated right off the bat, if not preemptively during their
testing phase (since nothing like this has been built, it would have to be
tested thoroughly, and that would be impossible to conceal. From there, it
wouldn't take long for US intel to deduce what the intent of such a system
is, and order it eliminated).

Face it, this is a bad idea.

Thomas J. Paladino Jr.
New York City

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:33:33 GMT, Thomas J. Paladino Jr.
wrote:

Another target for LCCMs would be surface ships. Telling tghe
difference between a ship and water is easier than detecting land
vehicles (detecting what sort of ship it is would also be quite
easy, I imagine). Anti ship missiles would probably want ot have a
bigger warhead than anti-land force missiles (or a 'swarm' option
could be used).

While 'swarming' ships with cruise missiles could possibly overwhelm
their
anti-missile systems, it is still not a feasible plan for an effective
weapon system. Think about it; how many missiles would be needed to get
through the anti-missile defenses and still cause major damage? 75? 100?
More? Per ship? Where are all of these missiles going to be set up and
launched from, and how are you going to keep them from being destroyed by
a
B-2 in the first 10 seconds of the war?

Why would all the missiles have to be launched from the same
location?


LOL.... now you're talking about *multiple* lauch & storage facilities, for
potentially 500-1000+ missiles, all cooridinated with each other to hit the
same small targets *simultaneously*? The infrastructure and technology for
that undertaking would be even more cost prohibitive, but just as futile.
Even if they were somehow built and tested (extraordinarily unlikely);
again, what would stop *all* of these facilities from being taken out in the
first 10 seconds of the war? (And keep in mind that if just a couple of the
facilities were disrupted it would exponentially decrease the effectiveness
of the entire system). These systems would be nearly impossible to conceal,
and would be eliminated right off the bat --if not preemptively during their
testing phase (since nothing like this has been built, it would have to be
tested thoroughly, and that would be impossible to conceal. From there, it
wouldn't take long for US intel to deduce what the intent of such a system
is, and order it eliminated).

Face it, this is a bad idea.

Thomas J. Paladino Jr.
New York City

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:12:47 GMT, Thomas J. Paladino Jr. wrote:

LOL.... now you're talking about *multiple* lauch & storage facilities,

Launch facility = a land rover and trailer

storage facility = any building will do

for
potentially 500-1000+ missiles, all cooridinated with each other to hit the
same small targets *simultaneously*?

co-ordination = radio

The infrastructure and technology for
that undertaking would be even more cost prohibitive, but just as futile.
Even if they were somehow built and tested (extraordinarily unlikely);
again, what would stop *all* of these facilities from being taken out in the
first 10 seconds of the war?

Knowing where they are?

Did the USA knock out all Iraqu tanks at the start of the 2003 or
1991 wars? No, it did not, unlike in your worthless comtemptable
idiot strawman scenario. Did the USA knock out all Serbian tanks in
the Kosovo war? they didn't in the whole war, let alone the first
ten minutes.

Face it, this is a bad idea.

Face it, you're an idiot bull****ter.

--
"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).

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 17:41:33 +0000, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:12:47 GMT, Thomas J. Paladino Jr. wrote:

LOL.... now you're talking about *multiple* lauch & storage facilities,

Launch facility = a land rover and trailer

And how big is this missile? Unless it's very small, the land rover
is now restricted to the roads-- they don't pull heavy loads through
off road territory that easily, and any 150KM+ missile will be a
heavy load, plus the radio and data link equipment.



storage facility = any building will do

for
potentially 500-1000+ missiles, all cooridinated with each other to hit the
same small targets *simultaneously*?

co-ordination = radio

What radio? the U.S. will have every frequency jammed-- we
practically own the radio spectrum. Also, that sort of time on target
tactic takes a lot of training-- and most 3rd world countries don't
have it.
To put it this way, at no point during either GW I or II was the
Iraqi military, much larger, with many hardened facilities, able to
pull off this sort of coordination.

The infrastructure and technology for
that undertaking would be even more cost prohibitive, but just as futile.
Even if they were somehow built and tested (extraordinarily unlikely);
again, what would stop *all* of these facilities from being taken out in the
first 10 seconds of the war?

Knowing where they are?

Did the USA knock out all Iraqu tanks at the start of the 2003 or
1991 wars? No, it did not, unlike in your worthless comtemptable
idiot strawman scenario. Did the USA knock out all Serbian tanks in
the Kosovo war? they didn't in the whole war, let alone the first
ten minutes.

WE didn't have to-- but we did knock out the Iraqi Air defense
system, and for something like 60 days in 1991 got to play, "Smash the
army". The tanks couldn't hurt us. The scuds stayed hidden, but that
was because they were doing individual launches. The U.S. won't come
charging in like a blind bull-- it'll hit you from the air, slowly
degrading your command and control abilities. If you want to come to
us, fine-- you have to put the equipoment on the road. Remember the
Highway of Death? If we're invading you, its back to deciding do we
want to go fast, or spend a few weeks destroying your ability to
resist? After plowing all the money into this systems, you certainly
aren't going to have many tanks, infantry worthy of the name, or
airpower, so ALL the U.S. has to do is kill this one system.
Not an effective strategy. Not at all.

ess (phil hunt) wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:12:47 GMT, Thomas J. Paladino Jr. wrote:

LOL.... now you're talking about *multiple* lauch & storage facilities,

Launch facility = a land rover and trailer

Which need gas and maintenance.

storage facility = any building will do

*goggles* Not even remotely Clyde. Storing fueled & armed cruise
missiles is a dangerous task. Putting them in 'any old building' is a
damn good way to kill half a city... your own.

for potentially 500-1000+ missiles, all cooridinated with each other to hit the
same small targets *simultaneously*?

co-ordination = radio

It's not the method of communication that's the hard part. It's
actually gathering all the data (hard), synthesizing it and generating
launch orders (very hard), and then transmitting it to hundreds of
launch locations (hard). All these things you handwave away have
hidden complexities.

Did the USA knock out all Iraqu tanks at the start of the 2003 or
1991 wars? No, it did not, unlike in your worthless comtemptable
idiot strawman scenario. Did the USA knock out all Serbian tanks in
the Kosovo war? they didn't in the whole war, let alone the first
ten minutes.

They didn't have to kill all the tanks. Instead they went after the
command and control structure, which renders the tanks almost as
useless as if they were scattered across the terrain.

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.

ess (phil hunt) wrote in message ...
for
potentially 500-1000+ missiles, all cooridinated with each other to hit the
same small targets *simultaneously*?

co-ordination = radio

Against the US?

They've spent billions of dollars on the ability to listen in to what
you're saying on the radio, prevent you from talking on the radio,
finding out where you're talking from on the radio the better to drop
a bomb on your head, and pretending to be your boss telling you what
to do over the radio. They're reasonably good at it.

Try again.

-jake