asymetric warfare

#1 December 19th 03, 05:52 AM

"Peter Skelton" wrote in message
...
ISTM that there are two possible objectives:

1) deterring the large power from starting a war

2) minimizing the damage a war does to the citizens

Countries involved in terrorist-risistance campaigns tend to be
unpleasant places to live. Resistance campaigns at home may have
some outcome influencing effect (Nam was sold to the American
publicv that way), but attacks on the larger country seem
counter-productive as Afghanistan and Chechnya (Sp?) are
discovering. Possibly non-terrorist strategies aimed at attacking
the big country at home would back-fire simillarly.

Probably some combination of being a tough nut to crack, giving
up something the aggressor wants and persuading others that their
interests are served by helping out is the winning strategy.

Two countries faced with large, belligerent neighbours in the
thirties were Poland and Finland. Neither neighbour could be
bought off. The latter did rather well, the former poorly. Are
there lessons in their experience?

1. First lesson - Geography matters. Poland is rather flat and good tank
country.
Finland is not. Even in modern times, nobody wanted to do a ground campaign
in
the Balkans - the terrain is too tough. Saddam Hussein, military genius,
twice
managed to manuever (or be manuevered) into playing tanks in a sandbox.
Good
idea if you got the quantity and quality. Bad idea otherwise.

2. See #1

Lance

Peter Skelton

#2 December 18th 03, 10:47 PM

ess (phil hunt) wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:52:28 GMT, Derek Lyons wrote:

(phil hunt) wrote:

Guidance systems depend on *much* more than simply their computers.
You also need the inertial components, or their analogs, and *those*
are going to be hard to obtain in large quantities, especially at any
useful accuracy level.

digital cameras can do much of the job, and they are available
cheaply.

ROTFLMAO. A commercial digital camera isn't within an order of
magnitude of defense imaging systems and *isn't* a replacement for
inertial components. (I.E. a camera can image a target, it cannot
keep your missile level, or on a proper course.)

snipped various fanciful uses
Many of these depend on the West not deploying something it's
exceedingly capable at; Electronic warfare and countermeasures.

What electronic countermeasures could be used?

Any number of the the systems that the US has developed, especially
for naval and aviation uses.

Faster weapon system design mewans it could
"get inside the decision curve" of Western arms industries, because
by the time they've produced a weapon to counter the low-cost
weapon, the next generation of low-cost weapon is there.

Problem is, the Western powers can get inside this curve faster than
the medium nation can. The factories, power grid, etc of the medium
nation can be taken out within a few weeks to months via manned
bombers, or our own cruise missiles. Vital components produced
overseas can be stopped via blockade.

That's after the war breaks out. The USA isn't likely to start
bombing every country with an arms industry, is it?

No. But bombing after war breaks out is about 99% as efficient as
doing so before the war breaks out. Your LCCM's have to be stored
somewhere, and then deployed to their firing points.

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.

#3 December 18th 03, 08:22 PM

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:22:52 +0000, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

What would be sensible strategies/weapons for a middle-ranking
country to employ if it thought it is likely to be involved in a war
against the USA or other Western countries, say in the next 10
years?

Lets define "middle ranking" and "war" first. India and China are
a far different matter from Pakistan, or SK/NK. Also, what sort of
war are we talking about? A conflict in which the nations governments
survival is at stake, an all out to the death conflit, or something
else?
The first thing you have to consider is that no middle ranking
country could survive an "all out" conflit with the US, which means we
want to avoid tactics that might lead to the conflict transforming
into such a battle. No nukes, bio's, chems, etc. No direct attacks
on the CONUS.

I think one strategy would be to use large numbers of low cost
cruise missiles (LCCM). The elements of a cruise missile are all
very simple, mature technology, except for the guidance system.
Modern computers are small and cheap, so guidance systems can be
made cheaply.

For china, maybe. Pakistan or Iran or India? less likely. Even
LCCM's are fairly high technology, and 'dead reckoning' isn't as easy
as it sounds. You can't use GPS, because the first thing the U.S.
will do is shut down that ability-- which means some form of inertial
guidence.

LCCMs could be designed to attack enemy vehicles, both armoured, and
supply columns. The missile could use dead-reckoning to move itself
approximately where the enemy vehicles are, then use visual sensors
to detect vehicles (moving ones would probably be easier to detect).
This would require digital cameras and computers in the guidance
system, both of which are cheap. Programming appropriate image
recognition software is non-trivial, but has been done, and the cost
could be spread over large production runs. As the LCCM sees a
vehicle and chooses a target, it could dive towards it, and
simultaneously broadcast its position and a photo of the target
(useful intel for the missile controllers).

Cheap digistal cameras would be very easy to spoof-- smoke comes
to mind, and if you start going for IR systems, you've just stopped
being "cheap". Also, computer's and programs that can pick out
targets against ground clutter are somewhat more difficult-- note the
fact that even now the U.S. still prefers laser guided missiles, and I
don't believe we have any autonomous weapons like this in stock
(although some are being made ready). The problems are tremendous.

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).

More doable-- but if it isn't an active system, well the ocean is a
very big place. If it is, then it's either expensive, or very easy to
spoof.
As for a swarm, how to you choose targets? If there isn't any
inter-communiation, your entire swarm will attack the first ship it
sees...which usually won't be a major target. If there is inter-UAV
communication, you're back to having a very expensive system that even
the U.S. hasn't quite figured out, and is far beyhond the capabiliies
of most other nations.

Another application would be to make it re-usable, i.e. a UAV rather
than a CM. Mount a machine gun in it, and let it roam around over
the battlefield taking pot-shots at anything that moves. Or use it
to give targetting data for artillery.

Targeting data maybe-- many nations have that. An Autonomous UCAV?
Nope-- for one thing, consider how difficult it woudl be to insure it
doesn't fire on your own units. IFF systems for autonomous UCAV's are
one of the big design blocks.

Western nations can, and are, using UAVs extensively, for these
sorts of roles. However, western defence industries tend to be
slow-moving, bloated, produce expensive kit, and it would probably
be possible for a mid-range power, provided it adopts a
minimum-bureaucracy approach to design, to produce weapon systems
faster and more cheaply. Faster weapon system design mewans it could
"get inside the decision curve" of Western arms industries, because
by the time they've produced a weapon to counter the low-cost
weapon, the next generation of low-cost weapon is there.

The problems is that these weapons wouldn't be "low cost" for other
nations-- they'd be major projects, taking forever because most
mid-range nations that migbht be in conflict with the West don't have
the vast depth of technical expertese we do.
One example-- low cost bombs using GPS and inertial guidence were
developed and fielded by the U.S.-- while the system itself is "low
cost" the effort to develop it is anything but. Low cost loitering
UAV's and cruise missiles are in development-- in the U.S. and UK. I
think maybe China and India might be able to conduct a design effort
like you sugggest, but it woudl be hard for them, and I can't see
other nations, like Pakistan, any African nations, or even smaller
western nations like Austraila, Canada, or Italy being able to even
come close.

#4 December 19th 03, 05:43 AM

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:22:04 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:22:52 +0000, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

What would be sensible strategies/weapons for a middle-ranking
country to employ if it thought it is likely to be involved in a war
against the USA or other Western countries, say in the next 10
years?

Lets define "middle ranking" and "war" first. India and China are
a far different matter from Pakistan, or SK/NK.

I wrote a long list of nations I had in mind in another post. All
the ones you mentioned above were on it (IIRC), except NK.

The first thing you have to consider is that no middle ranking
country could survive an "all out" conflit with the US, which means we
want to avoid tactics that might lead to the conflict transforming
into such a battle. No nukes, bio's, chems, etc. No direct attacks
on the CONUS.

This is true.

I think one strategy would be to use large numbers of low cost
cruise missiles (LCCM). The elements of a cruise missile are all
very simple, mature technology, except for the guidance system.
Modern computers are small and cheap, so guidance systems can be
made cheaply.

For china, maybe. Pakistan or Iran or India? less likely.

All these countries have access to embedded computer technology;
Germany could make cruise missiles 60 years ago, indicating that it
can't be that difficult to do, so I expect all these countries could
make the other parts themselves.

Even
LCCM's are fairly high technology, and 'dead reckoning' isn't as easy
as it sounds.

Why not?

Cheap digistal cameras would be very easy to spoof-- smoke comes
to mind,

Yes, but you can't light fires *everywhere*.

and if you start going for IR systems, you've just stopped
being "cheap".

That's mostly true, IR cameras cost around $5000. Probably it'd be
best to have plug-in sensors so ther operator could choose to add IR
when it's necessary for the job.

Also, computer's and programs that can pick out
targets against ground clutter are somewhat more difficult-- note the
fact that even now the U.S. still prefers laser guided missiles, and I
don't believe we have any autonomous weapons like this in stock
(although some are being made ready). The problems are tremendous.

sarcasmWell, obviously, if the USA can't do it, no-one else
can./sarcasm

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).

More doable-- but if it isn't an active system, well the ocean is a
very big place. If it is, then it's either expensive, or very easy to
spoof.
As for a swarm, how to you choose targets? If there isn't any
inter-communiation, your entire swarm will attack the first ship it
sees...which usually won't be a major target. If there is inter-UAV
communication, you're back to having a very expensive system that even
the U.S. hasn't quite figured out, and is far beyhond the capabiliies
of most other nations.

Swarm co-ordination is a software problem. To solve it, you need a
few clever postgrad students, properly managed.

The problems is that these weapons wouldn't be "low cost" for other
nations-- they'd be major projects, taking forever because most
mid-range nations that migbht be in conflict with the West don't have
the vast depth of technical expertese we do.

But you don't need "vast depth". With the exception of computer and
imaging technology, *everything* you need to make a cruise missile
is 1940s tech.

One example-- low cost bombs using GPS and inertial guidence were
developed and fielded by the U.S.-- while the system itself is "low
cost" the effort to develop it is anything but. Low cost loitering
UAV's and cruise missiles are in development-- in the U.S. and UK. I
think maybe China and India might be able to conduct a design effort
like you sugggest, but it woudl be hard for them, and I can't see
other nations, like Pakistan, any African nations, or even smaller
western nations like Austraila, Canada, or Italy being able to even
come close.

The idea that Italy couldn't make a cruise missile is silly IMO.

--
"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).

#5 December 19th 03, 06:17 AM

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:22:04 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:22:52 +0000, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

What would be sensible strategies/weapons for a middle-ranking
country to employ if it thought it is likely to be involved in a war
against the USA or other Western countries, say in the next 10
years?

Lets define "middle ranking" and "war" first. India and China are
a far different matter from Pakistan, or SK/NK.

I wrote a long list of nations I had in mind in another post. All
the ones you mentioned above were on it (IIRC), except NK.

The first thing you have to consider is that no middle ranking
country could survive an "all out" conflit with the US, which means we
want to avoid tactics that might lead to the conflict transforming
into such a battle. No nukes, bio's, chems, etc. No direct attacks
on the CONUS.

This is true.

I think one strategy would be to use large numbers of low cost
cruise missiles (LCCM). The elements of a cruise missile are all
very simple, mature technology, except for the guidance system.
Modern computers are small and cheap, so guidance systems can be
made cheaply.

For china, maybe. Pakistan or Iran or India? less likely.

All these countries have access to embedded computer technology;
Germany could make cruise missiles 60 years ago, indicating that it
can't be that difficult to do, so I expect all these countries could
make the other parts themselves.

Merely having some degree of computer capability is not going to cut it; and
likening the V-1 to the kind of autonomous sytem you posit is laughable.

Even
LCCM's are fairly high technology, and 'dead reckoning' isn't as easy
as it sounds.

Why not?

Accumulated error, for one thing; you can't count on GPS for positional
updates. Your LORAN idea fell flatter than a pancake. So you are now left
with trying to cobble together an inertial nav system--more weight and
complexity, more R&D required, and in the end it is not going to give you
the kind of accuracy you need over the distances you will have to negotiate.

Cheap digistal cameras would be very easy to spoof-- smoke comes
to mind,

Yes, but you can't light fires *everywhere*.

What? You do know what those nifty little stubby, multi-barrel thingies
mounted on all of our armored vehicles are, don't you? And you don't have to
light fires--smoke pots work quite well, as do onboard smoke generators.

and if you start going for IR systems, you've just stopped
being "cheap".

That's mostly true, IR cameras cost around $5000. Probably it'd be
best to have plug-in sensors so ther operator could choose to add IR
when it's necessary for the job.

Now you need a whole new set of target data--more R&D again.

Also, computer's and programs that can pick out
targets against ground clutter are somewhat more difficult-- note the
fact that even now the U.S. still prefers laser guided missiles, and I
don't believe we have any autonomous weapons like this in stock
(although some are being made ready). The problems are tremendous.

sarcasmWell, obviously, if the USA can't do it, no-one else
can./sarcasm

The hell with your sarcasm, the fact is that it is a hell of a lot harder
nut to crack than you seem to comprehend. If you think otherwise, you need
to go into business for yourself and offer us this wonderful, cheap, easily
produced autonomous attack system to ther DoD. Guarantee they'd buy it--if
it worked, that is...

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).

More doable-- but if it isn't an active system, well the ocean is a
very big place. If it is, then it's either expensive, or very easy to
spoof.
As for a swarm, how to you choose targets? If there isn't any
inter-communiation, your entire swarm will attack the first ship it
sees...which usually won't be a major target. If there is inter-UAV
communication, you're back to having a very expensive system that even
the U.S. hasn't quite figured out, and is far beyhond the capabiliies
of most other nations.

Swarm co-ordination is a software problem. To solve it, you need a
few clever postgrad students, properly managed.

ROFLOL! Gee, I guess you also consider AI to be something you can acheive
over next weekend, right? Your habit of taking every serious problem with
your pet theory here and writing it off as a "software problem which is easy
to take care of" is getting a bit monotonous.

The problems is that these weapons wouldn't be "low cost" for other
nations-- they'd be major projects, taking forever because most
mid-range nations that migbht be in conflict with the West don't have
the vast depth of technical expertese we do.

But you don't need "vast depth". With the exception of computer and
imaging technology, *everything* you need to make a cruise missile
is 1940s tech.

Not if you want to make one that is lethal in the modern era.

One example-- low cost bombs using GPS and inertial guidence were
developed and fielded by the U.S.-- while the system itself is "low
cost" the effort to develop it is anything but. Low cost loitering
UAV's and cruise missiles are in development-- in the U.S. and UK. I
think maybe China and India might be able to conduct a design effort
like you sugggest, but it woudl be hard for them, and I can't see
other nations, like Pakistan, any African nations, or even smaller
western nations like Austraila, Canada, or Italy being able to even
come close.

Hell, india has not managed to get their Arjun tank project in order, and
Phil thinks they could pull this autonomous hunter/killer scheme off?

The idea that Italy couldn't make a cruise missile is silly IMO.

Sure they could--but they can't make the autonomous uberweapon you have
posited. Nothing to be ashamed of--right now neither can we. But you can,
because all of the problems are mere exercises in writing a few lines of new
code, right?

Brooks

#6 December 20th 03, 05:35 PM

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 06:17:02 GMT, Kevin Brooks wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
...
Even
LCCM's are fairly high technology, and 'dead reckoning' isn't as easy
as it sounds.

Why not?

Accumulated error, for one thing; you can't count on GPS for positional
updates.

Say the error is 1%. Then it'd be 1 km off on a 100 km journey.
That's close enough for terminal homing to

Your LORAN idea fell flatter than a pancake.

No it didn't.

So you are now left
with trying to cobble together an inertial nav system--more weight and
complexity, more R&D required, and in the end it is not going to give you
the kind of accuracy you need over the distances you will have to negotiate.

Are you an expert on inertial nav systems? If so, how much
weight/cost? If not...

Cheap digistal cameras would be very easy to spoof-- smoke comes
to mind,

Yes, but you can't light fires *everywhere*.

What? You do know what those nifty little stubby, multi-barrel thingies
mounted on all of our armored vehicles are, don't you?

Yes. But they can't be firing *all the time* just in case they are
going to be attacked. True, they could fire when they've spotted an
incoming missile, assuimng they do spot it. The missile could
perhaps go away and come back 5 minutes later, or it could alter
other forces to the target location, or it could fly through the
smoke (it travels a lot faster than the targets). Or it could use
sensors that can see through smoke -- I'm not sure if IR or radar
would work.

and if you start going for IR systems, you've just stopped
being "cheap".

That's mostly true, IR cameras cost around $5000. Probably it'd be
best to have plug-in sensors so ther operator could choose to add IR
when it's necessary for the job.

Now you need a whole new set of target data--more R&D again.

I'm not sure it would be that much more. For the main application of
spotting moving vehicles you could probably use essentially the same
software. Also, the shape of objects under IR is the same as under
visual light.

Also, computer's and programs that can pick out
targets against ground clutter are somewhat more difficult-- note the
fact that even now the U.S. still prefers laser guided missiles, and I
don't believe we have any autonomous weapons like this in stock
(although some are being made ready). The problems are tremendous.

sarcasmWell, obviously, if the USA can't do it, no-one else
can./sarcasm

The hell with your sarcasm, the fact is that it is a hell of a lot harder
nut to crack than you seem to comprehend. If you think otherwise, you need
to go into business for yourself and offer us this wonderful, cheap, easily
produced autonomous attack system to ther DoD.

My understanding -- and I've heard this from multiple sources -- is
that in defence procurement it's not how good your product is, it's
who you know.

Swarm co-ordination is a software problem. To solve it, you need a
few clever postgrad students, properly managed.

ROFLOL! Gee, I guess you also consider AI to be something you can acheive
over next weekend, right?

Er, no, I didn't say that. And in any case, swarm co-ordination is
obviously not AI-complete, as you would know if you knew anything
about it at all.

Your habit of taking every serious problem with
your pet theory here and writing it off as a "software problem which is easy
to take care of" is getting a bit monotonous.

Do you know anything about software? I've been a programmer all my
professional life, and I like to think that I do have some
understanding of the field.

One example-- low cost bombs using GPS and inertial guidence were
developed and fielded by the U.S.-- while the system itself is "low
cost" the effort to develop it is anything but. Low cost loitering
UAV's and cruise missiles are in development-- in the U.S. and UK. I
think maybe China and India might be able to conduct a design effort
like you sugggest, but it woudl be hard for them, and I can't see
other nations, like Pakistan, any African nations, or even smaller
western nations like Austraila, Canada, or Italy being able to even
come close.

Hell, india has not managed to get their Arjun tank project in order, and
Phil thinks they could pull this autonomous hunter/killer scheme off?

They could technologically. Whether they could managerially is
another question entirely.

The idea that Italy couldn't make a cruise missile is silly IMO.

Sure they could--but they can't make the autonomous uberweapon you have
posited. Nothing to be ashamed of--right now neither can we. But you can,
because all of the problems are mere exercises in writing a few lines of new
code, right?

A few hundred thousand lines, more like.

--
"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).