asymetric warfare

In article , Jack
wrote:

On 2004/01/18 10:05, in article ,
"Damien
R. Sullivan" wrote:


Basically, can a small or lower-tech democracy with non-corrupt
government and
motivated citizenry make invasion too expensive to work?

Possibly not today, but back in 1776....


Exactly. I am _not_ in favor of gun confiscation, but I really can't
accept the idea of the unorganized militia, with sporting weapons,
deterring either regulars or invaders. With a laptop and intimate
knowledge of communications networks, I can be a MUCH nastier deterrent.

On 2004/01/18 21:32, in article ,
"Howard Berkowitz" wrote:

... I am _not_ in favor of gun confiscation, but I really can't
accept the idea of the unorganized militia, with sporting weapons,
deterring either regulars or invaders. With a laptop and intimate
knowledge of communications networks, I can be a MUCH nastier deterrent.

....until you have reduced the ability of the high tech forces to a level
less out of line with those of the your indigenous forces, at which point
the ability to do something more than strangle them with your power cord
will certainly be required.

They will maintain the advantage of a trained frontline force with modern
weapons. You will have to overcome that with sufficient numbers of fighters
and adequate weapons, intimate knowledge of all sorts of local and regional
networks -- both of infrastructure and of human resources, and great
leadership.

Which leg of that triad do you really think you could do without?

Of course we don't have anything like "a well ordered militia" today, so
perhaps you would like to suggest a replacement that can carry us to the
next level of protection beyond that provided by video gamers? Once you have
done your stuff with the laptop weapon, the conflict will become very
conventional "unconventional" warfare -- something the so-called "high tech"
forces, and not just in the US, are now better prepared to fight than they
have ever been, even without the tech.



Jack

In article , Jack
wrote:

On 2004/01/18 21:32, in article
,
"Howard Berkowitz" wrote:

... I am _not_ in favor of gun confiscation, but I really can't
accept the idea of the unorganized militia, with sporting weapons,
deterring either regulars or invaders. With a laptop and intimate
knowledge of communications networks, I can be a MUCH nastier
deterrent.

...until you have reduced the ability of the high tech forces to a level
less out of line with those of the your indigenous forces, at which point
the ability to do something more than strangle them with your power cord
will certainly be required.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. A high tech force may withdraw and regroup if its
C3I is significantly degraded.

They will maintain the advantage of a trained frontline force with modern
weapons. You will have to overcome that with sufficient numbers of
fighters
and adequate weapons, intimate knowledge of all sorts of local and
regional
networks -- both of infrastructure and of human resources, and great
leadership.

Which leg of that triad do you really think you could do without?

In one scenario, I can't. In another scenario, I'm talking about
deterrence, not victory. In yet another scenario, I put the "adequate
weapons" far below the leadership and the logistics.

I also want a better assessment of the potential threat. While you
haven't used the vague phrase "tyranny" that others have, I still want
to know, in sufficient detail to plan resistance, why the opposition is
there, how it is led and motivated, and whether its formation could have
been prevented by nonmilitary means -- as has been the historical case
in the US.

Of course we don't have anything like "a well ordered militia" today, so
perhaps you would like to suggest a replacement that can carry us to the
next level of protection beyond that provided by video gamers? Once you
have
done your stuff with the laptop weapon, the conflict will become very
conventional "unconventional" warfare -- something the so-called "high
tech"
forces, and not just in the US, are now better prepared to fight than
they
have ever been, even without the tech.

And I have yet to see a plausible scenario for that threat emerging,
much as John Ashcroft might like to introduce his version of muwatain.

Howard Berkowitz opined

In article , Jack
wrote:

On 2004/01/18 10:05, in article ,
"Damien
R. Sullivan" wrote:


Basically, can a small or lower-tech democracy with non-corrupt
government and
motivated citizenry make invasion too expensive to work?

Possibly not today, but back in 1776....


Exactly. I am _not_ in favor of gun confiscation, but I really can't
accept the idea of the unorganized militia, with sporting weapons,
deterring either regulars or invaders. With a laptop and intimate
knowledge of communications networks, I can be a MUCH nastier deterrent.

But hunters with guns can make invasions more expensive, and give you and your
laptop time to be effective.


-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

Howard Berkowitz writes:

In article , Jack
wrote:

On 2004/01/18 10:05, in article ,
"Damien
R. Sullivan" wrote:

Basically, can a small or lower-tech democracy with non-corrupt
government and motivated citizenry make invasion too expensive to
work?

Possibly not today, but back in 1776....


Exactly. I am _not_ in favor of gun confiscation, but I really can't
accept the idea of the unorganized militia, with sporting weapons,
deterring either regulars or invaders. With a laptop and intimate
knowledge of communications networks, I can be a MUCH nastier deterrent.

More likely, you can come to the same end as Archimedes, accomplishing
no more in the end than one guy with a hunting rifle.

Now, with a laptop *and* a rifle, you can accomplish a lot more than
with either alone. On the defensive side, every detective with a hunch
as to where that nuisance with the laptop is, every house-to-house search
for same, has to allocate a SWAT team per target instead of just a couple
beat cops. Which means the whole process takes them longer for the same
available resources and gives you that much more time to make a nuisance
of yourself with the laptop.

Offensively, a lot of what you are going to accomplish with that laptop
is learning interesting things like, e.g., section X of the enemy's
operation is grossly dysfunctional except that mid-level person Y knows
how everything works and is keeping the whole thing running. Is that a
bit of abstract knowledge, or a target for a well-placed bullet?

And then there's the nice combination of a laptop, a gun, and a bunch
of improvised explosives...


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

In article ,
(John Schilling) wrote:

And then there's the nice combination of a laptop, a gun, and a bunch
of improvised explosives...

A laptop, a gun, a bunch of improvised explosives, and a hidden pirated
phone line from a neighbor you don't much like is a lot more satisfying.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In article , "Ash Wyllie"
wrote:

Howard Berkowitz opined

In article , Jack
wrote:

On 2004/01/18 10:05, in article ,
"Damien
R. Sullivan" wrote:


Basically, can a small or lower-tech democracy with non-corrupt
government and
motivated citizenry make invasion too expensive to work?

Possibly not today, but back in 1776....


Exactly. I am _not_ in favor of gun confiscation, but I really can't
accept the idea of the unorganized militia, with sporting weapons,
deterring either regulars or invaders. With a laptop and intimate
knowledge of communications networks, I can be a MUCH nastier deterrent.

But hunters with guns can make invasions more expensive, and give you and
your
laptop time to be effective.


Aren't there some assumptions here about the level of force the invaders
will use? Soviet doctrine, in suppressing the Budapest uprising in 1956,
was "one shot from a building, level the building. Many shots from a
building, level the block." A much more humane force, the 82nd Airborne
in Detroit is 1967, was not seriously inconvenienced by urban shooters.

In article , (John
Schilling) wrote:

Howard Berkowitz writes:

In article , Jack
wrote:

On 2004/01/18 10:05, in article ,
"Damien
R. Sullivan" wrote:

Basically, can a small or lower-tech democracy with non-corrupt
government and motivated citizenry make invasion too expensive to
work?

Possibly not today, but back in 1776....


Exactly. I am _not_ in favor of gun confiscation, but I really can't
accept the idea of the unorganized militia, with sporting weapons,
deterring either regulars or invaders. With a laptop and intimate
knowledge of communications networks, I can be a MUCH nastier deterrent.

More likely, you can come to the same end as Archimedes, accomplishing
no more in the end than one guy with a hunting rifle.

You are missing asymmetry. Archimedes' enemies used low tech, just lots
of it. Losing a major C3I node, or the logistics network, is much more
of a problem to a high-tech invader.

Now, with a laptop *and* a rifle, you can accomplish a lot more than
with either alone. On the defensive side, every detective with a hunch
as to where that nuisance with the laptop is, every house-to-house search
for same, has to allocate a SWAT team per target instead of just a couple
beat cops. Which means the whole process takes them longer for the same
available resources and gives you that much more time to make a nuisance
of yourself with the laptop.

Ahem. If one tracks many of the more destructive hacking attempts, the
computer delivering the attack, the hacker, and the target often are on
different continents. Those SWAT teams had better have LONG range.

Offensively, a lot of what you are going to accomplish with that laptop
is learning interesting things like, e.g., section X of the enemy's
operation is grossly dysfunctional except that mid-level person Y knows
how everything works and is keeping the whole thing running. Is that a
bit of abstract knowledge, or a target for a well-placed bullet?

And then there's the nice combination of a laptop, a gun, and a bunch
of improvised explosives...

Oh, between my academic background in chemistry and a certain amount of
helpful instructions from Fort Bragg, I suspect I just might get by with
improvised explosives.

In article ,
Howard Berkowitz wrote:

Aren't there some assumptions here about the level of force the
invaders will use? Soviet doctrine, in suppressing the Budapest
uprising in 1956, was "one shot from a building, level the building.
Many shots from a building, level the block." A much more humane
force, the 82nd Airborne in Detroit is 1967, was not seriously
inconvenienced by urban shooters.

....was not seriously inconvenienced by a *very* few urban shooters, who
weren't really defending their homes from invasion.

Another advantage modern Americans would have in an invasion situation
would be the startling amount of useful information available to the
average citizen. Given a few organizers, you'd literally have to level
an American city to "pacify" it with any reasonable certainty.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Howard Berkowitz wrote:

You are missing asymmetry. Archimedes' enemies used low tech, just lots
of it. Losing a major C3I node, or the logistics network, is much more
of a problem to a high-tech invader.

And it's unlikely as hell that you with your laptop are going to get
acess to any such.

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.