asymetric warfare

On 18 Dec 2003 12:16:40 -0800, Jake McGuire wrote:
"Arved Sandstrom" wrote in message ...
Incidentally, the other Western countries *are* middle-ranking countries, so
this is really a "how do we defend against the US" question. Under those
circumstances I think one simply does not attempt conventional warfare - not
in the time frame you suggest. You'd lose everything you have. You allow
yourself to be occupied, then you start making life bad.

Does this mean that any war the US can win without occupying you is a
lost cause?

It may well do. OTOH, if the USA wins, but loses an aircraft carrier
or a few hundred aircraft in the process, that would be a political
loss for the USA.


--
"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 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).

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:28:28 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?


Concentrate on training and developing a professional officers
corps. No matter the technology if your soldiers are uneducated
draftees who don't want ot be there, and your officers were chosen
for: "Who paid the highest bribe" or "who is least likely to be able
to carry off a coup", you'll get your butt kicked.


This is very sensible advice.


--
"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 Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:45:55 +0000, Simon Morden wrote:
Michael Ash wrote:

I do recall thinking, during the
fall of Iraq and the immediate aftermath, that a trained monkey could
probably do a better job of defending that country. Take all of those
army units that got surrounded/wiped out/whatever and simply distribute
them throughout the cities. Give each one a rifle, give RPGs to as many
as you can. Tell them to wait in a building by the window. When they see
Americans, shoot (at) them. As it was, I suppose the high ranks were too
busy trying to get out of harm's way with as much cash as possible to
put any effort into making life hard on the US Army.

I concur. If the Iraqis had been as determined as say, the Soviets in defense of
Leningrad and Stalingrad, the choices would have been between bomb Baghdad flat or
suffer massive casualties.

Thank God they weren't.

Indeed. It would have been a bloodbath.


--
"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).

Chad Irby wrote:

(Derek Lyons) wrote:

Procuring the missiles is only the first step. Then you have to
train the crews, and store the missiles until needed, and distribute
them when needed. All three are non-trivial problems in and of
themselves. (And all four steps are vulnerable to disruption.)

That's something a lot of nations can't seem to understand about running
a modern military. Strategy is one thing, equipment design is another,
but logistics is what wins wars.

Yep. Some time back a gentleman asked over on sci.military.naval what
it would take to build a small, modern, and regionally important naval
force. He was quite taken aback when the vast majority of the
responses emphasized all the 'non-sexy' bits. (Repair parts, repair
training, DC training, countermeasures, infrastructure, general
training, communications...)

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.

"Jarg" wrote:
An interesting if, but the Soviets, though at an apparent disadvantage,
weren't faced with such overwhelming military power, and had a history of
successfully repelling invaders.

The Russians could, and on multiple occasions did, trade space for
time, forcing the invader endure their winter. No other nation shares
this unique combination of vast space for mobilty with climactic
advantages.

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.

"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

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:53:21 GMT, Kevin Brooks wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:26:01 GMT, Kevin Brooks
wrote:

I think there are two issues here. The first is when the sensor is
attached to the weapon, as it is in a sensor in a missile. Here,
there is no sensor/shooter cycle, unless you choose to have a human
involved in the decision to fire.

That is way beyond even our capabilities. You are talking autonomous
combat
systems.

Yes. The progrsamming for this isn't particularly hard, once you've
written software that can identify a vehicle (or other target) in a
picture. It's just a matter of aiming the missile towards the
target.

"The programming for this isn't particularly hard"?

Read the rest of the sentence: "...once you've written software
that can identify a vehicle (or other target) in a picture"

I could probably have phrased that better.

LOL! If it only knows "within a few km or so" where it is, then news
flash--you won't even be able to use that puppy against a CVN. Your
postulated
brilliant-CM-on-a-shoestring-budget-able-to-be-manufactured-by-anyone is
sounding more and more ludicrous.

I'm sure thast large warships can be sighted several km away.

The topographic data would probably be available if the missile is
flying over the territory of its own country.

You have a rather optimistic view of the capabilities of most nations to
handle development of truly accurate x-y-z topo data sets. And once you do
have that data, you have to have a guidance system that can read it, remain
compact enough to fit in your missile,

You do realise, you can get hard disks small enought otfit in your
hand, that store tens of gigabytes these days?

and is capable of extremely rapid
computational work,

Today we have 3 GHz processors. Every 12-18 months speed doubles. I
doubt if processing speed will be a problem.

Otherwise, there are other methods of nagivation: dead reckoning,
celestial, a LORAN-like system could be set up.

Your LORAN system bites the dust when the curtain goes up.

No, because you use multiple transmitters, which aren't all switched
on at once, plus large numbers of fake transmitters there to be
targets for bombs. The transmitters can shift frequencies and use
short transmissions, to further reduce the probability of being
detected.

Automated
celestial tracking/guidance is not the purview of the amateur,

LORAN was around 40 years ago; therefore any country with
1960s-equivalent tech should be able to build one.

and I doubt
you would get the requisite accuracy from such a system mounted on such a
small platform.

Why is the platform size an issue?

DR is a non-starter--again, you don't just hurl a few
missiles in the general direction of the bad guys and say, "Gee, that was
tough--time for a beer!"

Again, why would DR not work?


--
"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 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

Derek Lyons wrote:
That's something a lot of nations can't seem to understand about running
a modern military. Strategy is one thing, equipment design is another,
but logistics is what wins wars.

Yep. Some time back a gentleman asked over on sci.military.naval what
it would take to build a small, modern, and regionally important naval
force. He was quite taken aback when the vast majority of the
responses emphasized all the 'non-sexy' bits. (Repair parts, repair
training, DC training, countermeasures, infrastructure, general
training, communications...)

I recall a conversation reported or paraphrased in Proceedings
in the late 1970s. Someone noted to a senior admiral, I think,
that the equipment on paper specs for the new Aegis ships weren't
much better than the previous generation of missile cruisers,
other than the really great multi-target capability from SPY-1.
Missile range, target director capabilities, etc.

The response was "Yes, but now they're working 95% of the time,
rather than 55%".

That lesson is hard even for well funded navies...


-george william herbert