Russia new wonder weapon?

[PvK]

Yef, would you elaborate on your assertion that "Any measure you take to win the population over in this case will inevitable backfire."?

Do you mean that there may be some fanatics whose minds cannot be changed, and who may not rely as much on popular support as guerrillas?

Seems to me though that popular support and changing the minds of people is still critical. As long as one government is perceived by some group of people as hate-worthy, it will continue to inspire more people to engage in acts against it.

So while some people who are already dedicated to violence may have to be killed, populations have to be swayed in order to prevent an endless regeneration of opponents.

No?

PvK

[Yef]

Originally posted by PvK:
Yef, would you elaborate on your assertion that "Any measure you take to win the population over in this case will inevitable backfire."?

Do you mean that there may be some fanatics whose minds cannot be changed, and who may not rely as much on popular support as guerrillas?

Well, the problem with the fanatics its not only that they cannot be won over, but that they always manage to radicalize a good chunk of the civilian population. The precense of terrorist tactics in a war tells you that certain line have been crossed, and that line cannot be crossed without support of sizable segment of the population, which in time tells you that a deep rift have occurred within such population that now sees the ones that are not with them as collaborating with the enemy, and thus fair game for terrorist tactics.

In short, guerrillas wants to "save" the population and the country, whether this "saving" its wanted or not (Mao Tse-tung, Che Guevara), while terrorists wants to "save" only a segment of that population (IRA, ETA). This means that the critical mass necessary for a terrorist war to be "succesful" its lower than for a guerrilla war, thus making a guerrilla war easier to win for the counter-guerrilla forces.

But in the end every conflict has its owns characteristics which tend to modify how the war its played out, with the most important modifiers being population density, etnic make out, religion(s), terrain, borders, and even transportation network, which in time define the tactics that would be used by the insurgents.

In the case of Irak, for example, the resistance its using a mix of tactics that goes from full blown guerrilla ambushes, through drive-by-shootings and drive-by-mortaring, to pure terror tactics like car-bombs and suicide bombers.
This mix of tactics force a mix of counter-tactics, which includes the search for terrorists in civilian houses, check points, restrictions on civilian freedom of movement, and so on.

All these have the effect of annuling any progress you may have achieved by investing on the local population's well being, because yes, you gave them food, but then you stop them at a check point and search them out (which is a great offense for an Arab), and then you may even have to break into their houses acting on field intelligence that some terrorist may be hiding in there.
Its a proven fact in counter-terrorist warfare that it takes only one action that can be interpreted as offensive to render void a hundred previous good actions.

In Irak, the civilian population its being used as camouflage by the resistance. They attack the US forces in the middle of populated areas, provoking inevitable collateral damage from return fire, and this in turn provokes hate from the population.

Its almost impossible to convince the population that the resistance its the one responsible for their hardships. When the civilians are under the stress of war, they will always see the side manning the check point as the one responsible for the existance of it.

There is also the fact that the resistance comes directly from the local population, which brings family ties into the equation, and even the foreign fighters that are in the resistance are closer to the locals, for being Arabs and muslims, than the US troops.

Add to that years of anti-American propaganda, zillions of conspiracy theories that are taken for facts, and a harsh reality that doesn't seem to get any better, and you have the recipe for a long drawn conflict with no end in sight.

[tesco samoa]

Timstone. I think I disagree with the cold war statement.

Well we will see over the next 20 years.....

Might not be the cold war again as it was then

But the economic conflict is heating up again.

Just this time Europe is in on it on their own side.

And I can see Russia and Europe going parallel and supporting each other on some issues....

Where this leaves England. I do not know.

But if they were smart they would pick up the island and move it a little more towards newfoundland if they keep following their current path. Tough decisions for that nation to make. Europe or USA.

And do not forget the Indian - Chinese economic influences.

What will Japan do ?

[Puke]

fear! panic! be affraid!

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/...International/

I would not put alot of stock in it, tho. I would not put alot of stock in our missile defense program, either. and even though im an imperialist warmongering dog, i wouldnt pay much heed to At's idea about promptly blowing up any potential threats to the good old empire.

I mean, we're the kings of blowing stuff up. better than anybody in history, as a co-worker of mine is fond of pointing out. if we could solve the worlds problems - or even our problems - by blowing stuff up, there wouldnt be any problems left that needed solving.

[Yef]

Originally posted by Timstone:

Come on guys, grow up! This not the Cold War anymore.

*puches sarcastic speech-button*
Besides we already know America is the best country in the world with the best army in the world.
And we all know you can't win guerilla battles; Vietnam anyone?
*Pushes sarcastic speech-button agian*

Not really. A guerrilla war can be won. The ones that can't be won that easily are the terrorist wars. Since modern guerrilla warfare have evolved into hybrid Terror-Guerrilla tactics, then you need a convination of counter-guerrilla and counter-terrorists tactics to fight it.
The thing its, of course, that counter-guerrilla and counter-terrorists tactics don't match. One annul the benefits of the other.

To explain how all this work its to complicated, and I know that people that haven't served in the military always confuse both kind of unconventional warfare, but just as a quick example, in a counter-guerrilla war you try to win the population over at whatever the price, you invest heavily on the pop while negating those investments to the guerrillas, invesments as school, hospitals and so on, which are used as propaganda tools by the guerrillas as proof that they can serve the Pop better than the goverment.
Captured guerrillas are to be treaty well, so the guerrilla myth about goverment brutality are uncovered as such. The objectives of counter-guerrila war are:
1- Alienate the guerrilla from the local population.
2- Eliminate the cause roots promoting popular support for the guerrilla.
3- Convince the population of the evilness of the guerrilla. (i.e. through black ops like faking guerrilla manuals with a section on seducing local girls or setting forth techniques for torturing village leaders)
4- To take strategic initiative from the guerrilla, so they have to either defend or evacute. (guerrillas are ussually very bad on the defensive)
5- Demoralize the guerrilla. (Black ops can convince the guerrillas that they have been infiltrated by spies from the govt. which often results in large numbers of loyal guerrillas being killed and mistrust being sewn among the reminder.)
6- Defeat the guerrilla militarily.


On a counter-terrorist war, however, you can't win the pop over because the objectives of the war are diferent. Its not about defeating a goverment or ocupaying power militarily, but about cowering that power through terror to surrender or evacuate.
That means that in a counter-terrorists war your only objective are the terrorists themselves. You got to take them out, especialy the leadership, cutting the head of the snake, and try to make sure it doesn't grow back.
Any measure you take to win the population over in this case will inevitable backfire.
Terrorist Groups also require far less personal to carry out their attacks, which add to their stealthyness. They use suicide bombers, which leave no operative to be captured and interrogated. Terrorist use urban terrain as thheir theatre of operations. Its not casuality that....(ill continue later

[Timstone]

Nice synopsis. Great research. Two thumbs up for you!
But with guerilla warfare I mean playing hide and seek in a concrete jungle (of a green jungle for that matter). It is so incredible hard to track down every single member of the group. It might take a decade to eradicate the entire group. And yes, you can do that with the methodes which you describe. And even than you don't always have a 100% succesrate.
In open warfare the USA �s the most difficult opponent of all. Quite simply; you have the most sophisticated army around.
So I meant the sneaking around, not the guerilla warfare definition.
After all, I'm just a stupid civvie.

[tesco samoa]

puke fear sells products... embrace fear...

[Atrocities]

I say screw the sky lasers. Lets put big rock launching catapolts and cross-bow spear launchers up there.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Timstone:
Come on guys, grow up! This not the Cold War anymore.

*puches sarcastic speech-button*
Besides we already know America is the best country in the world with the best army in the world.
And we all know you can't win guerilla battles; Vietnam anyone?
*Pushes sarcastic speech-button agian*

I hope I haven't stepped on too many toes...

Edit: typo's!

That was not a result of the supreme effectiveness of guerilla tactics, but a result of not waging a real invasion on the part of the US for fear of massive riots at home. If the US forces were not severely restricted, Vietnam would have fallen in months at most.

[ April 01, 2004, 03:13: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[dogscoff]

In short, guerrillas wants to "save" the population and the country, whether this "saving" its wanted or not (Mao Tse-tung, Che Guevara), while terrorists wants to "save" only a segment of that population (IRA, ETA). This means that the critical mass necessary for a terrorist war to be "succesful" its lower than for a guerrilla war, thus making a guerrilla war easier to win for the counter-guerrilla forces.

This is true. Look at the IRA. It has been proven in various referendums, polls etrc that the vast majority of ppl in Ireland- catholic & protestant on both sides of the border- just want everyone to stop killing one another and come to some sort of peace. Most of them were happy with the Good Friday agreement and support the principle of the power-sharing idea.

But the IRA and other bastard Groups over there keep blowing stuff up, keep killing people. There is no way they can possibly claim to have the support of the population any more, and I for one am no longer willing to even credit them with a political agenda. As far as I'm concerned they are a bunch of psychopaths who enjoy killing, and only use the political thing as an attempt to justify their sick passtime. These people should be treated as murderers and lunatics, not as some kind of political force.

Look at the Omagh bombing- that wasn't targetted at any particular population. Both catholics and protestants died that day. People from north and republic of Ireland, as well as people from other countries altogether. How can they claim to do it for anything other than sadistic pleasure?

Same applies to the ppl who organised the WTC attacks. Stop treating them like some political/ national force backed by a population and start treating them like the criminals they are.