Re: [GZG] FTverse colinies

["Richard Bell" <rlbell.nsuid@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 1:43 PM, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Enzo de Ianni <enzodeianni@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On another line, I do not believe in the "elite myth"... I think our
> experiences show that high quality forces (with both training and
> material superiority) rule the battlefield, but are very limited when
> things move to the "asymmetrical" war... want to destroy a planet's
> power grid? Having local aerospace superiority is all you need! But
> if you want to occupy for any time the main population centers
> against a motivated opposition, you'll need far more than SAS or
> Delta Force or a few companies of powersuited infantry, or they'll
> bleed to death through thousands small attacks from unarmored,
> untrained militians, IMO.

Cite an instance.

Seriously, let me know when you come up with a circumstance where
untrained militias managed to inflict a loss on an able enemy.  You
might be able to come up with a handful of limited circumstances where
tactical defeats of isolated outposts occured due to failures on the
part of the high-tech opponent.  Name a campaign where this happened
with anything approaching regularity.

Hypothetical invasion of Canada by the US.  As the canadians are incapable of symmetrically opposing the US military, a campaign of guerrilla warfare begins.  Unlike radical muslims, Canada goes the Mandela route and attacks infrastructure.  Hunters with .50 BMG sport rifles start dropping powerlines and, if the opportunity presents itself, put holes in transformers.  Shaped charges are used to blow open pipelines.  Explosives are smuggled into underground utility spaces.

American regulars do not bleed to death, they are seldom even shot at, but the US economy bleeds profusely.

This is an admittedly contrived example, but probably explains why they just give us money for our resources. 8-)

But if your point (and you confuse tactics with strategy here) is that
by avoiding confrontation an "asymmetrical" opponent can avoid loosing
decisively long enough for their high-tech opponent to decide it isn't
worth the cost, that might be a valid point.  But that political
consideration in no way justifies your dismissal of good quality
troops (training and equipment-wise) as worthless.

It is not that the good quality troops are worthless, but that the superiority of the occuppying troops means nothing if they are not where the insurgents are carrying out an op.

And even when it does work out, it's damned hard on your thousands of
unarmored untrained militia boogers.  We tend to stack them up like
cordwood at ratios of 10 or 20 to one, or better.  Which may or may
not be a commitment a frontier colony can make.

If the unarmored, untrained militia boogers are meeting the advanced technotroopers in a  pitched battle, it is not asymmerical warfare.  A frontier colony engages in asymmetrical warfare by destroying what the invaders have come to take.  If they do not know what it is, they just destroy everything not needed for survival.

The iraqi insurgents do not score points for killing and wounding US soldiers, but for keeping Iraq from returning to stability.

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l