Asymmetrical Warfare
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-04-2013, 08:35 PM
RE: Asymmetrical Warfare
(13-04-2013 03:37 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey.

I have a question.

Suicide bombers are pretty much universally reviled in Western culture. And yeah, I mean the Islamic ones.

When there is symmetry in warfare, you have two armies, roughly the same strength, going toe to toe. Tanks. Planes. Ships. Infantry. The traditional stuff.

Asymmetric warfare is what one does when they are woefully outgunned. They can't hope to go head to head, so they use what tactics they can. Essentially, it is the guerrilla war.

So why is it, that the Americans can drop 2 000lbs bombs on city centres to achieve their war aims, and that's perfectly fine, but if suicide bombers kill anyone, anywhere, they're the worst scum on the planet?

Please understand, I am not condoning ANY kind of warfare. I'm just looking for a logical explanation as to why symmetrical warfare is fine with most people, but asymmetrical warfare is repugnant.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

"Why are suicide bombers the worst scum on the planet?"

I don't consider them the worst scum on the planet, I fail to see why anybody would classify them as such.

They are the dumbest scum on the planet, and I find them comically pitiful due to their stupidity and the stupidity of what I assume would be their commanders.

They commonly go for civilian targets, which is a poor strategy from it's inception in a world wherein your opponents civilians vastly outnumber even their own military, with international media always watching and waiting for an opportunity for a good, spinnable story, which will likely drive more civilian to join the military and add even more possible active threats.
Perhaps in an isolated, non-global world/scenario, attacking civilian targets was a good idea: They tended to be lightly defended and armies tended to rely on conscripts employed en mass once they have suffered far too large casualties to continue with regulars alone, so removing civilians takes away from the reinforcement pool. (of course, this would likely only work centuries ago, probably best in feudal regions...)

A suicide bomb may inflict a damages, but it takes out a soldier from my side of the field. If I was looking to wage a guerrilla war, I should think I would go to pains to ensure my men are able to pick off my enemies from a distance and retreat back into cover to hide, wait, regroup and redeploy against other soft, military targets while sustaining as few casualties as possible, given the assumed lack of manpower and equipment which comes with guerrilla warfare...

It is likely that suicide bombers are demonized as evil scum due to their common application against soft, civilian targets.
That and perceived instability and fanaticism associated with suicide bombing and organisations tied to them.

As I said, I think they are simply stupid and incompetent to a comical degree, and the typical fanaticism is pitiable.

A single action is worth more than the words it takes to describe it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2013, 10:48 PM
RE: Asymmetrical Warfare
(13-04-2013 03:37 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey.

I have a question.

Suicide bombers are pretty much universally reviled in Western culture. And yeah, I mean the Islamic ones.

When there is symmetry in warfare, you have two armies, roughly the same strength, going toe to toe. Tanks. Planes. Ships. Infantry. The traditional stuff.

Asymmetric warfare is what one does when they are woefully outgunned. They can't hope to go head to head, so they use what tactics they can. Essentially, it is the guerrilla war.

So why is it, that the Americans can drop 2 000lbs bombs on city centres to achieve their war aims, and that's perfectly fine, but if suicide bombers kill anyone, anywhere, they're the worst scum on the planet?

Please understand, I am not condoning ANY kind of warfare. I'm just looking for a logical explanation as to why symmetrical warfare is fine with most people, but asymmetrical warfare is repugnant.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

If you can find out why when a group of young men in green uniforms murder a group of brown men in rags it's considered a victory, but when those same young men pee on the already dead brown men, it's some sort of a moral fucking outrage worse than even, dare I say, showing boobies on cable tv... you'll have the answer.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes bbeljefe's post
15-04-2013, 01:27 AM
RE: Asymmetrical Warfare
Elesjei, you basically summed up what I didn't feel like writing out. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2013, 11:25 PM
RE: Asymmetrical Warfare
(13-04-2013 03:37 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey.

I have a question.

Suicide bombers are pretty much universally reviled in Western culture. And yeah, I mean the Islamic ones.

When there is symmetry in warfare, you have two armies, roughly the same strength, going toe to toe. Tanks. Planes. Ships. Infantry. The traditional stuff.

Asymmetric warfare is what one does when they are woefully outgunned. They can't hope to go head to head, so they use what tactics they can. Essentially, it is the guerrilla war.

So why is it, that the Americans can drop 2 000lbs bombs on city centres to achieve their war aims, and that's perfectly fine, but if suicide bombers kill anyone, anywhere, they're the worst scum on the planet?

Please understand, I am not condoning ANY kind of warfare. I'm just looking for a logical explanation as to why symmetrical warfare is fine with most people, but asymmetrical warfare is repugnant.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

I think that's the geist of the comment that got Bill Maher fired in 2001.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-04-2013, 07:00 AM
RE: Asymmetrical Warfare
Hey, Carlo.

Indeed it is.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-04-2013, 10:36 AM (This post was last modified: 20-04-2013 12:14 PM by Heathen.)
RE: Asymmetrical Warfare
America has declared war on specific Islamic extremist groups but also on Islamic extremism generally. They have declared war on the US as well. Much of what has gone on in the world and in the US has been justified (often in legal terms) by the fact that the nation is at war; drone strikes, Guantanamo, use of torture, black sites, assassinations, The Patriot Act, etc. So if you are an Islamic extremist and you are engaged in a war (especially an asymmetrical war) you will make use of whatever tactics are available to you and this includes the killing of civilians. This tactic is nothing new and the US has a long history of using it themselves.

The emotional reaction to terrorist attacks is completely understandable. The outrage however is not justifiable.

"Which is more likely: that the whole natural order is suspended, or that a jewish minx should tell a lie?"- David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Heathen's post
24-04-2013, 03:15 PM
RE: Asymmetrical Warfare
(13-04-2013 06:23 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  Because guerilla warfare isn't a tactic that Americans have utilized as a standard since the Revolutionary War

LOL.

OSS, Jedburgs, Marine Raiders, Army Special Forces, etc. While the conventional forces are getting cutbacks, SOCOM is still seeing growth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2013, 01:59 PM
RE: Asymmetrical Warfare
Asymmetrical Warfare is designed to strike at the psyche. America hates Asymmetrical Warfare because its a tactic that they can't counter with overwhelming force, and its kicking our asses. We're used to being the biggest and best war machine on the planet, but we can't quell a rather small group of fighters because they know how to fight us.

Want to stop terrorism? Leave them the fuck alone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DerekS's post
25-04-2013, 05:38 PM
Re: RE: Asymmetrical Warfare
(25-04-2013 01:59 PM)DerekS Wrote:  Asymmetrical Warfare is designed to strike at the psyche. America hates Asymmetrical Warfare because its a tactic that they can't counter with overwhelming force, and its kicking our asses. We're used to being the biggest and best war machine on the planet, but we can't quell a rather small group of fighters because they know how to fight us.

Want to stop terrorism? Leave them the fuck alone.

Or how about because if American troops all started using similar tactics, we'd all be court marshalled for using civilians as cover and blowing up the wrong people with our IEDs and we'd end up in prison. Taliban don't have a military code of laws to follow.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2013, 05:51 PM
RE: Asymmetrical Warfare
(25-04-2013 05:38 PM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  Or how about because if American troops all started using similar tactics, we'd all be court marshalled for using civilians as cover and blowing up the wrong people with our IEDs and we'd end up in prison. Taliban don't have a military code of laws to follow.


But America IS using similar tactics. It's citizens are not, and never have been used for military purposes. Thus, the disconnect. And the Taliban's military code of conduct is in fact very real and unchanging while America's code changes to suit it's purposes.

"Which is more likely: that the whole natural order is suspended, or that a jewish minx should tell a lie?"- David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Heathen's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: