asymetric warfare

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 12:24:56 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

(Richard Bell) wrote:

:I do not know about anti-ship missiles, or anti-aircraft missiles, but an
:anti-vehicle (except tank) missile that combines a portable TV, a
en sized camera, two diode laser TXRX sets, an RC aircraft on steroids, and
:a six mile spool of optical fibre should be possible. While hardly a threat
:to tanks, if they were all available in Iraq, coalition casualties might have
:unpalatable numbers. The users lofts it over the hard cover that he is hiding
:behind and uses its camera to find a target and then dives the missile into
:it. Probably only a few thousand dollars worth of parts.

And you don't think after the first time that folks would start to
notice them and follow the cable back?


The Army FOGM used this-- I don't recall what happened to it, or if
its still an active program. But this design is also "slow", in that
if it's seen, people will have the time to follow it back to the
launching point.
Also, a "pen size" camera won't be very effective in guiding the
thing, unless you're talking perfectly ideal conditions. If you have
a clee or any of those dinky camera's that are currently being sold,
here's a little excercise.
Got to a park, hold the camera in front of you, and *run*-- try to
guide yourself with thecamera, with no cheeting by looking around it.
It won't be very easy at all.
Also, realize that the U.S., after the first few shots (and
probably before, because this kind of development effort WILL be known
about), will probably start using UAV's to pinpoint the launching
site, and kill them with artillery fire. Alternately, they'll send in
troops, which is generally the procedure for dealing with resistance
in built up areas, except when people try to solve the problem by
charging in with a tank force, as the Russians did in Grozny.

"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

Then one wonders why those very same nations usually end up trying to buy
the products produced by those "slow-moving, bloated" western defense
contractors.

Mainly because creating and maintaining a national defense industry is
very hard and very expensive. Doing the same but ensuring that it
keeps up with the state-of-the-art is even more so.

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.

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?

Something you don't bring up, but which is very important in being able
to analyze your question, is exactly what goal the opponent would have.
Would it be to invade the USA (taking the USA as the obvious archetype
of the scenario)? Would it be to thwart USA forces engaged in some
existing conflict on your soil until the war becomes so unpopular at
home that they are forced to withdraw? Would it be to goad them into a
conflict to do the same? What is the smaller force trying to
accomplish?

--
__ Erik Max Francis && && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
/ \ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
\__/ He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches.
-- George Bernard Shaw

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:18:19 -0800, Erik Max Francis wrote:
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?

Something you don't bring up, but which is very important in being able
to analyze your question, is exactly what goal the opponent would have.
Would it be to invade the USA (taking the USA as the obvious archetype
of the scenario)? Would it be to thwart USA forces engaged in some
existing conflict on your soil until the war becomes so unpopular at
home that they are forced to withdraw? Would it be to goad them into a
conflict to do the same? What is the smaller force trying to
accomplish?

This is a good question, as what you're trying to do affects what
you need to do to do it.

Let's consider possible adversaries, and what their aims might be.

Iran.
- deter US invasion of their country
- prevent US or Israeli air raids against their country (LCCMs won't
really do this, but other asymetric techniques might be able to)
- in the event of US military action, be able to inflict
unacceptable losses on US warships in the area
- deter Israeli air raids by the ability to strike back against
Israeli cities (updated V1 idea; modern V1s would be much more
accurate and could e.g. hit targets of opportunity)


Saudi Arabia.
- same as Iran, really


China.
- ability to cow other regional powers by superior force
- ability to successfully launch a land invasion against North
Korea, Russia/Siberia, Kazakhstan, or Vietnam
- naval invasion against Taiwan
- ability to destroy hostile (either regional power or US) shipping
in seas near China
- ability to intimidate Japan or other reasonable powers with
V1-style weapons


India and Pakistan
- use against each other; western powers might conceivably join in
- V1-type city bombing


Algeria or Libya
- attack Europe or Israel with V1-type weapons; use threat of the
above to prevent the west interferihng in their countries
- control Mediterranean


South Africa
Is not likely to attack anyone, but might want to maintain force
dominance compared to a coalition of regional powers against it
(e.g. Zimbabwe + Libya + Angola). ZA also has a largish weapons
industry with a record of making decent wepaons on a tight budget,
so may well manufacture LCCMs for export.


Indonesia
- war with Australia, whicvh inevitably would have a naval
component, so anti-shipping use. Also maybe anti-city use


Singapore
- to maintain a defense posture of "we're not going to attack
anyone, but if you attack us..."


Taiwan
- aerial bombardment of China. How many people would die if the
3 Gorges Dam was destroyed?


South Korea
- to deter China. Also for export.


Other countries that might develop LCCMs might include Brasil,
Argentina, Chile (balance of power against each other), and Thailand
and Malaysia (BoP). In all these countries cases, becasue they're
fun toys to play with that are cheap. (More formally: because the
general staffs and defence ministers of these nations will gain
status by being involved in developing what are seen as cutting-edge
high technology weapons, and it won't put too big a hole in the
defense budget to do it).


Russia and Ukraine might develop them for export potential.

--
"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
. ..
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?

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.

LCCMs could be designed to attack enemy vehicles, both armoured, and
supply columns. The missile could use dead-reckoning to move itself
approximately where the enemy vehicles are, then use visual sensors
to detect vehicles (moving ones would probably be easier to detect).
This would require digital cameras and computers in the guidance
system, both of which are cheap. Programming appropriate image
recognition software is non-trivial, but has been done, and the cost
could be spread over large production runs. As the LCCM sees a
vehicle and chooses a target, it could dive towards it, and
simultaneously broadcast its position and a photo of the target
(useful intel for the missile controllers).

Without getting much into the technical end of this discussion (which other
posts have already done), it is safe to say that pretty much any cruise
missile system built 'on the cheap' (especially by second and third-world
standards) would be so obsolete at the time of its deployment that existing
and near-future US countermeasure systems will easily detect and deter their
success. Do you think that you are the only one who thought of this? The DoD
is very much aware of the cruise missile threat.


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).

While 'swarming' ships with cruise missiles could possibly overwhelm their
anti-missile systems, it is still not a feasible plan for an effective
weapon system. Think about it; how many missiles would be needed to get
through the anti-missile defenses and still cause major damage? 75? 100?
More? Per ship? Where are all of these missiles going to be set up and
launched from, and how are you going to keep them from being destroyed by a
B-2 in the first 10 seconds of the war?

You see, US weapons platforms are not designed purely as stand-alone
systems; each has specific mission parameters towards accomplishing an
overall goal. US surface ships can't defend against 100 cruise missiles
because because they dont have to; other missions and branches of the
service ensure that. Which is why it would be futile to set up a base and
launch system to send of hundereds of these missiles at once; it would
easily become target #1 on the hit list. (which is probably also why nobody
has done it)

Of course, unless they planned to use this strictly as a one-time only sneak
attack method for starting a war; then the tactic could meet some success.
But they would be hard pressed to not tip their hand prematurely, and wind
up with a visit from the B-2 before the facilities were even completed. And
even if by chance thy managed to pull something like that off, it would be a
suicide mission on a national scale, as the country who launched the attack
would become a parking lot within 48 hours.


Another application would be to make it re-usable, i.e. a UAV rather
than a CM. Mount a machine gun in it, and let it roam around over
the battlefield taking pot-shots at anything that moves. Or use it
to give targetting data for artillery.

It would be detected and shot down before it got a single shot off. Or it
would take one shot, then get shot down. The reason US UAVs don't get shot
down is because they either, 1) utilize low-observable (stealth) technology
(which is way beyond the capabilities and budget you've set), or 2) operate
in an environment in which we've gained air dominance, set up jamming, and
largely eliminated the surface-to-air threats (none of which is likely to
happen against the US). And even after all of that we still lose a few. So
what chance would anyone else have?


Western nations can, and are, using UAVs extensively, for these
sorts of roles. However, western defence industries tend to be
slow-moving, bloated, produce expensive kit, and it would probably
be possible for a mid-range power, provided it adopts a
minimum-bureaucracy approach to design, to produce weapon systems
faster and more cheaply. Faster weapon system design mewans it could
"get inside the decision curve" of Western arms industries, because
by the time they've produced a weapon to counter the low-cost
weapon, the next generation of low-cost weapon is there.

During Gulf War I we approved, designed from scratch, tested, certifiied,
manufactured and fielded the GBU-28 in under a month to counter a specific
target. When a job needs to get done, it's surprising how fast we make
things happen.

Aside from that, US technology is literally quantum leaps beyond anything
that a potential adversary could acquire in the near-term, especially on the
cheap, as you are suggesting. There would have to be a massive technological
infrastructure to simply get to where we are, much less "get inside the
decision curve" of the US military. It just isn't feasible... and thats
exactly how we want it.

From a warfighting standpoint, there really is no way to take us on
directly, regardless of anything you've postulated in this post. The best
way to go about any kind of counter-strike against our forces is to get
about 10,000 guys, give them each some kind of RPG or shoulder-launched AT
missile, and let them scatter all over the place and make random attacks. It
still won't stop us, but it is the only hope of at least inflicting some
damage occasionally.

Thomas J. Paladino Jr.
New York City

In article ,
says...
LCCMs could be designed to attack enemy vehicles, both armoured, and
supply columns. The missile could use dead-reckoning to move itself
approximately where the enemy vehicles are, then use visual sensors
to detect vehicles (moving ones would probably be easier to detect).
This would require digital cameras and computers in the guidance
system, both of which are cheap. Programming appropriate image
recognition software is non-trivial, but has been done, and the cost
could be spread over large production runs. As the LCCM sees a
vehicle and chooses a target, it could dive towards it, and
simultaneously broadcast its position and a photo of the target
(useful intel for the missile controllers).

Without getting much into the technical end of this discussion (which other
posts have already done), it is safe to say that pretty much any cruise
missile system built 'on the cheap' (especially by second and third-world
standards) would be so obsolete at the time of its deployment that existing
and near-future US countermeasure systems will easily detect and deter their
success. Do you think that you are the only one who thought of this? The DoD
is very much aware of the cruise missile threat.


Say I built heaps of multiple-rocket launchers built an improved WW2, V1
jet to hit a city say at 200 miles and then targeted them at an US ally
cities.

Aiming would be pretty trivial, most modern cities are pretty big anyway
and so what if a a lot miss? Its not like they cost me much anyway each
missile.

My missiles shot down are a lot cheaper then the anti missiles the US
uses anyway.

The make sure that this US ally is aware of your capability. That might
keep the US out of the conflict.


This strategy seems to work for the North Koreans.


--
Wealth must be produced before it can be distributed.

20th saying of Bernard

Bernardz wrote:
Say I built heaps of multiple-rocket launchers built an improved WW2, V1
jet to hit a city say at 200 miles and then targeted them at an US ally
cities.

Aiming would be pretty trivial, most modern cities are pretty big anyway
and so what if a a lot miss? Its not like they cost me much anyway each
missile.

Aiming them is trivial. Producing them, storing them until needed,
deploying them when needed, and launching them in a coordinated
fashion *isn't*. (And all the steps in the process are vulnerable to
disruption.)

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.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
Bernardz wrote:
Say I built heaps of multiple-rocket launchers built an improved WW2,
V1
jet to hit a city say at 200 miles and then targeted them at an US
ally
cities.

Aiming would be pretty trivial, most modern cities are pretty big
anyway
and so what if a a lot miss? Its not like they cost me much anyway
each
missile.

Aiming them is trivial. Producing them, storing them until needed,
deploying them when needed, and launching them in a coordinated
fashion *isn't*. (And all the steps in the process are vulnerable to
disruption.)

Besides that, once the dirty deed has been done, the country that
launched them is in really deep s***. Even if they had a bunch of US
military weapons that they had managed to buy from the black market,
they would do about the same thing as a rock flung at a hornet's nest --
except that the rock flinger wouldn't be able to run away.

In the very worst case, the US might have to resort to expending a half
dozen or so ICBMs. Realistically, however, I can't see anything more
drastic than a few B-52 air raids upon all suspected military posts.


Ray Drouillard

In article ,
says...

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
Bernardz wrote:
Say I built heaps of multiple-rocket launchers built an improved WW2,
V1
jet to hit a city say at 200 miles and then targeted them at an US
ally
cities.

Aiming would be pretty trivial, most modern cities are pretty big
anyway
and so what if a a lot miss? Its not like they cost me much anyway
each
missile.

Aiming them is trivial. Producing them, storing them until needed,
deploying them when needed, and launching them in a coordinated
fashion *isn't*. (And all the steps in the process are vulnerable to
disruption.)

Besides that, once the dirty deed has been done, the country that
launched them is in really deep s***. Even if they had a bunch of US
military weapons that they had managed to buy from the black market,
they would do about the same thing as a rock flung at a hornet's nest --
except that the rock flinger wouldn't be able to run away.

In the very worst case, the US might have to resort to expending a half
dozen or so ICBMs. Realistically, however, I can't see anything more
drastic than a few B-52 air raids upon all suspected military posts.

This a common problem with deterrence.

I would suggest that they make a demonstration rather then do the deed.





Ray Drouillard





--
The rich and the poor want the same thing, money.

21st saying of Bernard

Bernardz wrote:

:Say I built heaps of multiple-rocket launchers built an improved WW2, V1
:jet to hit a city say at 200 miles and then targeted them at an US ally
:cities.
:
:Aiming would be pretty trivial, most modern cities are pretty big anyway
:and so what if a a lot miss? Its not like they cost me much anyway each
:missile.
:
:My missiles shot down are a lot cheaper then the anti missiles the US
:uses anyway.
:
:The make sure that this US ally is aware of your capability. That might
:keep the US out of the conflict.

You've got to build them somewhere. They have to launch from
somewhere. Both of those 'somewheres' can be targeted and obliterated
in pretty short order.

:This strategy seems to work for the North Koreans.

Well, no. What works for the North Koreans is a bunch of artillery
and a huge army sitting poised to attack South Korea, whose capital is
right up there by the border. IRBMs and nuclear warheads help, too.

--
"Nekubi o kaite was ikenai"
["It does not do to slit the throat of a sleeping man."]
-- Admiral Yamamoto