Modern Military Procurement

[Brenus]

"The French Army is buying German rifles for their soldiers, leaving the fabled FAMAS behind. FAMAS, which is of course a French rifle, has been left behind and now the HK class rifles are considered for equipping French soldiers." That is due to the Sarkolland policy to "integrate" French Army (and France) into NATO.
The FAMAS is a good weapon, well balanced, precise, and easy to carry in various positions. You can choose your side of the ejection, always good for left handed, grenade launcher capacity, selection of shooting (free, semi and one shoot), etc.
It won't save money, it will subordinate France to NATO, which was the goal.

[Brenus]

"Not all of Vietnam is rice paddy,": In fact my father told me that the mountains, near That Khe, were alpin kind of, with mountain trees and cold. Now, it could have been relatively...
The problem with the Indochina war(s) is, because the French had a small amount of soldiers, they were used out of their units. My father just had time to tell me few stories before he died aged 51, but some were about a survival of 3 days of attack in a Ligne de Lattre post, a illegal operation within China, the retreat from That Khe, Dong Khe, Cao Bang etc (where, in my opinion, the French lost the war in losing the border control with China, China becoming communist) and the operation Bastille where allegedly, he went around 100 metres from Ho Chi Minh hind out. According to him, he was as well parachuted in Hoa Binh (perhaps), as the situation was quite urgent and he had the paratrooper training, unofficial jumps.
It was not this unusual as it was done as well at Dien Bien Phu.

[Pannonian]

A number of good posts around here, thank you gentlemen.

Asymmetrical warfare has been around for some time now, it's not necessarily a modern phenomenon because you had empires in the past fighting wars through protectorates, vassals, satrapies and whatever type of kingdom was under their direct command. However, back in those days, there was no airforce, not a developed navy, no cyberwarfare, no satellites... so it was relatively straightforward back in those days.

Most importantly, there was no liberal democracy, and no philosophy of universal human rights. Take these away, and asymmetrical warfare will go back to its old ineffectiveness, and states will resume their old effectiveness. States are good at magnifying the amount of damage they can do, reducing the amount of damage they take, and carrying on despite the damage they're taking.

[Husar]

Most importantly, there was no liberal democracy, and no philosophy of universal human rights. Take these away, and asymmetrical warfare will go back to its old ineffectiveness, and states will resume their old effectiveness. States are good at magnifying the amount of damage they can do, reducing the amount of damage they take, and carrying on despite the damage they're taking.

Is that meant to be a factual statement or a proposal? And what exactly has changed? Rebels were a nuisance to empires like the Roman one and they still are to ones like the USA or China. If you're suggesting that they should just discard human rights and massacre Tibetans until they're quiet or something like that, I can only hope that you won't end up on the receiving end of your ideas.

[Pannonian]

Is that meant to be a factual statement or a proposal? And what exactly has changed? Rebels were a nuisance to empires like the Roman one and they still are to ones like the USA or China. If you're suggesting that they should just discard human rights and massacre Tibetans until they're quiet or something like that, I can only hope that you won't end up on the receiving end of your ideas.

Historically, that has worked, and was the solution of choice for great empires (because it was effective). Was it humane? No. But that's the reason why asymmetrical warfare is common nowadays, and less so in the past. And read Josephus for an account of one of the great anti-Roman rebellions at the height of Roman power.

[Husar]

Historically, that has worked, and was the solution of choice for great empires (because it was effective). Was it humane? No. But that's the reason why asymmetrical warfare is common nowadays, and less so in the past. And read Josephus for an account of one of the great anti-Roman rebellions at the height of Roman power.

I'm not so sure, one would think that id crucifying the perpetrators were an effective deterrent, they wouldn't have crucified so many perpetrators all the time.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/strateg...litics/5366329

Other than wars of Antiquity like the Ancient Greek Pelopennesian War series (image, left) which lasted about 30 years in the 5th century BC, and certainly included asymmetric war and “surprise defeats” for larger forces, the 200-year Crusader war series (about 1095-1299) had recurring battles and campaigns where asymmetric war featured, and sometimes dominated.

This guy seems to take asymmetric warfare for granted in the ancient and medieval periods. It was my impression as well that especially in the face of big empires, people resort to asymmetric warfare because the difference in military power makes normal warfare certain death for them. I'm not sure about the impact of the empire's reaction, but it seems to multiply the resolve of the enemies as often as it seems to break it if you consider that many empires gave up the colonies because they were too much trouble to keep in the long run, how the US broke away from Britain despite the ettempts to quell the dissidence and so on. We just had the topic on Castro and how Batista tried to brutally suppress the rebels with torture and murders and obviously the rebels overthrew him in the end. The best chance for peace in Colombia seems to be a peace deal even though the war wasn't and isn't exactly fought with human rights in focus.

[Pannonian]

I'm not so sure, one would think that id crucifying the perpetrators were an effective deterrent, they wouldn't have crucified so many perpetrators all the time.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/strateg...litics/5366329

This guy seems to take asymmetric warfare for granted in the ancient and medieval periods. It was my impression as well that especially in the face of big empires, people resort to asymmetric warfare because the difference in military power makes normal warfare certain death for them. I'm not sure about the impact of the empire's reaction, but it seems to multiply the resolve of the enemies as often as it seems to break it if you consider that many empires gave up the colonies because they were too much trouble to keep in the long run, how the US broke away from Britain despite the ettempts to quell the dissidence and so on. We just had the topic on Castro and how Batista tried to brutally suppress the rebels with torture and murders and obviously the rebels overthrew him in the end. The best chance for peace in Colombia seems to be a peace deal even though the war wasn't and isn't exactly fought with human rights in focus.

The whole point of the Peloponnesian Wars is that the Spartans were physically not able to fight their chosen type of war. The opposing state (NB. state, not factions) fought the wars as a cohesive state. The Athenians didn't fight and run. They made sure the Spartans couldn't fight them the way they wanted, then they fought the way they wanted. The Spartans won by finding a way to fight the Athenians to a standstill, using their method of war, then the surrender terms ensured that the Athenians could no longer stop the Spartans from fighting on their terms.

If you wish to argue that Sphacteria was an example of asymmetric warfare because the Athenians used light troops, note that the Athenians had a full blown navy enforcing their blockade. There aren't any asymmetric wars where the guerrilla fighters have a navy but the conventional forces don't. Even in your stated case of the US war of independence, the colonists had the French Navy on their side. A navy requires a state to maintain it.

[Montmorency]

Historically, that has worked, and was the solution of choice for great empires (because it was effective).

This isn't quite right. Empires tended to seek a balance between group liability, or massacre/enslavement, and total clemency.

The simplest application is to raze one city and pardon another, such as with Alexander the Great in Thebes and Athens.

[Montmorency]

But that's the reason why asymmetrical warfare is common nowadays, and less so in the past.

Not really so. It was much more common in the past. Today it is more geographically spread in the context of mujahid insurgency because of consolidation and technology.

[Montmorency]

If you wish to argue that Sphacteria was an example of asymmetric warfare because the Athenians used light troops, note that the Athenians had a full blown navy enforcing their blockade. There aren't any asymmetric wars where the guerrilla fighters have a navy but the conventional forces don't.

Athenian-sponsored conflict in Thrace and Ionia involved exactly the kind of asymmetric warfare we're thinking of, even if they were proxy soldiers.

[Pannonian]

This isn't quite right. Empires tended to seek a balance between group liability, or massacre/enslavement, and total clemency.

The simplest application is to raze one city and pardon another, such as with Alexander the Great in Thebes and Athens.

Not really so. It was much more common in the past. Today it is more geographically spread in the context of mujahid insurgency because of consolidation and technology.

Asymmetric warfare is more realistic nowadays because liberal democracies, and countries influenced or controlled by liberal democracies, don't have the balls to all out crush the weak. In the past, as in your given examples, a stronger state will pardon or work with those they can't subdue, and crush those whom they can. Nowadays, a cohesive state can fragment, and a liberal democracy will try to find a way to work with all of them. In the past, the stronger fragments will be worked with if they're wise, while the weaker ones or the more intransigent ones will be destroyed or enslaved. NB. liberal democracy, not democracy. The Melian dialogue had a democracy stating the reality of power.

[Montmorency]

The Melian dialogue had a democracy stating the reality of power.

They also ironically foreshadowed the Athenian defeat.

Not even Soviet Russia in Afghanistan could manage this logic, because both in local and international context there are dire disadvantages for any temporary advantages.

You'll note only Nazi Germany managed an application faithful to the technique's heritage. They did it not so much out of Nazi brutality but because the disincentives of context were removed. If they ruled the territory, they could impose conditions as harsh as possible short of outright mass revolt. If the territory was contested: scorched earth. If the territory was ruled by someone else, then it either represented the principle of their defeat, or it was one more potential subject.

This is why they practically fought to the death in modern perspective. The contemporary West has much more to lose from such an approach.