Notices
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Learning to fight like cowards

  1. #1 Learning to fight like cowards 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    We're up against enemies that prefer to engage us by way of roadside bombs. While, I'm sure our own use of artillery rockets and aerial bombardment doesn't seem a whole lot braver from their perspective, I think there's a lot to be learned from an enemy that has learned to fight from a distance rather than up close and personal. Even when human insurgents engage our troops, the real masterminds behind it are usually far away in the safety of some Pakistani city somewhere, living ordinary, mild mannered, civilian looking lives. I'm sure their fighters are no more valuable than cattle to many of them.

    How can we improve our skill at hurling low cost, totally expendable weapons at an enemy at minimum exposure to ourselves? How do we get inside that mindset? Is it even possible? Does our own soldiers' sense of professionalism prevent them from being able to think of ways to make their own skill sets obsolete?

    I think an ideal war would be almost totally automated. Wire guided or otherwise automated robot soldiers, built from cheap, off the shelf hobby store parts, and equipped with minimal arsenals, would doing most of the heavy lifting, while their remote operators stood back and sipped coffee. If the enemy captures, or hacks one or two of them, that's fine. If the devices are cheap enough, and their weapons shabby enough, the benefit of hacking them is pretty much minimal.

    A whole generation of video game junkies would suddenly find useful applications for their skills. Amass enough drones at each potential location the enemy might attack, and you could treat drones like "lives" in a video game. When the enemy kills one, you just bring another one online, with the same controller who was controlling the one before.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Learning to fight like cowards 
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I think there's a lot to be learned from an enemy that has learned to fight from a distance rather than up close and personal. Even when human insurgents engage our troops, the real masterminds behind it are usually far away in the safety of some Pakistani city somewhere, living ordinary, mild mannered, civilian looking lives. I'm sure their fighters are no more valuable than cattle to many of them.
    Do you seriously think that our politicians (whether UK, US, Polish or wherever in the "civilized" world) need Ben Laden to teach them this approach?


    Leszek. Pronounced [LEH-sheck]. The wondering Slav.
    History teaches us that we don't learn from history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I found some statistics in Newsweek about the casualty rates of the USA and other members of the "coalition". I remember the size of the USA's force was about 176,000, and the number of deaths was in the 4,000's range somewhere. I calculated that the odds of any single American soldier dying in the field are at most 2.56 %, and that's only if we assumed that the current fighting force included all the soldiers who have served so far, which I'm sure it doesn't. (Of course, it only includes deaths, not maimings.)


    Do you think the Taliban's casualty rate is that low?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    951
    You will never win against a populist insergent force unless willing to comitt genicide, sinc we (US forces ) are not willing we will loose in Afganistan , same as Vietnam. you obviously ,Kojax, have never been in the military. Your dream of cheap hobby store munitions is a real joke also.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by fizzlooney
    You will never win against a populist insergent force unless willing to comitt genicide, sinc we (US forces ) are not willing we will loose in Afganistan , same as Vietnam. you obviously ,Kojax, have never been in the military. Your dream of cheap hobby store munitions is a real joke also.
    Yeah, well, a lot of the insurgents that are currently defeating us also were never in the military, at least not a professional military like the US Army. It's also kind of funny that cheap, hobby store munitions are exactly what they're using against us so successfully.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    951
    you just proved my point! unless you wipe them ALL out it will continue on and on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,027
    Kojax,
    Your choice of title for your topic sucks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson
    Kojax,
    Your choice of title for your topic sucks.
    It made you open the thread, read it and participate. That makes it an effective title in a marketing sense. Ten points to Kojax.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,027
    Is someone writing a book with the said title ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Marketing does not apply only to commercial applications, such as book pubishing, but to the promotion of any idea or resource. Such is the case here. Kojax would, presumably, like many people to read his thread. The title is a vital part in leading them to do so. His title in this instance has done that. Would you disagree?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,027
    No, I would not disagree with your assertion regarding the " Title " I am kind of wondering if I am about to step on a land - mine. I am off to the gym, and I will have a think about what you have just said.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: Learning to fight like cowards 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    We're up against enemies that prefer to engage us by way of roadside bombs. While, I'm sure our own use of artillery rockets and aerial bombardment doesn't seem a whole lot braver from their perspective, I think there's a lot to be learned from an enemy that has learned to fight from a distance rather than up close and personal.
    They haven't learned to fight from a distance. They are setting up those bombs directly on the side of well travels roads and due to our jamming equipment must often command detonating those bombs from small arms range. It is combat at a very close distant the exact opposite as you suggest. Their preference is driven by what's effective more than anything else.

    Even when human insurgents engage our troops, the real masterminds behind it are usually far away in the safety of some Pakistani city somewhere, living ordinary, mild mannered, civilian looking lives. I'm sure their fighters are no more valuable than cattle to many of them.
    Many of the insurgent leadership bear the scars of prior combat.

    How can we improve our skill at hurling low cost, totally expendable weapons at an enemy at minimum exposure to ourselves? How do we get inside that mindset? Is it even possible? Does our own soldiers' sense of professionalism prevent them from being able to think of ways to make their own skill sets obsolete?

    A whole generation of video game junkies would suddenly find useful applications for their skills.
    They already are effective. So effective they are winning an insurgent war without the use of genocide.

    I found some statistics in Newsweek about the casualty rates of the USA and other members of the "coalition". I remember the size of the USA's force was about 176,000, and the number of deaths was in the 4,000's range somewhere. I calculated that the odds of any single American soldier dying in the field are at most 2.56 %, and that's only if we assumed that the current fighting force included all the soldiers who have served so far, which I'm sure it doesn't. (Of course, it only includes deaths, not maimings.)
    You're % is off by at least a factor of five and probably closer to ten.

    The title is titillating, though misleading with incorrect premise and like the last paragraph based on poor understanding of counter insurgency.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by fizzlooney
    you just proved my point! unless you wipe them ALL out it will continue on and on.
    How far down in age do you want to go? 16? 14? 12? If it takes us six years to kill all the existing insurgents operating right now, those 12 year olds will be turning 18.

    Trying to take away the Taliban's supply of naive, ignorant upper teenage boys who can be lied to until they believe they're going to win glory for themselves and come back alive, would be like trying to take all of an Eskimo's ice away from him. Good luck on that, but please try not to spend too many of my tax dollars on it if you can. I wouldn't want it to get in the way of trying to build an oil pipeline to the Moon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •