the nature of modern warfare (not the game)

[THAC0]

So, i'm watching a thing about stealth technology, and a thought occurred to me.

I love military technology and i think all this hardware is super cool, but is it needed?

Our(American)military is at the top of food chain as far as i can reason by every meaningful measure. We control the seas, the skies, and the ground. We have more tech and more military power than any other nation on Earth. So we should own face in any military conflict we get in. But we don't.

I am starting to think that the American military was created for a particular type of fighting and we are excellent at it, but we are the only people in the world that still fight like that.

Other counties aren't mounting huge armies or challenging us in the air. The rest of the world isn't fighting the types of fights that we are good at any more, so we aren't doing as well as you would think that we would.

Am i way off on this, or is this common knowledge and i am just slow to the game?

 

[Spaghetti]

No, I think you're right. The western powers (I.e. Europe, America etc.) have all had a history of massive engagments involveing thousands of soldiers and the latest tech. From the Crusades to the WW2. Even during the cold war, everyone expected conventional warfare like from the past. Both America and Russia were caught out when they entered their "quagmires" of Afghanistan and Vietnam where the rule books were tossed out the window.

I think Iraq is a good example of this. The actuall war where we fought Sadam's army, was over in days because It was a conventional fight. Lots of Tanks vs Lots of Tanks. Now that the war is long since over, and we are fighting untraceable civilians using weapons that can bought from any black market dealer...suddenly the M1 Abrams and Challenger II become useless.

So it's not so much a question about "We're preparing for the wrong fight", it's more a case that a modern military force needs to adapt to the situation. An army needs to be prepared to fight guerillas one day, terrorists the next, and the neighbor the day after that.

 

[Tread184]

You two pretty much summed it all up. Fighting guerrilla armies, terrorists, and insurgencies requires a completely different strategy, something that the Americans seem have a difficult time accepting and engaging. It requires WAY more politics, civil work, and the "military scalpel" (Special Forces), not the "military broadsword (conventional military).

End thread.

 

[Seldon2639]

~snip~

You're a little late to the game, I'm sad to say. It's an argument that's been going on in the policy and security communities since Vietnam. Basically, there are two types of warfare: symmetrical and asymmetrical. Symmetrical warfare is World War II, the big armies running into each other. Asymmetrical warfare is terrorism and guerrilla tactics.

A force presented with an opponent it cannot fight in terms of direct force will employ asymmetrical tactics in order to level the playing field. Once the playing field is leveled, the force can employ symmetrical tactics. The Vietcong did not continue to use guerrilla tactics against the South Vietnamese army once American forces withdrew.

This leads to four major considerations in American military thinking: how, if possible, can we force fights into symmetrical warfare, can we fight asymmetrical forces, can we win these kinds of battles without resorting to total warfare, and if a massively superior military protects us from symmetrical attacks by other nation-states can we afford to let that slip?

Of course, then you get into the international relations theories and everything gets even more complicated. You have the classical theories (think pure power theory, Kissinger, his ilk), liberal peace theory, game theories, and a bunch of pet theories which are true... Sometimes.

 

[Lullabye]

You know whats always got my goat? it's a war crime to use robots to kill people. DOes this seem odd to anyone else?
also, yes america is strong, but dont get ahead of yourselves for the love of gosh.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Here is an example of great modern warfare:

S.A.S.

No, the Modern Warfare games do not glorify these soldiers, they are deadly, professional, and will end you 56 times before you even hit the ground. I'd like to see a green beret try on these guys.

The funniest thing about S.A.S. is that there is no women; NOT because women aren't allowed, but because no woman has ever passed the tests required to become an S.A.S.

 

[the_dancy_vagrant]

Fancy technology doesn't help with the occupation part of any war. The fundamental truth is that it takes soldiers and lots of them. Tactics and long term strategies are what win wars, not how flashy your gear is. Tech has its place, but that place is with the air force. Airplanes will win the day, but it's infantry that will win the war.

 

[Baron Von Evil Satan]

Here is an example of great modern warfare:

S.A.S.

No, the Modern Warfare games do not glorify these soldiers, they are deadly, professional, and will end you 56 times before you even hit the ground. I'd like to see a green beret try on these guys.

The funniest thing about S.A.S. is that there is no women; NOT because women aren't allowed, but because no woman has ever passed the tests required to become an S.A.S.

I'd like to see this acctually, but not on 'Deadliest Warrior' or anything like that. More like in an airsoft or paintball urban arena with real people. Computers are fine and dandy but can not account for human intuition and survival instinct. I'd also like to see the Spetznatz (sp?) thrown into the mix as well.

 

[MiserableOldGit]

It's not just America, though they're suffering the most. The problem is wev'e reached a strange point where we have all the crap elements of ritualised warfare, and all the crap elements of total warfare all rolled into one. Bit like the way western politics has managed to combine all the crap bits of both capitalism and socialism into one ball of inept crappiness. I think the world needs a holiday-its been a very busy couple of centuries...

 

[MiserableOldGit]

Here is an example of great modern warfare:

S.A.S.

No, the Modern Warfare games do not glorify these soldiers, they are deadly, professional, and will end you 56 times before you even hit the ground. I'd like to see a green beret try on these guys.

The funniest thing about S.A.S. is that there is no women; NOT because women aren't allowed, but because no woman has ever passed the tests required to become an S.A.S.

I'd like to see this acctually, but not on 'Deadliest Warrior' or anything like that. More like in an airsoft or paintball urban arena with real people. Computers are fine and dandy but can not account for human intuition and survival instinct. I'd also like to see the Spetznatz (sp?) thrown into the mix as well.

And some first person gamers-just for a giggle. I'm up for getting shot by a Russian psychopath a paintball gun. 'Course, the Gurkhas will probably show up and kick everyones teeth in armed only with a rock and a few bits of string...

 

[BonsaiK]

Other counties aren't mounting huge armies or challenging us in the air. The rest of the world isn't fighting the types of fights that we are good at any more, so we aren't doing as well as you would think that we would.

Am i way off on this, or is this common knowledge and i am just slow to the game?

It's fairly common knowledge. This has been discussed at length by various military experts. There's a term called "third generation warfare" which is worth googling, that points directly to this issue. The US has great technology but is ultimately fighting a WWIII enemy using WWII tactics. The US themselves are no doubt aware of this, but there's all sorts of things that prevent them changing the way they fight, from sheer habit, technology, the behaviour of the military-industrial machine, to the vastly different psychology at play between an invading force vs their enemies and other factors.

There's also the "cost vs result" issue. While the USA spends 16 billion on developing and manufacturing the best new howitzer in the world that may or may not ever get deployed, a group of insurgents with some box cutters and a little bit of flight training kill over 3000 people. An IED costs maybe $50 to make, the light armoured vehicle it destroys costs a lot more - even if only 1% IEDs hit their intended targets, that's still $5000 spent on IEDs vs maybe $80000 (at a guess) for an APC. Then there's the cost of injuring or killing the soldiers inside that APC. For each US soldier that dies probably 100 or more taliban also die, but a US soldier has also probably had easily over 1000 times the amount of training and infrastructre spent on him. A US soldier is an "investment" by the military, every time one dies or is wounded and can't fight, this represents money lost in training that will no longer be utilised.

Ultimately, the US won't win in Afghanistan or Iraq using current strategy, the best they can hope for is an ongoing stalemate which will probably crumble the minute they leave. I guess what the US is hoping for is to keep the stalemate alive while they bleed out these countries resources and work out how the hell to win over the hearts and minds of the people so they can go home and don't have to continue the policing job themselves. I have no idea how they're going to achieve that though, especially as US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is actually what is actually attracting insurgents to those countries. For instance, there were no al-qaeda in Iraq at all when the US invaded, but once the US got there, al-qaeda soon came in from neighbouring countries because they wanted to fight the US. It's also no secret that most Taliban actually are coming across the border from Pakistan now. Because of this, it might in fact be better for the long-term stability of both countries if the US just goes home.

 

[TheGreatCoolEnergy]

Already said, but America has a difficult time adjusting. Ask any American "What was the greatest battle of the past 100 years" and they will say "D-Day". The strategy was simply "Take thousands of guys and put them on that beach." That was the strategy of the whole war: Two armies marching into each other. And the problem is, America still fights with the massive battle strategy, when they are facing hit-and-run and gurilla tactics, and that is why they keep losing: They don't adjust there strategy tof ace the challenge.

 

[PiCroft]

I'm curious if symmetrical warfare is even possible anymore, given the largest and most well-equipped armies in the world are all backed up by nukes. Imagine if the US attacked Russia or China - wouldn't the first and last words in these conflicts be nuclear strikes?

 

[Vault boy Eddie]

the current armies of the world are set up for the "what ifs". What if some country goes batshit and decides to invade us or something like that. I tell you, some people probably saw Red Dawn as a documentary.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Well If the Us went to war with China, then thats the kind of war you would get. Not the current war in Iraq and such.

 

[Omikron009]

Of all the aspects of modern warfare, which would be a rather interesting thing to examine if the current American military came face-to-face with a hypothetical equal, I love the that actual robotic killing machines are prowling the skies above combat zones, updating intel and meting out unfeeling justice. Well, the use of the term justice is debatable in this situation, but it just sounds really good.

 

[Good morning blues]

The US military isn't equipped to fight modern wars - if it was, soldiers in Iraq would have enough ammunition and armor. The US military is equipped to allow US arms contractors to get rich.

 

[Baron Von Evil Satan]

I guess what the US is hoping for is to keep the stalemate alive while they bleed out these countries resources and work out how the hell to win over the hearts and minds of the people so they can go home and don't have to continue the policing job themselves.

Actually we've won over the trust of the civilians in the middle east fairly long ago. The main point of a surge strategy is to put boots on the ground so you can provide the basic needs for the populous that the current regime is not providing (water, shelter, security, and food). This shows the people that you are there to help them, not ravage their country. In turn it become significantly easier to gain intel from the countries civilians, or government if the enemy is separated from the government. In fact one of the suggestions that I have heard for defeating the Taliban and Al-Qaeda is to bring them into civil issues (fixing structures, and other city spending issues) which would completely destroy their legitimacy, because they would not be able to offer any real help in those matters.

(just as a side note, the only real reason we are not pulling out of the middle east right now is because Obama is to pussy-whipped by the left that he is scared to take any real action. *sigh8 I miss Reagan and ol' George W.

 

[MercenaryCanary]

Well, it is like this, you see.
Soldiers get the technology. They love it. It's fresh, its new, its cool, and its fancy. But... it doesn't really do much better, and is in reality less safe. But they don't want to give it up. They've already used it, so they get attached to it.
This is exactly what the Air Force does. Instead of using remote controlled drones, they use the F-22's...
What we need is a massive "You don't need that" campaign.

 

[aebonhawk]

There is also another front in modern warfare. The battlefield of public opinion. Where once all you had to do is put up a few cheesy looking posters with mindless slogans and the public would have you're back until peace was declared or you got you're ass kicked. Now with the internet and a television in every house everyone and anyone can have their opinion heard. If the public doesn't agree with you're war than you will be out of a job the next time the federal election rolls around. This also goes for the country you're invading. If the people there don't like you than you will find less intelligence and more insurgents every time you get into another battle. Not to mention the fact that the majority of the western world thinks you can fight a war without killing anybody. One coalition soldier steps on an IED and every person and their aunt is calling for an end to hostilities.