I was just thinking about the history of war.
More specifically, how wars have been fought.
Remember the time where weŽd just send in rows of men with guns,
let them stand straight across each other in formation and
shoot?
Naturally the army with more men won These were the good old
days. Because fighting wars before this with swords
and arrows was some what chaotic and look very "uncivilized".
We went from throwing stones and sharp materials to
swords and arrows, to gun and bombs.
Then the A-bomb came along and was supposed to change the world
and 'war' forever. Some believed it would create global peace,
because once a nation had this ultimate weapon of destruction,
war would be meaningless since no one would oppose them.
Well you all know the story, the A-bomb didn't solve all
of our problems, it didn't create world peace either.
Here we are today.
When the world is somewhat polarized and the balance of
power being very different.
Now you all remember the story of Troy right?
One side was well fortified in a castle making it impossible
for the enemy to break through. The only way the managed this
was with the Trojan horse (hiding inside it).
Think of today. If we say for example America is the fortified
castle. The Worlds super power no doubt about that, is terrorism
the only way to attack and "break through" such a defense and hurt
the enemy?
Obviously we would never see a country like Denmark (of 5.5 million)
declare war on the United States of America... If they did anyway..
I wonder how many mins it would last. But the only chance for our Danes
of hurting the Americans would be on their own soil, through sabotage.
Just how are you supposed battle a war with a stronger nation, when in
some cases its directly Suicide (as Denmark declaring war on America would be, heh).
And even today there are talks about Unmanned vehicles, aircrafts ect ect
in years to come. To reduce War-casualties. But of course not everyone
can afford these technologies.
Looking at Iraq the difficulties the US army has been
facing. How do you tell a fighter from a civilian ?
The soldier ( insurgent, fighter or whatever you call them) obviously wont dress
in a uniform, because its suicide and completely idiot... cowardly true..
but what other option do you have?
My big concern is, and question to all waffs users is..
is Terrorism the future of war ?
Think about it, the Russians didn't destroy the Nazis by fighting everyone
them back, they let them walk right in and the Russian winter butchered the
Nazi army.
Think of the Example with the Trojan horse.
Just exactly how will war be fought 50 years from now?
Share your thoughts.
This message has been edited by NorthernCyprus-Reloaded on Jan 8, 2006 7:40 PM This message has been edited by NorthernCyprus-Reloaded on Jan 8, 2006 7:39 PM
In the days of swords and arrows which you say were "uncivilized" (but there is no civilized war), at least there was some room for honor in war. Today there is no honor in war what - so - ever !
Terrorism is a nice word to demonize those that we want to demonize. The truth is that terrorism and war are contradictive terms. Terrorism is violence towards non-combattants - civilians. Terrorism is 9/11 but also terrorism is the bombing of Dresden, the A-bomb in Hiroshima, the Nazi retaliatory executions of civilians in WWII, the concentration camps by the British in the Boers Wars, and many many more actions of "good" or "bad" guys which resulted in intended (and not collateral) casualties on civilian populations.
What is often thought of but really isn't terrosism: The Hezbolah blowing up an Israeli guard post, the Al-Qaeda attack on the Pentagon or a USN ship on the emirates, the PKK killing a Turkish soldier etc. These actions are not terrorist, wether we like this fact or not. The reason is that the targets are military IOW the victims are wearing uniforms, holding weapons etc.
The correct term for such warfare is "assymetrical threats". They are nothing more than guerilla tactics warped into modern tech. And the idea is as old as Sun Tzu at least.
What is the future of war? Well, IMO with the global trend to further concentrate wealth and power around the few, and with the growing power gap that technology creates, the weak will resolve to such "assymetrical" tactics more and more. Because it will be the only thing that works.
Both assymetrical threats and terrorism will grow in the future. Future wars will not be fought on frontlines by tactical forces. The war will be everywhere, in your city, your mall, your work, your house. Personal liberties will shrink as a result of this.
Asymetrical warfare or terrorism almost didn't existed before because:
1) there was much less nationalism,
2) mostly because they are easy to figh with counter-terrorism: hostage taking, human shield, massive retaliation and massacre on the population.
All those means, the West more or less fortunately forbidden itself to use.
Just the terrorists, racists, religious extremists and hyper nationalist secessionists should remember those are self imposed rules so can easily be removed.
Assymetrical threats and terrorism did exist before (before 9/11?) it was just that other threats were above the list in importance thats all. There was definately nationalism before also, just that it was surpressed by totalitarian regiemes.
The future of war will not be terrorism. Conventional forces will always be used on a large scale including to combat terrorism. Why? Because despite the 'multinational' image of terrorist organisations they will always have to be based somewhere and get funding from somewhere, this means reliance on the State or a State, with or without its knowledge, and use of state institutions like banks and industry etc to support its activities.
Quote:Remember the time where weŽd just send in rows of men with guns,
let them stand straight across each other in formation and
shoot?
Naturally the army with more men won These were the good old
days
I've stopped reading from here because I feel the need to comment on this.
Having more men was only one parameter of war that doesn't necessary lead to victory. It wasn't simply column vs column, it was about achieving local superiority. (For example French army beat the english at Tourcoing with 60,000 men while the allies had 72,000 men. Or Austerlitz when Napoleonic forces were severly outnumbered.
In fact victory iss determined by maneuvers, training, intelligence, technology, numbers etc. And war hasn;t evolved at all, it just the technology and the scale of operation that has dramatically improved with technology. One still wants local superiority as well as superiority of firepower. Mobility and intelligence are means to guarantee local superiority.
Asymmetrical warfare is also nothing new just look at the Basque campaign against the Franks or the welsh against the Normans. They avoided convetional battle at all cost. They hit and run and they dissapeared in the wilderness which is their home, one cannot retaliate against the wilderness, it is pointless. Whereas those who lived in the wilderness can come out to raid civilise town centres.
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
First time I noted Hitler was a socialist, which is kind of funny. Anyway this NAZI propaganda crap is irrelevent to the topic.
-------------------------------------------- We were not given dominion over the earth; our forebears earned it in their long, nightmarish struggle against creatures far stronger, swifter, and better armed than ourselves, when the terror of being ripped apart and devoured was never further away than the darkness beyond the campfire's warmth. -Darwin
This message has been edited by Eric_De_La_Legion on Feb 9, 2006 6:48 AM
Naturally the army with more men won These were the good old
days
Just a sidenote to Eryx's reply on this. Though I hate to sound so Greek, I must remind NCR of the battles of Marathon, Salamis, Thermopylae, Mykale, the campaigns of Alexander III etc, where the few prevailed over the many.
Best summarized in the words of Aeschylus: "Because we (Greeks), unlike the barbarian, never count the enemy before battle".
