The Asymmetrical Age

[Bozo Erectus]

Its been obvious for awhile now, but the situation with Israel and Hezbollah really brings it into focus. The fact that Israel with its superior military is completely unable to stop rockets and missiles from being launched at its cities, from a neighboring, relatively small patch of territory, should be a major wake up call to governments all over the world (Im sure it is). A few hundred private individuals, with or without the consent of their governments, can amass an arsenal of missiles and fire away at a nation of millions until its demands are met.
Like when catapults and later cannons were perfected and changed the nature of war in their respective times, this is also a major transition period. Not just the unstoppable missile fire, but the whole asymetrical package. What do you think, are we now in the 'Asymmetrical Age'?

 

[Red Stranger]

Asymmetrical warfare only works when one side cares about their civilians. Hezbollah can claim victory by constantly attacking Israeli civilians, but they're not winning as a whole against the Israeli military.

 

[Little Raven]

No, but we're getting closer.

 

[Brighteye]

It started a while ago with guns. Where once you had to amass an army of strong men, you could instead amass an army of men.

Guns were described as the great leveller, because a man needed no strength and very little skill to kill someone else.

We're now seeing the trend continue. From requiring a large army of people, whether strong or not, you now don't even need a large number of people. It's just the next step along the path of evening military might between groups.

At first you had to be a young strong man with skill.
Then you could be a man with skill (because you lived beyong being young).
Then you had to be a man with some skill.
Then you had to be a man (just because that's how it had always been)
Then you just had to be an extra person.
Now you don't even need many more people. Military technology by its nature dvelops ways for fewer people to cause more damage.

Some time I suppose one person will be the equivalent of however many other people he cares to kill. And the same will apply for all the rest of the world.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

I agree. We are living in the "Asymmetrical Age" which started after the defeat of Japan in WWII and will not end in the forseable future.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Since I'm not sure what "The Asymmetrical Age" means and I don't have time to go a Googling, I'm going to vote 'yes'.

 

[Sidhe]

unbalanced in this case PrinceOfLeigh

I believe this sort of thing is key to showing why war as a means of peacemaking is becoming obsolete, war will follow later I suspect or should I say hope.

 

[deo]

Many Amateur Physicists today are able to build a Nuclear Bomb, thy just need some Uranium and who says Al Qaeida dosnt have those guys...

 

[ArneHD]

I don't suppose a Dune style shield will be invented anytime soon?

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

I don't suppose a Dune style shield will be invented anytime soon?

But so will a lasgun.

 

[G-Man]

It's an age of assymetrical warfare, but it's not at all about individuals working alone. Hezzbollah fight assymtrically, though it's far from being "private individuals" - in terms of arms and training they're much closer to being an Iranian commando division. Furthermore, the same tactic is used by official armies. Why does Syria collect scuds and WMDs? For the same reasons - they face a stronger enemy, and they're gonna face it by avoiding facing it and instead targeting its civilians.

 

[Sidhe]

Many Amateur Physicists today are able to build a Nuclear Bomb, thy just need some Uranium and who says Al Qaeida dosnt have those guys...

It's a little more tricky than that, but not much. Getting hold of Uranium in any amount isn't impossible, it's very very difficult but not impossible, what is tricky though is getting weapons grade uranium or Uranium enriched to about 97% or more. For example Iran only has power grade Uranium of 3% at the moment and without getting more or repairing their existing enrichment facilities they aren't likely to be producing nukes in any soonish time frame(besides I don't think the US is looking to supply any more, it might look even more odd this time) Even if they had a will too, which I doubt. With the break up of the Soviet union though weapons grade Uranium could make it's way into the hands of terrorists via Russia, but again this is unlikley, but not impossible.

Anyway since terrorist building enrichment facilities might attract attention. Also if your talking suitcase bomb, no problem, but these things are extremely heavy and difficult to move, despite the rather inapropriate name, thus they don't make good terror weapons, which usually involve lightning runs at things before anyone can muster enough of a defense to stop them, I'd like to see a terrorist run into a building and detonate a suitcase nuke more like crawl and then pass out from fatigue. Although maybe a fast moving van?

If your talking missile technology now this is where the real tricky physics comes in or "rocket science", the further you launch a missile the more innacurate it becomes. Overcoming this is very difficult, terrorists do not have access to top secret military information AFAIK, so missile threats are likely to be distinctly short range and highly innacurate.

Anyway my point is I'd suspect terrorists are looking for easier means to take out the infidel, and also nukes are considered unIslamic like I mentioned on another thread, but then again so are terrorists

 

[Gelion]

I think its an oversimplification. No 100 men force can "amass missles" without outside support.

An also.... you people are big on self-fulfilling prohecies....

 

[deo]

It's a little more tricky than that, but not much. Getting hold of Uranium in any amount isn't impossible, it's very very difficult but not impossible, what is tricky though is getting weapons grade uranium or Uranium enriched to about 97% or more. For example Iran only has power grade Uranium of 3% at the moment and without getting more or repairing their existing enrichment facilities they aren't likely to be producing nukes in any soonish time frame(besides I don't think the US is looking to supply any more, it might look even more odd this time) Even if they had a will too, which I doubt. With the break up of the Soviet union though weapons grade Uranium could make it's way into the hands of terrorists via Russia, but again this is unlikley, but not impossible.

Anyway since terrorist building enrichment facilities might attract attention. Also if your talking suitcase bomb, no problem, but these things are extremely heavy and difficult to move, despite the rather inapropriate name, thus they don't make good terror weapons, which usually involve lightning runs at things before anyone can muster enough of a defense to stop them, I'd like to see a terrorist run into a building and detonate a suitcase nuke more like crawl and then pass out from fatigue. Although maybe a fast moving van?

If your talking missile technology now this is where the real tricky physics comes in or "rocket science", the further you launch a missile the more innacurate it becomes. Overcoming this is very difficult, terrorists do not have access to top secret military information AFAIK, so missile threats are likely to be distinctly short range and highly innacurate.

Anyway my point is I'd suspect terrorists are looking for easier means to take out the infidel, and also nukes are considered unIslamic like I mentioned on another thread, but then again so are terrorists

Well, what I meant is that they need the enriched Uranium, or Plutonium, and thats what is difficult to get.
Terrorist BTW dont need missiles, they just blow it from a car in the middle of Manhattan

 

[Veritass]

The "assymetrical age" plays out on many levels:

Example #1: Someone in 1982 poisons a few random bottles of Tylenol, costing Johnson & Johnson over $100 million in pulled product, and resulting in untold costs for new packaging for whole categories of products. This person has never been caught, but even if they were, there is nothing that J&J (or society) could do to this person that would be suitable punishment to match the damage they have done to others.

Example #2: In 2002 the "beltway snipers" killed ten people and critically wounded three others. They will end up in prison for life without parole, but there is nothing that can be done to these men that could possibly match the damage they have done to others. (One side effect of this frustration is the lawsuit against the gun dealer and manufacturer, which resulted in a $2.5 million out of court settlement, but that is for another topic.)

Whether you look at suicide bombings and random rocket lobbing as the ultimate act of cowardice or the ultimate act of desparation, technology has made it so that a small group of people can inflict damage on others that can never be compensated for, or punished in kind. Once the suicide bomber has decided that his life has no worth, there is nothing that can be done to punish him in response to the act. The frustration with this is what causes some to propose "solutions" like killing in revenge the closest 50 family members of the suicide bomber, to help dissuade future such bombers.

It has always been easier to tear down than to build society. With today's technology, it is even easier for fewer people to produce greater wounds in society, such as McVeigh and Nichols in the Oklahoma City bombing. With the societal structures we have in place, we give an advantage to the suicide bombers because we don't hold them to any standard of civilization, like we hold those who would retaliate. Yes, there is a certain power in ruthlessness, and a certain weakness in compassion.

I'm sorry to say that I don't even have a good idea toward a solution. It all makes me very sad, and fills me with despair over the future of the middle east and the world in general.

 

[El_Machinae]

What's amazing then, is the fact that we're actually building (together) faster than a few can tear down.

That's promising.

 

[ArneHD]

But so will a lasgun.

That was what I was afraid of. If anyone gets their hands on a lasgun and a shield as the same time... well, say goodbye to major population centers.

 

[GinandTonic]

Happened a long time ago. See the independence of Israil, Republic of Ireland and Kenya, not to even go to the Vietnam place.

Boer war was the turning point if you ask me, last shout for liberal democracy supporting the use of overwelming force.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Happened a long time ago. See the independence of Israil, Republic of Ireland and Kenya, not to even go to the Vietnam place.

Boer war was the turning point if you ask me, last shout for liberal democracy supporting the use of overwelming force.

I don't know, WWI was about the epitomy of symmetrical warfare.

 

[GinandTonic]

Sure. Just saying asymetrical warfair isnt a new thing. The key thing being a free press reporting the actions of an elected government to its constituents within a liberal democracy precludes the use of overwelming force against an dramatically inferior foe because those constituents wont stand for it for an extended time.

The advent of the conditions to allow asymetrical warfare in no way preclude symetrical warfare.