3 ms·

I always thought this "urban warfare" stuff BS. At what point is it actually just law enforcement ? The problem with the russians in afghanistan and americans

I always thought this "urban warfare" stuff BS. At what point is it actually just law enforcement ? The problem with the russians in afghanistan and americans in iraq/afghanistan today is what exacty is the objective ? Technically the russians and americans won easily in the first few days. The rest of the time was just pretend warfare that should have been just called law enforcement. When you send soldiers to fight civilians you've already failed. There's nothing you can achieve except slaughter.

derefr 17y ago
"Soldier" vs "civilian" is a false dichotomy. In the middle, there's "militia", which you're a part of as soon as you pick up a weapon and start pushing back on the "law enforcement"'s encroachment upon your city.
- marshallp 17y ago
  You could call that "militia" the local police department and pay them money to police that local population. If the hearts of a population are not with you, sending a military in is just barbaric. That battle can never be won.
  - rdtsc 17y ago
    > If the hearts of a population are not with you, sending a military in is just barbaric. Most countries that have been conquered were not conquered by love or friendship but by barbaric brutality. Not saying I approve, I don't. It is just what usually happens. One would just take over the hospitals, water treatment plants, power plants and news stations. Then see how long people are going to stay on their roofs with their rifles. I am guessing not too long. "Live free or die" is a good slogan. But most people would buckle and sell their country for a hot egg McMuffin if they haven't eaten in a week.
    - plinkplonk 17y ago
      "One would just take over the hospitals, water treatment plants, power plants and news stations. Then see how long people are going to stay on their roofs with their rifles." Large parts of Afghanistan don't have any hospitals, water treatment plants, power plants and news stations. As far as I can see the US "liberation" forces are still getting shot at or blown up. You underestimate how people dislike invaders in their streets and disrupting their lives. I suspect even Americans who live in relative luxury and have all the above would fight to the death against (say) Chinese soldiers patrolling their cities.
      - rdtsc 17y ago
        Interesting. Why did you assume Afghanistan? I had America in mind... It is much harder to take over a country where everyone is already self-sufficient. It would be hard to take over Africa, as many villages are more or less self sufficient. They are not doing great but they can survive without a Starbucks. The same in Afghanistan. If someone has a herd of goats, a well, and the ability to grow some edible plants, they might be alright and will keep fighting. Now try shutting down power, water, hospitals and grocery stores in US and see what happens. The most advanced a society is, the more dependent the people are dependent on multiple layers of private and governmental services. And I guess, that makes them in a certain way more vulnerable. (How did I even think of this? I witnessed what happened when there was a large power outage in Ohio last year). > I suspect even Americans who live in relative luxury and have all the above would fight to the death aginst (say) Chinese soldiers patrolling their cities. I think you have a very optimistic view of our fellow Americans. I saw them get desperate when they couldn't take a shower for 2 weeks. Another 2-3 month and many would have pledged allegiance to the first country providing hot showers and hot egg mcmuffins.
        plinkplonk 17y ago
        "I think you have a very optimistic view of our fellow Americans. I saw them get desperate when they couldn't take a shower for 2 weeks. Another 2-3 month and many would have pledged allegiance to the first country providing hot showers and hot egg mcmuffins." Well I am not an American but I have lived in the USA. I think underestimating Americans as weak hedonists who don't have the iron in their souls for battle would be to make the same mistake the Japanese did in WW2. The Japanese high command (except famously Yamomoto) actually believed that Americans were soft and decadent and couldn't stand up to the tough Japanese soldiers. That didn't turn out so well even before the atom bomb. As to getting desperate about no showers, sure if in peacetime your infrastructure broke down for whatever reason you'd get desperate. But when you are at war, and when you are under invasion (an invasion of the United States is well nigh unimaginable today, but just as a thought experiment), the mindset is probably very different.

derefr 17y ago

"Soldier" vs "civilian" is a false dichotomy. In the middle, there's "militia", which you're a part of as soon as you pick up a weapon and start pushing back on the "law enforcement"'s encroachment upon your city.

marshallp 17y ago
You could call that "militia" the local police department and pay them money to police that local population. If the hearts of a population are not with you, sending a military in is just barbaric. That battle can never be won.
- rdtsc 17y ago
  > If the hearts of a population are not with you, sending a military in is just barbaric. Most countries that have been conquered were not conquered by love or friendship but by barbaric brutality. Not saying I approve, I don't. It is just what usually happens. One would just take over the hospitals, water treatment plants, power plants and news stations. Then see how long people are going to stay on their roofs with their rifles. I am guessing not too long. "Live free or die" is a good slogan. But most people would buckle and sell their country for a hot egg McMuffin if they haven't eaten in a week.
  - plinkplonk 17y ago
    "One would just take over the hospitals, water treatment plants, power plants and news stations. Then see how long people are going to stay on their roofs with their rifles." Large parts of Afghanistan don't have any hospitals, water treatment plants, power plants and news stations. As far as I can see the US "liberation" forces are still getting shot at or blown up. You underestimate how people dislike invaders in their streets and disrupting their lives. I suspect even Americans who live in relative luxury and have all the above would fight to the death against (say) Chinese soldiers patrolling their cities.
    - rdtsc 17y ago
      Interesting. Why did you assume Afghanistan? I had America in mind... It is much harder to take over a country where everyone is already self-sufficient. It would be hard to take over Africa, as many villages are more or less self sufficient. They are not doing great but they can survive without a Starbucks. The same in Afghanistan. If someone has a herd of goats, a well, and the ability to grow some edible plants, they might be alright and will keep fighting. Now try shutting down power, water, hospitals and grocery stores in US and see what happens. The most advanced a society is, the more dependent the people are dependent on multiple layers of private and governmental services. And I guess, that makes them in a certain way more vulnerable. (How did I even think of this? I witnessed what happened when there was a large power outage in Ohio last year). > I suspect even Americans who live in relative luxury and have all the above would fight to the death aginst (say) Chinese soldiers patrolling their cities. I think you have a very optimistic view of our fellow Americans. I saw them get desperate when they couldn't take a shower for 2 weeks. Another 2-3 month and many would have pledged allegiance to the first country providing hot showers and hot egg mcmuffins.
      - plinkplonk 17y ago
        "I think you have a very optimistic view of our fellow Americans. I saw them get desperate when they couldn't take a shower for 2 weeks. Another 2-3 month and many would have pledged allegiance to the first country providing hot showers and hot egg mcmuffins." Well I am not an American but I have lived in the USA. I think underestimating Americans as weak hedonists who don't have the iron in their souls for battle would be to make the same mistake the Japanese did in WW2. The Japanese high command (except famously Yamomoto) actually believed that Americans were soft and decadent and couldn't stand up to the tough Japanese soldiers. That didn't turn out so well even before the atom bomb. As to getting desperate about no showers, sure if in peacetime your infrastructure broke down for whatever reason you'd get desperate. But when you are at war, and when you are under invasion (an invasion of the United States is well nigh unimaginable today, but just as a thought experiment), the mindset is probably very different.