5 ms·
Well no, asymmetric warfare is any warfare where the two parties differ substantially in strength. In Iraq at the moment, for instance, we're trying to kill the
by hugh 18y ago
Well no, asymmetric warfare is any warfare where the two parties differ substantially in strength. In Iraq at the moment, for instance, we're trying to kill the enemy while the enemy doesn't seem to care whether they kill our soldiers or random civilians, but it would remain asymmetric even if the enemy would be so kind as to restrict themselves to trying to kill our soldiers.
Unless you're saying that the enemy in Iraq counts as "civilians" because they're not part of any proper and recognized army, but that's a rather point-missing definition of "civilian", since the defining characteristic of a civilian is whether they're engaging in combat.
- logjam 18y ago"The enemy?" You mean the people whose country we invaded?
- hugh 18y agoIn the interests of keeping extremely boring politically-charged semantic arguments away I'll resist the temptation to reply to that one.
- logjam 18y agoIn other words, in the interests of not showing you are able to support your argument, you choose not to try to support your argument. Gotcha. Next time, please don't inject politically charged arguments into this kind of discussin.
- gaius 18y agoIt is not such a stretch to envision a world in which we have flocks of these circling endlessly over "enemy" population centres waiting targets of opportunity. Our own people barely even need to be aware that we're doing it, no body bags coming home, no loved-ones overseas for years, it will no more make it to the news than when a Tomahawk is fired now. That is a terror weapon, in the most literal sense.
- breck 18y agoWell put. That being said, I'd prefer this scenario to the present one with body bags coming home. That is, as long as I'm still living in the U.S., away from the perpetually aloft drones.