5 ms·

Protracted wars (i.e. long slow wars via hit-and-run and guerilla warfare) have been very successful in past to topal the mighty powers by far weaker forces. Ho

Protracted wars (i.e. long slow wars via hit-and-run and guerilla warfare) have been very successful in past to topal the mighty powers by far weaker forces. However, in recent times, I feel they are becoming much less effective. The electronic surveylence and automated targetting makes such warfare much difficult. This is especially the case because, (1) the ruling power will eventually control all communication and remove any free speech, (2) they will constantly find and kill leaders through electronic means which are now amazingly effective. A much better defensive route is probably mandatory militery training of all able citizens. Eventually, most professional armies are in the size of million at most and only 100,000 or so get deployed. If you have a million citizens with militery training, you are way harder to beat.

bduerst 5y ago
I'm not sure that's the right answer. The protracted Afghanistan war was "recent times", and likely involved technology that we civilians still don't know exists yet. Creating a larger standing militia is just trying to fight toe-to-toe against a superpower with more power, which still won't be enough to win in a quick decision. If anything, utilization of improved surveillance should be prioritized more by the smaller force, to be more effective.
- lazide 5y ago
  Uh, the whole point of guerilla war is it isn’t toe to toe, and quick decisions don’t matter? If Russia ‘wins’, they still will probably lose (due to protracted guerrila activity draining them economically). Afghanistan never got won, even with all the wiz bang technology. The US just got tired of paying.
  - cutemonster 5y ago
    If Russia "wins", Russia still loses, yes. But Putin might win, the way his brain works - how happy he'd be, with more land, even if it's barren and flat and no people
    - lazide 5y ago
      Well, one actual way to actually ‘win’ a guerilla war would be a war of complete extermination, which for everyone’s sake I hope he would not only not consider, but his soldiers would not be willing to execute. It’s only thing to pull the string on an artillery piece you think is nominally pointed at an enemy, it’s another to round up men, women, and children and machine gun them into a ditch over and over - especially when you’re stated goal is ‘denazification’.
- sytelus 5y ago
  US intention was not to occupy and control the county. It is very different situation. If invader wants to control the county, profits massively from all the resources and don't care about human lives there then no amount of protracted war is going to push them out.
  - 8note 5y ago
    The US occupied and controlled the country for ~20 years. If that wasn't the intention, you'd think they'd have left by year 5
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    "profits massively from all the resources" Like what? After a war everything is bombed, destroyed or polluted. Iraq didnt even have running water. Economy was in ruins. Its not the dark ages any more, microchips are more valuable than gold and even oil needs serious infrastructure. Every war is extremely expensive - for the amount if money spent in iraq US could have bought every homeless person a penthouse. On the moon.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > Like what? Shelling nuclear power plants, for example [1]. The expensive part of modern warfare is precision. Abandon one's soul, dial up the yield and razing a nation becomes quick work. Ancient armies wiped out civilizations with less firepower than a CVN. They were simply unconcerned with being brutal. [1] https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/top-wrap-1-europes-largest-nuclear-power-plant-fire-after-russian-attack-mayor-2022-03-04/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/top-wrap-1-europes-la...
      - notriddle 5y ago
        Who wants to plant their flag on a lifeless husk?
        thematrixturtle 5y ago
Lamad123 5y ago
You need to be an Afghanistan or a Taklamakan or a Vietnam.. You can't just do guerilla warfare in Belgium, although the Belges should theoretically be more adept at using their canals than an Invading German or Frenchman!
- dylan604 5y ago
  I'm guessing there are a few member of the resistence of WWII days that would disagree with you.
Azsy 5y ago
How is this non-sense the top comment? I can't believe we get this level of ignorance on HN. (1) the ruling power will eventually control all communication and remove any free speech. You think people can trade child porn online because we allow them too? Anyone building a illegal operation ( i.e. a resistance ) knows that you can make anything carry information. Even IF they find what you are using to transmit it, that doesn't mean they can read whats in it. (2) they will constantly find and kill leaders through electronic means which are now amazingly effective. You are overestimating the Russian tech by a mile. And you are overestimating the ability to automate this process by another mile. The Russians will eventually torture people for information on others. That is exactly how it happens in the past. A guerilla will be spectacularly effective, even today. But it will be extremely bloody if the Russians decide that is okay.
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  also the whole "kill leaders" thing is very very overblown, because it assumes that guerillas would necessarily adopt some kind of hierarchy that falls apart once you lop off the head in recent conflicts this has proven to either not be very effective (islamist groups such as Al Qaeda or ISIS), or actually make the situation worse (killing a Mexican cartel head usually just results in more chaos as factions vie for supremacy and upstarts try to muscle in). and at this point, most guerilla operations of this type usually assume their leader is going to die at some point and prepare accordingly.
ajuc 5y ago
Russian army hardly counts as modern though. They don't have nearly enough precision munition (that's why we haven't seen the overwhelming standoff attacks destroying Ukrainian bases for a week before the invasion that Americans would do, and that's also why Russia still doesn't control the airspace completely). As for control of all communication - it's impossible to control country of 45 million people with 150 000 soldiers. Or 250 000 soldiers for that matter. Russia haven't even entered western (mountainous) Ukraine yet, and they probably won't try much. So media can be broadcasted from there, there's also internet. It won't be easy. As for the number of soldiers - the armies actually fighting are similar in size. Russia has advantage in hardware (especially unguided artillery and air force), not in soldiers.
wnkrshm 5y ago
If you give the entire occupied populace military training, don't you basically train the resistance yourself? I think any occupying power will be paranoid enough about that (and for good reason) to not do that.
- tempestn 5y ago
  The parent is saying that the government of the country fearing an invasion should train its population, so that when the invasion happens they will greatly outnumber the invading army and can defeat them, rather than fighting a protracted guerrilla war.

bduerst 5y ago

I'm not sure that's the right answer. The protracted Afghanistan war was "recent times", and likely involved technology that we civilians still don't know exists yet. Creating a larger standing militia is just trying to fight toe-to-toe against a superpower with more power, which still won't be enough to win in a quick decision. If anything, utilization of improved surveillance should be prioritized more by the smaller force, to be more effective.

lazide 5y ago
Uh, the whole point of guerilla war is it isn’t toe to toe, and quick decisions don’t matter? If Russia ‘wins’, they still will probably lose (due to protracted guerrila activity draining them economically). Afghanistan never got won, even with all the wiz bang technology. The US just got tired of paying.
- cutemonster 5y ago
  If Russia "wins", Russia still loses, yes. But Putin might win, the way his brain works - how happy he'd be, with more land, even if it's barren and flat and no people
  - lazide 5y ago
    Well, one actual way to actually ‘win’ a guerilla war would be a war of complete extermination, which for everyone’s sake I hope he would not only not consider, but his soldiers would not be willing to execute. It’s only thing to pull the string on an artillery piece you think is nominally pointed at an enemy, it’s another to round up men, women, and children and machine gun them into a ditch over and over - especially when you’re stated goal is ‘denazification’.
sytelus 5y ago
US intention was not to occupy and control the county. It is very different situation. If invader wants to control the county, profits massively from all the resources and don't care about human lives there then no amount of protracted war is going to push them out.
- 8note 5y ago
  The US occupied and controlled the country for ~20 years. If that wasn't the intention, you'd think they'd have left by year 5
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  "profits massively from all the resources" Like what? After a war everything is bombed, destroyed or polluted. Iraq didnt even have running water. Economy was in ruins. Its not the dark ages any more, microchips are more valuable than gold and even oil needs serious infrastructure. Every war is extremely expensive - for the amount if money spent in iraq US could have bought every homeless person a penthouse. On the moon.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > Like what? Shelling nuclear power plants, for example [1]. The expensive part of modern warfare is precision. Abandon one's soul, dial up the yield and razing a nation becomes quick work. Ancient armies wiped out civilizations with less firepower than a CVN. They were simply unconcerned with being brutal. [1] https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/top-wrap-1-europes-largest-nuclear-power-plant-fire-after-russian-attack-mayor-2022-03-04/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/top-wrap-1-europes-la...
    - notriddle 5y ago
      Who wants to plant their flag on a lifeless husk?
      - thematrixturtle 5y ago

Lamad123 5y ago

You need to be an Afghanistan or a Taklamakan or a Vietnam.. You can't just do guerilla warfare in Belgium, although the Belges should theoretically be more adept at using their canals than an Invading German or Frenchman!

dylan604 5y ago
I'm guessing there are a few member of the resistence of WWII days that would disagree with you.

Azsy 5y ago

How is this non-sense the top comment? I can't believe we get this level of ignorance on HN. (1) the ruling power will eventually control all communication and remove any free speech. You think people can trade child porn online because we allow them too? Anyone building a illegal operation ( i.e. a resistance ) knows that you can make anything carry information. Even IF they find what you are using to transmit it, that doesn't mean they can read whats in it. (2) they will constantly find and kill leaders through electronic means which are now amazingly effective. You are overestimating the Russian tech by a mile. And you are overestimating the ability to automate this process by another mile. The Russians will eventually torture people for information on others. That is exactly how it happens in the past. A guerilla will be spectacularly effective, even today. But it will be extremely bloody if the Russians decide that is okay.

bobthepanda 5y ago
also the whole "kill leaders" thing is very very overblown, because it assumes that guerillas would necessarily adopt some kind of hierarchy that falls apart once you lop off the head in recent conflicts this has proven to either not be very effective (islamist groups such as Al Qaeda or ISIS), or actually make the situation worse (killing a Mexican cartel head usually just results in more chaos as factions vie for supremacy and upstarts try to muscle in). and at this point, most guerilla operations of this type usually assume their leader is going to die at some point and prepare accordingly.

ajuc 5y ago

Russian army hardly counts as modern though. They don't have nearly enough precision munition (that's why we haven't seen the overwhelming standoff attacks destroying Ukrainian bases for a week before the invasion that Americans would do, and that's also why Russia still doesn't control the airspace completely). As for control of all communication - it's impossible to control country of 45 million people with 150 000 soldiers. Or 250 000 soldiers for that matter. Russia haven't even entered western (mountainous) Ukraine yet, and they probably won't try much. So media can be broadcasted from there, there's also internet. It won't be easy. As for the number of soldiers - the armies actually fighting are similar in size. Russia has advantage in hardware (especially unguided artillery and air force), not in soldiers.

wnkrshm 5y ago

If you give the entire occupied populace military training, don't you basically train the resistance yourself? I think any occupying power will be paranoid enough about that (and for good reason) to not do that.

tempestn 5y ago
The parent is saying that the government of the country fearing an invasion should train its population, so that when the invasion happens they will greatly outnumber the invading army and can defeat them, rather than fighting a protracted guerrilla war.