From: ravis@axion.bt.co.uk (Richard Avis)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,alt.war
Subject: Re: BBN II -- Murk-o-Vision World Update (Mau Mau)
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:08:23 GMT
Reply-To: ravis@axion.bt.co.uk (Richard Avis)
Organization: British Telecom Research Labs


In article <NIGEL.92Jul28114609@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov>, nigel@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov writes:
|> In article <5634@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
|> 
|> >> Yes...and I suppose that there is some "sin" in using techno-wizardy
|> >> in warfare? 
|> 
|> >Exactly.  It is a sin, in military terms, if you place too much
|> >reliance on it and then lose, i.e., you get punished for it.
|> 
|> Not quite...technical superiority is a tremendous advantage...one that
|> you find on most winning sides of battles...especially modern battles.
|> Relying on that advantage is no more than simply relying on the tools
|> of the trade.  Wars are lost for various reasons...far more are lost
|> from loss of will than over abundance of technology.
|> 
|> Besides...which war would you characterize as lost from over-reliance
|> on "techno-wizardry"?  A few battles here and there perhaps (when your
|> spiffy new wonder weapon does not perform as your defence contractors
|> made you believe pre-war) but the cause of ultimate defeat tends to
|> lie in other areas.
|> 
|> >Btw, you are evading his point, namely that the Gulf War tells nothing
|> >on how the US military would go about a guerilla war in not-so-perfect
|> >terrain nowadays.
|> 
Mmm, this is interesting. The arguments over the use of technology are
specious to say the least because BOTH countries rely on technology 
to a great extent. The British Army uses things like MLRS, Rapier 2000
and the fabbo new Warrior infantry fighting vehicle with all its gizzmos.
The Air Force is very high-tech and the Royal Navy has some of the 
most up-to-date warships of any navy.
|> The "point" is that Mr Hallam-Baker would have us believe that the US
|> does not have soldiers but rather incompetents that push buttons.
|> While the Brits do have one of the most professional armed forces in
|> the world the members of the US military are no less professional and
|> dedicated...  and for that matter no less trained and much better
|> equipped than their British counterparts...
|> 
This is a moot point. Firstly, the US forces certainly have an abundance of
equipment but the quality sometimes sucks. The best example is NBC
equipment for protection against Nerve and Bio agents. The US Army issue
is crap whereas the British Army spends large amounts of money giving
each soldier decent NBC gear. This is a matter of doctrine because the US 
relies on retaliation in this department.

Secondly, I think questioning the dedication and commitment of the US 
armed forces is  VERY valid. As a whole they have no concept of prolonged
military commitments and what we might call `low-intensity' warfare.
This is because they were created as a tool to defend `democracy'
rather than as a tool with which to create and maintain an empire.
However, as individuals the US forces are full of `economic conscripts',
many from poorer states, who joined to get money for college.
The way some of these people tried to wriggle out of their commitments 
at the time of the Gulf War was incredible.
|> As for how we would fight a guerilla war the correct answer is that we
|> would not.  The last thing the US needs is to become embroiled in
|> conflicts too costly win and too annoying to lose.  However, in
|> regions where such engangements could (say Panama) occur recent US
|> military strategy appears to be to go in quick, take your necessary
|> objectives, get the hell out and leave it to the politicians to figure
|> out a settlement that leaves everybody as happy or at least not
|> shooting anymore...
|> 
|> My guess is that any future US military ventures will follow that
|> model and not leave troops around to get truck bombed or putter about
|> for years with no clear objectives.
|> 
The level of deaths amongst the mainland regular army is now very low.
Most deaths nowadays are in the Royal Irish Regiment and the RUC.
More succesful than `Vietnamisation' ever was.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard Avis (Mr. Forgettable)

EMail : ravis@axion.bt.co.uk
Mail : BT Laboratories,
       Martlesham Heath,
       Ipswich,
       Suffolk,
       IP5 7RE.

"We had to destroy Ben Tre in order to save it." - Unknown U.S. Army Major

===========================================================================