From: GBurch1@aol.com
Date: Sat Nov 06 1999 - 17:22:10 MST
In a message dated 99-11-03 01:46:21 EST, spike66@ibm.net (Spike Jones) wrote:
> > Planes cannot capture terrain, they can
> > only weaken an enemies ability to resist. Open terrain can be taken by
> > armored forces...that means infantry remain essential even in a modern
> army.
>
> This *assumes* terrain must be taken and held. Of course this is the
> way it has *always* been done, but I urge you to ask yourself why
> exactly this is necessary. I can imagine many scenarios in which a
> technologically advanced society could get its way, while allowing
> the adversary to keep all their terrain, even allow it to imagine itself as
> having won the war, yet stop whatever behaviour that we found
> objectionable to start with.
In a conversation with friends the other night I was blowing hurricane-force
hot air to the effect (i.e. putting forward the proposition) that the
military doctrine of the 20th century can be aptly contained between the two
polar ideal types of the "surgical air war" and the guerrilla "people's war"
(with the added proviso that the Wehrmacht's blitzkrieg in WWII was actually
the embodiment of an ideal of 19th century military doctrine). The former,
which I called "Billy Mitchell's Dream", was finally achieved - sort of - in
the Gulf War. The goal of Billy Mitchell's Dream was to use air power to
break an enemy's will to fight, first with carpet bombing of civilian targets
and then, as technology developed, with precision guided munitions aimed at
key elements of an opponent's C3I and other warfighting capacity itself.
Inherent in this doctrine was the notion that the actor wielding such air
power would not have to actually control territory, so much as deter
international aggression by projecting force beyond its own "home turf." The
application of the purest form of this doctrine has actually turned out to be
rather limited in military and political terms: The Gulf War was about as
close to the scenario originally envisioned by the early proponents of air
power as one can get.
The doctrine of "people's war" - Mao's type of war -- was premised on the
notion of an ideologically motivated people waging a "war of resistance"
against an occupying force. The steady draining of blood throughout the
century in the Third World has been due to a large extent to some form or
other of "people's war" - although traditional Western political theory would
characterize most of these conflicts as civil war.
To a great extent these two paradigms of warfare are skew to each other.
Nowhere was this more apparent than in the US involvement in Vietnam, where
each side was pursuing a different ideal type of warfare, and at the same
time each was being forced into a third, older type of warfare (positional
warfare of maneuver) from time to time.
If technology develops to the point where reliable, effective robotic
ground-based units are possible (before such things are made irrelevant by
even more advanced forms of weaponry and warfare), one can see a projection
of Billy Mitchell's Dream backward in time in a sense, into the doctrine of
positional warfare of maneuver. In such a situation, the kinds of political
and military goals achievable by overwhelming technological superiority might
well cause a real shift in the global balance of power - and possibly not a
good one. As it has turned out, the old paradigm of air power is primarily a
defensive and reactive one. "Robot armies" would be a much more effective
tool of aggression... not a pleasant thought.
Greg Burch <GBurch1@aol.com>----<gburch@lockeliddell.com>
Attorney ::: Vice President, Extropy Institute ::: Wilderness Guide
http://users.aol.com/gburch1 -or- http://members.aol.com/gburch1
"Civilization is protest against nature;
progress requires us to take control of evolution."
Thomas Huxley
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:43 MST