Modern militaries vs (relatively) primitive guerrillas

[E-Ro]

So with all the craziness going on in Ukraine right now, I have been reading tons of articles about it, and comments sections. Often times the comments sections descend into debate over America and Russia's failures in previous conflicts against vastly inferior enemies. Think Korea(though not really a failure, we contained communism and reestablished the border) Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.

The greatest powers that have ever existed, america and Russia with all our tech and money seem to struggle with this sort of thing. My question is, were these wars unwinnable? Or if we took the gloves off and did all sorts of heinous things, committed atrocities and the like, could these losses have been turned into victories? Is the key to beating determined non conventional enemies being complete assholes willing to do anything? Or is that a surefire way to give the opposition more support?

You gen-chatters seem a well read and intelligent folk(for the most part) I figured Id ask.

[Altherion]

The greatest powers that have ever existed, america and Russia with all our tech and money seem to struggle with this sort of thing. My question is, were these wars unwinnable? Or if we took the gloves off and did all sorts of heinous things, committed atrocities and the like, could these losses have been turned into victories? Is the key to beating determined non conventional enemies being complete assholes willing to do anything? Or is that a surefire way to give the opposition more support?

If the gloves came off, there would be no remaining opposition to speak of. In asymmetric warfare, the weaker side is relying on the fact that the stronger one would prefer to subdue the territory with a minimum number of civilian casualties and minimal damage to infrastructure. The further the stronger side deviates from this, the more difficult things become for the weaker one. If a modern power was truly desperate to win a war, there would be little left of a weaker adversary. Visit the German city of Dresden to see what could be done with 70 year old conventional weapons extrapolate to what we have developed since then. However, in order for such a scenario to happen, the adversary would have to be a genuine, existential threat to the government of the strong nation. Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. do not pose such a threat.

[Horza]

I think the distinction is more that the state employing the conventional forces usually wants at least some local people left alive in the territory in question. Insurgencies negate the firepower advantages of the modern nation state by operating within a population the state aims to reach a political settlement with. If there isn't that imperative then the restrictions on state force are correspondingly lifted.

[Stubby]

Legions are pretty good in a fortress on a hill, even against riflemen. Of course artillery will beat them.

But if you have the Great Wall wonder that makes all the difference in most cases.

:p

[The Marquis de Leech]

If the gloves came off, there would be no remaining opposition to speak of. In asymmetric warfare, the weaker side is relying on the fact that the stronger one would prefer to subdue the territory with a minimum number of civilian casualties and minimal damage to infrastructure. The further the stronger side deviates from this, the more difficult things become for the weaker one.

The other complicating factors: (1) war has rules, and most countries don't want to be turned into international pariahs through using nerve gas or nuclear weapons. Total war is generally avoided these days because countries like to think ahead. (2) Especially in the context of the Cold War, stepping over the line has the potential to bring in even bigger fish, and no-one wants a Third World War.

[E-Ro]

Yeah, I think the not wanting to become pariahs is a large factor in countries restraining themselves. Though the bigger fish get away with more.

As I understand, we did all we could in Vietnam to win. Including extensive use of bombing, napalm, and even chemicals(agent orange) and we still couldn't pull it off. Isn't this sort of a cause to think about how much we can really accomplish?

IF the Vietnam war had overwhelming public support instead of everyone hating it, what would have changed?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

As I understand, we did all we could in Vietnam to win. Including extensive use of bombing, napalm, and even chemicals(agent orange) and we still couldn't pull it off. Isn't this sort of a cause to think about how much we can really accomplish?

Not really. The U.S. never invaded the North, just tried to defend a fairly unpopular regime in the South. A regime that a fair percentage of the population in the South wanted to overthrow. In order to "win" the U.S. would've had to been much more ruthless in terms of the way they dealt with guerrillas (destroying civilian villages) and they probably would've had to have invaded the North. The Chinese promised to enter the war under those circumstances, and events such as the My Lai massacre resulted in international outrage once that event was publicized, so neither was considered a viable stratagem.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Yep, "winning" Vietnam would have required an invasion and occupation of the North, together with wholesale destruction of villages, cities, and generalised crimes against humanity piled atop (actual) war crimes. The worldwide outcry would be something to behold, and the situation would escalate very quickly (let alone what would have happened if the US in a fit of insanity had nuked Hanoi). Only a character out of Doctor Strangelove would consider that a viable option.

[Phaing]

The other complicating factors: (1) war has rules, and most countries don't want to be turned into international pariahs through using nerve gas or nuclear weapons. Total war is generally avoided these days because countries like to think ahead. (2) Especially in the context of the Cold War, stepping over the line has the potential to bring in even bigger fish, and no-one wants a Third World War.

And yet, people say that the 2nd Amendment as a means to allow the people to overthrow a hostile & brutal Government is an outdated concept.

Curious, isn't it?

[The Marquis de Leech]

And yet, people say that the 2nd Amendment as a means to allow the people to overthrow a hostile & brutal Government is an outdated concept.

Curious, isn't it?

It's entirely possible to suppress a hypothetical "2nd Amendment Uprising" without resorting to nerve gas or nukes. The US Federal Government probably wouldn't even need tanks. Just cut off electricity, running water, and (if one wants to be snarky) internet access.

[Mazigh]

The other complicating factors: (1) war has rules, and most countries don't want to be turned into international pariahs through using nerve gas or nuclear weapons. Total war is generally avoided these days because countries like to think ahead. (2) Especially in the context of the Cold War, stepping over the line has the potential to bring in even bigger fish, and no-one wants a Third World War.

Israel has been using chemical weapons and white phosphorus I never see any international outrage France has been helping Malian government ethnic cleanse the Tuareg and Berbers from their homeland in Azawad targeting women and children and yet to see them be pariahs

[The Marquis de Leech]

There was a good deal of outrage over the White Phosphorous incident:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22310544

Personally I'd be fully in favour of prosecuting those responsible. However, since Israel doesn't accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, such a prosecution would have to be a UN Security Council initiative, and the chances of that getting past a US veto is minimal.

[Prosesskrift]

Israel has been using chemical weapons and white phosphorus I never see any international outrage France has been helping Malian government ethnic cleanse the Tuareg and Berbers from their homeland in Azawad targeting women and children and yet to see them be pariahs

If you spent more time with reputable news sources and less time on infowars you might find yourself not so ignorant as to what is actually going on in the world.

[Horza]

In order to "win" the U.S. would've had to been much more ruthless in terms of the way they dealt with guerrillas (destroying civilian villages)

At times, the Big Unit War looked a lot like that, with S&D, free-fire zones, carpet-bombing and indiscriminate use of firepower; it's likely that more Vietnamese were killed in such actions than were killed by the Rolling Thunder and Linebacker campaigns in the north. None of it brought the US and the ARVN any closer to defeating the PALF - instead they self-immolated at Tet. It's not really clear that the US would have had more success if they adopted a direct cleansing program, as none of that would have resolved the crippling flaws of the Saigon government.

[Shryke]

And yet, people say that the 2nd Amendment as a means to allow the people to overthrow a hostile & brutal Government is an outdated concept.

Curious, isn't it?

The Afghanistan War has been going on for over a decade. Against what is, in some sense, a well armed civilian guerilla resistance. You can think of it as the 2nd Amendment in action.

Thing is, they haven't overthrown shit.

I don't know, maybe people talking about this shit mean less "stop tyranny" and more "be a destabilizing source of violence against a government I disagree with". I guess you wouldn't go around saying that though since it sounds alot less noble.

[Crazydog7]

I don't know, maybe people talking about this shit mean less "stop tyranny" and more "be a destabilizing source of violence against a government I disagree with". I guess you wouldn't go around saying that though since it sounds alot less noble.

The Pentagon pays very smart people alot of money so they know exactly what people will or will not stand for. One of the big ones as I always understood it was don't take away their bibles or guns, anything beyond that will probably be tolerated. As one poster said previously all they would have to do in the event of serious insurrection is cut off the power and the fuel. A true underground movement requires not people willing to shoot at forces from X tyrannical goverment but safe places to hide and rest plus lots of support staff.

In general I don't think any goverment in America can ever be tyranical in the purest sense of the word just majoritarian oligarchic and sedentary

People in this country get rilled up over idiotic things

OMG netflix raised their rates everybody protest!!

OMG Amazon prime is going up by 20 bucks protest!!

The Republican fantasy of a "gun grab" never fails to scare people and that is why it will never actually materialize. I was about 8 when this idea was first kicked around the first time Clinton ran for office and I was of voting age to watch the attack adds for it when Gore ran and when Obama ran. Strangely very few people talk about the increased militariazation of the police forces

[Lummel]

Vietnam was unwinnable from a purely military point of view because the increased US military presence turned the society of south Vietnam into a blubbering mess - ie an independent government and state of South Vietnam became decreasingly sustainable the more the US presence on the ground increased. Of course had the USA annexed south Vietnam as a colony and was prepared to take larger numbers of casualties, subsidize the whole country, cope with brutalising the local population for several centuries, then it could have done it.

It is much the same problem in Afghanistan and Iraq - trying to beef up a regime without it becoming dependant on indefinite external support.

The role model here is Rome. Asymmetrical warfare can be won by the Great Power but it needs certain cultural qualities most of which one prefers not to have. Basically if you think crucified people at the side of the road adds colour to otherwise dull journeys and the sale of prisoners of war is a normal part of economic activity then yes you can win. Generally though governments prefer to act in an environment of consent, and eventually when caught surrounded by hostile forces whether at Dien Bien Phu or Yorktown you have to accept that your presence is not consented to and you are best off packing up your flags and going home.

[The Iceman of the North]

So with all the craziness going on in Ukraine right now, I have been reading tons of articles about it, and comments sections. Often times the comments sections descend into debate over America and Russia's failures in previous conflicts against vastly inferior enemies. Think Korea(though not really a failure, we contained communism and reestablished the border) Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.

The greatest powers that have ever existed, america and Russia with all our tech and money seem to struggle with this sort of thing. My question is, were these wars unwinnable? Or if we took the gloves off and did all sorts of heinous things, committed atrocities and the like, could these losses have been turned into victories? Is the key to beating determined non conventional enemies being complete assholes willing to do anything? Or is that a surefire way to give the opposition more support?

You gen-chatters seem a well read and intelligent folk(for the most part) I figured Id ask.

Well, once Putin took over control of Russia, the conflict in Chechnya died out quite quickly.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

The Afghanistan War has been going on for over a decade. Against what is, in some sense, a well armed civilian guerilla resistance. You can think of it as the 2nd Amendment in action.

Thing is, they haven't overthrown shit.

I don't know, maybe people talking about this shit mean less "stop tyranny" and more "be a destabilizing source of violence against a government I disagree with". I guess you wouldn't go around saying that though since it sounds alot less noble.

Also, in recent times, protests that suceeded in toppling governments suceeded because the existing government was unwilling to use lethal force on (mostly) unarmed protesters or the military was unwilling to carry those orders out. Not because the protesters had pistols and tricked - out rifles.

[Clueless Northman]

Genghis Khan didn't have much trouble conquering countries or putting down rebellions, and he didn't even have firearms.

Once you're ready to consider a pyramid of heads as a landscape improvement for the city gates, you can deal with local unrest and guerrillas.

As others said, the thing is that many powers aren't ready to go that far - either for internal reasons (your people want to be nice, not genocidal maniacs) or for external reasons (if you mass-murder your way into your neighbours, other powers will be upset and might hit you back, economically or militarily).

That said, I'm not convinced there's an absolute tendency to go from one to the other, and reversing to a previous trend is always possible, imho. Which means that I wouldn't be totally surprised if most of human rights went out the windod before this century is over, and large parts of the planet go back to the old ways of wiping out resistance with all means necessary.