NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/military/12231

Text File | 1992-12-28 | 4.7 KB | 100 lines

Newsgroups: sci.military
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncrhub2!ciss!law7!military
From: Dan Sorenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: No Army Needed(
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Sci.Military Login)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:29:38 GMT
Approved: [e-mail]
Lines: 87


From Dan Sorenson <[e-mail]>

In <[e-mail]> Tim Smith <[e-mail]> writes:

>OK, let me start off by throwing down the gauntlet.  My basic belief
>is that in 20th century warfare, guerrilla movements that are armed
>with small arms only (such as the deer rifles that Dan mentions)
>have not been effective.

    I'd say you are right in the sense of a militia (for that is
really what we're talking about) being a viable military force.  I'd
say the militia is a viable guerilla force, though, and it is these
tactics that would make life interesting for an invader.

>(1) Were the French Maquis effective?  They did perform effective sabotage,
>    destroyed trains, and generally tied down a few regiments of German
>    troops.

    Precisely.  The German army was too large, too well-equipped,
and too well-trained compared to the French.  On the other hand, those
militia units left behind did a formidable job of gathering intelligence,
creating and maintaining escape routes for downed airmen, and otherwise
assisting the allied forces in defeating Germany.  Imagine just how much
the war might have changed had Rommel been shot by a militia member at
1km distance (.6m, which is coyote-shooting range with 7mm Rem Mag here
in Iowa, USA, so it's not unbelievable)?  These annoyances tie up troops
and get the political-types mumbling, which calls international attention
and hopefully intervention.

>(2) The Viet Cong were, I believe, not very effective.  They were able to
>    terrorize and perhaps control some of the civilian population, but they
>    seem to have been losing badly to the US and SV until the NVA
>    intervened.

    Essentially, this is correct.  However, it seems that the US
owned Vietnam during the day, but at night it belonged to the VC.  The
US troops could have conquered that country within a month had it been
a strait military operation.  But, the militia would have still been
there, farming by day and once a month over-running a firebase.  How
long will an invader stand for that?

>(3) The Afghan guerrillas were not particularly effective until the
>    US began arming them with Stingers, with which they could threaten
>    and kill the Soviet helos.  These are not small arms.

    Agreed, they are not.  Still, what do you do to stop these
guys from ambushing the occassional patrol, perhaps just picking off
your sentries once a month or so?  The morale problem would be rather
difficult to overcome, especially for an occupation force, and the
resources you expend getting rid of them are immense compared to what
the militia needs to expend to hurt you a bit.

>I think history does (but perhaps not with respect to the US).  You
>bring up an interesting point.  In these days of CNN and Wolf Blitzer,
>can an invading army do the kinds of things that it needs to do to
>suppress citizen uprising?  Consider Serbia.  The leaders there don't
>seem to give a damn what the world thinks of them (posturing for the
>current election aside), and the slaughter in ex-Yugoslavia continues.

    Precisely what got me to thinking of this again.  Looking
at Lebanon of a few years ago, our Marines were killed by militia
members essentially.  THe USS New Jersey was immune to anything the
factions could toss at her; a Marine camp was not.  That "annoyance"
help prompt us to leave, hence it had some military value, but should
the order have been given I'd be willing to bet Lebanon would have
been merely a Marine parking lot inside of a day.

    That being said, it still seems that the militia is only an
armed "home guard," intended to assist in local defense and harass
any enemy until the cost of staying becomes unpalatable.  In this
respect, I find a militia to be a good thing.  Switzerland as an
example, what is there of value in Switzerland to make it worth
conquering?  Certainly nothing worth an entire, armed country sniping
at you and harassing or interdicting your war machine.  In this
respect, the Swiss model seems to have worked exactly as needed.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 [e-mail] [e-mail] >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >