I’m a pacifist, and what I don’t know about war could fill several encyclopaedias. But lately I’ve been reading the defence white paper and a science fiction book about armoured soldiers, and watching “oh what a lovely war” and a doco on the 5th tank batallion in WWII. Which has led my curiosity to this question.

What’s the best book/website/article/DVD about the elements that go to make up a war?

By elements I include all those aspects of war that are practically unchanged over 100000 years: flanking, ambush, encircling, capture of prisoners, pesticide (in the most general sense), supply chain, superiority of numbers, guerilla, battlefield medicine, planning, lookout, protection, camping, seasoned fighters, one on one, diplomacy, camouflage, point, projectiles, fire, misinformation, booty, pit trap, poison, speed, stealth, retreat, communication, feint, etc.

And (somewhat) more recent aspects: tunnels, cavalry, the wedge, broadside, armour, explosives, trench, nuclear submarine, composition, war games, GPS, production line, raw materials, noncombatants, balloons, air-drop, moat, drone, friendly fire, aircraft carrier, spy satellite, gas, truck, heads up display, flight suit, encryption, bridge, amphibious, SAM, etc.

Neglected maybe’s protection of civilian services and civilian life. Includes protection of property too. More a contingent backdrop, but it’s there.

In australia it’s called defence forces rather than military, which’s not a bad thing imo.

wookie will be along directly

Posttraumatic stress disorder

Research and Development

computer warfare / Hacking, Data warfare, misinformation, propaganda

X-37B stealth space shuttle

laser rail gun

This only covers one of the factors you mentioned (superiority of numbers) but you might find it interesting Mollwollfollfulfumble.

Can Win a War Through Math
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0goQrvf-tU

Vanadium is an important one.

dv said:

Vanadium is an important one.

uranium too

Appreciate replies. Have borrowed Sun-Tsu The art of war, which may cover a quarter to a half of those. There’s also an updated version of that in a different library by McNeal that ties sun-tsu into modern warfare. I doubt if either mention PTSD.

Am interested in whether an updated version of old methods could be useful now. eg.

1) could balloons stop the worlds best modern aircraft and helicopters? They were used in both WWI and WW II. A balloon can fly higher than an aircraft, or could be used at low altitude to stop aircraft flying under the radar. Fill the balloons with hydrogen for low cost, and dangle one or more carbon fibre filament to which micro diamonds have been glued at intervals. As aircraft wing hits the fibre the fibre slides past rapidly like a band saw. Both balloon and fibre would be invisible to radar.

2) Could the Roman flying wedge get modern infantry through an enfilade killzone? Protect only the sides of the formation with armour against machine guns while the centre provides motive power.

3) Could an aircraft carrier be replaced by a pond? Surround a patch of open sea by Salter ducks to suppress the waves and land and take off sea planes from within it. Gives no single target for torpedoes or bombers to aim at. A break at any point is easily replaced.

4) What must be one of the worst frequently used techniques in warfare is the long term heavy bombardment prior to infantry attack. It failed miserably in WWI Europe and failed miserably in Iwo Jima, to name just two. OK, so the yanks won at Iwo Jima, but the bombardment failed completely to soften up the target.

The new white paper is designed for the new age metrosexual soldier and their basic human rights.
Each battalion will have several bus loads of councillors just behind the lines, they’ll be supported by stretcher non gender specific bearers armed with bottles of sparkling spring water and flasks of latte coffee.
Their task will be to bring the chaps at the front who may have been bullied by an officer or God forbid shot at back to the buses where the non denominational secular atheist councillors will mentor them and try and get them back to their nuclear gender neutral family or collective.

mollwollfumble said:

Have borrowed Sun-Tsu The art of war, which may cover a quarter to a half of those.

In the list of all time books that have been over rated, The Art of War is ranked #1.

the wookie bible?

I remember reading it about 30 years ago and wondering what all the fuss was about.

Ian said:

wookie will be along directly

Alternatively, we could go with this:

http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Callus_Tacticus

In the military historical books I’ve read Liddel Hart is regarded as some sort of tactical guru.
I’ll take their word for it.

don’t reckon you can beat nuking them from orbit, myself.

CrazyNeutrino said:

dv said:

Vanadium is an important one.

uranium too

Hopefully not

sibeen said:

mollwollfumble said:

Have borrowed Sun-Tsu The art of war, which may cover a quarter to a half of those.

In the list of all time books that have been over rated, The Art of War is ranked #1.

Cute. Will follow up on all other responses.

I’ve never understood the tank. An infantryman can carry a weapon that will destroy a tank. Tanks are flammable, which is why some of them get the nickname “soldier cooker”. The gun on a tank is fairly small-bore. In one instance in actual warfare, a column of three tanks was stopped by a single infantryman, he climbed on top of the first tank (which had its top open) and put his gun the the head of the commander. A tank can’t stop an infantryman on the roof from taking out its sensors with a can of spray paint. A tank can be stopped by a trench that is narrow enough for a long-jumper to vault over. It’d be practically useless against say, soldiers on horseback, it couldn’t change aim or reload fast enough. The tank can’t carry troops. The gun on a tank would only be able to take out other tanks (though not always!), buildings, trucks and nearby fishing vessels.

In WW I, I suppose the tank was the first device that was impervious to machine gun fire and wasn’t stopped by barbed wire. And the combination of not-too-slow and long range would help in a flat desert.

mollwollfumble said:

sibeen said:

mollwollfumble said:

Have borrowed Sun-Tsu The art of war, which may cover a quarter to a half of those.

In the list of all time books that have been over rated, The Art of War is ranked #1.

Cute. Will follow up on all other responses.

I’ve never understood the tank. An infantryman can carry a weapon that will destroy a tank. Tanks are flammable, which is why some of them get the nickname “soldier cooker”. The gun on a tank is fairly small-bore. In one instance in actual warfare, a column of three tanks was stopped by a single infantryman, he climbed on top of the first tank (which had its top open) and put his gun the the head of the commander. A tank can’t stop an infantryman on the roof from taking out its sensors with a can of spray paint. A tank can be stopped by a trench that is narrow enough for a long-jumper to vault over. It’d be practically useless against say, soldiers on horseback, it couldn’t change aim or reload fast enough. The tank can’t carry troops. The gun on a tank would only be able to take out other tanks (though not always!), buildings, trucks and nearby fishing vessels.

In WW I, I suppose the tank was the first device that was impervious to machine gun fire and wasn’t stopped by barbed wire. And the combination of not-too-slow and long range would help in a flat desert.

The problem is that it wasn’t impervious to gunfire.

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

sibeen said:

In the list of all time books that have been over rated, The Art of War is ranked #1.

Cute. Will follow up on all other responses.

I’ve never understood the tank. An infantryman can carry a weapon that will destroy a tank. Tanks are flammable, which is why some of them get the nickname “soldier cooker”. The gun on a tank is fairly small-bore. In one instance in actual warfare, a column of three tanks was stopped by a single infantryman, he climbed on top of the first tank (which had its top open) and put his gun the the head of the commander. A tank can’t stop an infantryman on the roof from taking out its sensors with a can of spray paint. A tank can be stopped by a trench that is narrow enough for a long-jumper to vault over. It’d be practically useless against say, soldiers on horseback, it couldn’t change aim or reload fast enough. The tank can’t carry troops. The gun on a tank would only be able to take out other tanks (though not always!), buildings, trucks and nearby fishing vessels.

In WW I, I suppose the tank was the first device that was impervious to machine gun fire and wasn’t stopped by barbed wire. And the combination of not-too-slow and long range would help in a flat desert.

The problem is that it wasn’t impervious to gunfire.

er; in the first war that is.

Drones could replace balloons in this day and age. Less detectable and able to be directed frm the ground. Capable of bringing planes and helicopters down.

>The tank can’t carry troops.

It was a common practice in WW2.

sun tzu is the definitive book on warfare (Samuel Griffith translation )

any other resource is commentary

the art war essentially says this

don’t bother attacking cities

don’t start wars you can’t finish nor win

anytime is a bad time to start a war

bribe the officials of the enemy, all societies have hierarchy , the officials of the government are the weakest link – bribe them and win the war by not fighting

fighting a war by causing damage is the worst way of winning – bribing officials is the best

land is the essence of the state

wookiemeister said:

sun tzu is the definitive book on warfare (Samuel Griffith translation )

any other resource is commentary

the art war essentially says this

don’t bother attacking cities

don’t start wars you can’t finish nor win

anytime is a bad time to start a war

bribe the officials of the enemy, all societies have hierarchy , the officials of the government are the weakest link – bribe them and win the war by not fighting

fighting a war by causing damage is the worst way of winning – bribing officials is the best

land is the essence of the state

Any other resource is commentary? What is Sun Tzu, about 30 pages tops? And useful yes, but not definitive.

Don’t start a war you can’t win or finish. Thanks Sun for a statement of the bleeding obvious.

how to future proof your society and ensure victory

always maintain the education system and encourage thinking/ evaluation

the western world is boned because it’s shutting down education for the masses thus destroying the social fabric of society and creating more division

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

sun tzu is the definitive book on warfare (Samuel Griffith translation )

any other resource is commentary

the art war essentially says this

don’t bother attacking cities

don’t start wars you can’t finish nor win

anytime is a bad time to start a war

bribe the officials of the enemy, all societies have hierarchy , the officials of the government are the weakest link – bribe them and win the war by not fighting

fighting a war by causing damage is the worst way of winning – bribing officials is the best

land is the essence of the state

Any other resource is commentary? What is Sun Tzu, about 30 pages tops? And useful yes, but not definitive.

Don’t start a war you can’t win or finish. Thanks Sun for a statement of the bleeding obvious.

maybe they should have read sun tzu before marching into aghanistan and Iraq

wookiemeister said:

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

sun tzu is the definitive book on warfare (Samuel Griffith translation )

any other resource is commentary

the art war essentially says this

don’t bother attacking cities

don’t start wars you can’t finish nor win

anytime is a bad time to start a war

bribe the officials of the enemy, all societies have hierarchy , the officials of the government are the weakest link – bribe them and win the war by not fighting

fighting a war by causing damage is the worst way of winning – bribing officials is the best

land is the essence of the state

Any other resource is commentary? What is Sun Tzu, about 30 pages tops? And useful yes, but not definitive.

Don’t start a war you can’t win or finish. Thanks Sun for a statement of the bleeding obvious.

maybe they should have read sun tzu before marching into aghanistan and Iraq

They should probably have followed the Powell Doctrine

>don’t bother attacking cities

Hmm, WW2 was won by attacking cities.

Bubblecar said:

>don’t bother attacking cities

Hmm, WW2 was won by attacking cities.

no it prolonged the war

cities absorb bombs

bombs dropped on logistics assets such as railway lines , factories, bridges, power stations, comms links are more useful

hitting the railway lines to the concentration camps would have sent the nazis spare

wookiemeister said:

Bubblecar said:

>don’t bother attacking cities

Hmm, WW2 was won by attacking cities.

no it prolonged the war

cities absorb bombs

bombs dropped on logistics assets such as railway lines , factories, bridges, power stations, comms links are more useful

hitting the railway lines to the concentration camps would have sent the nazis spare

The Allies had to do what it took to score a surrender, both from Germany and Japan. If your enemies won’t surrender when it’s clear they have no hope, that’s what prolongs a war.

wookiemeister said:

Bubblecar said:

>don’t bother attacking cities

Hmm, WW2 was won by attacking cities.

no it prolonged the war

cities absorb bombs

bombs dropped on logistics assets such as railway lines , factories, bridges, power stations, comms links are more useful

hitting the railway lines to the concentration camps would have sent the nazis spare

I am due to go to bed, and I know you will ignore this anyway, you always have before, but you really should try and educate yourself on the accuracy of ww2 bomber accuracy. And ps, they were trying real hard to target all the things you talked about. You know, all the obvious to everyone targets, not just wookie secret plan to win the war in a week stuff that everyone else has ignored and just needs to be informed about by wookie brilliance.

the japanese, Nazis , ISIS and fellow travellers weren’t waging war in its truest sense of wrapping everything up under heaven but rather engaging in extermination

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

Bubblecar said:

>don’t bother attacking cities

Hmm, WW2 was won by attacking cities.

no it prolonged the war

cities absorb bombs

bombs dropped on logistics assets such as railway lines , factories, bridges, power stations, comms links are more useful

hitting the railway lines to the concentration camps would have sent the nazis spare

I am due to go to bed, and I know you will ignore this anyway, you always have before, but you really should try and educate yourself on the accuracy of ww2 bomber accuracy. And ps, they were trying real hard to target all the things you talked about. You know, all the obvious to everyone targets, not just wookie secret plan to win the war in a week stuff that everyone else has ignored and just needs to be informed about by wookie brilliance.

say what you will

australia hasn’t won a war since malaya

Bubblecar said:

wookiemeister said:

Bubblecar said:

>don’t bother attacking cities

Hmm, WW2 was won by attacking cities.

no it prolonged the war

cities absorb bombs

bombs dropped on logistics assets such as railway lines , factories, bridges, power stations, comms links are more useful

hitting the railway lines to the concentration camps would have sent the nazis spare

The Allies had to do what it took to score a surrender, both from Germany and Japan. If your enemies won’t surrender when it’s clear they have no hope, that’s what prolongs a war.

we have been brainwashed to follow a narrative that has been fed to us over the decades

bombing cities was a waste of time

they didn’t follow through wiping out the ballbearing factories for example

…and I wasn’t really talking about bombing (apart from the atom bombs on Japan). The battle of Berlin ended the war in Europe (after the battles involving various other European cities, plus the pivotal battle of Stalingrad etc – these were army battles, with aerial bombing really just providing a lot more hiding places).

wookiemeister said:

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

no it prolonged the war

cities absorb bombs

bombs dropped on logistics assets such as railway lines , factories, bridges, power stations, comms links are more useful

hitting the railway lines to the concentration camps would have sent the nazis spare

I am due to go to bed, and I know you will ignore this anyway, you always have before, but you really should try and educate yourself on the accuracy of ww2 bomber accuracy. And ps, they were trying real hard to target all the things you talked about. You know, all the obvious to everyone targets, not just wookie secret plan to win the war in a week stuff that everyone else has ignored and just needs to be informed about by wookie brilliance.

say what you will

australia hasn’t won a war since malaya

Then again, who has, really?

wookiemeister said:

Bubblecar said:

>don’t bother attacking cities

Hmm, WW2 was won by attacking cities.

no it prolonged the war

cities absorb bombs

bombs dropped on logistics assets such as railway lines , factories, bridges, power stations, comms links are more useful

hitting the railway lines to the concentration camps would have sent the nazis spare

Both sides had specialist repair and engineering units. Specifically to quickly repair bomb damage and get things up and running again. There’s heaps of old news reels on Youtube showing such units in action, ripping up and replacing 100 yards of rail in under an hour to get the trains rolling again.

if the nazis hadnt switched luftwaffe raids from airfields to cities the battle of britain would have been short lived in the nazis favour

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

AwesomeO said:

I am due to go to bed, and I know you will ignore this anyway, you always have before, but you really should try and educate yourself on the accuracy of ww2 bomber accuracy. And ps, they were trying real hard to target all the things you talked about. You know, all the obvious to everyone targets, not just wookie secret plan to win the war in a week stuff that everyone else has ignored and just needs to be informed about by wookie brilliance.

say what you will

australia hasn’t won a war since malaya

Then again, who has, really?

the british

the falklands

a conclusive victory

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

Bubblecar said:

>don’t bother attacking cities

Hmm, WW2 was won by attacking cities.

no it prolonged the war

cities absorb bombs

bombs dropped on logistics assets such as railway lines , factories, bridges, power stations, comms links are more useful

hitting the railway lines to the concentration camps would have sent the nazis spare

Both sides had specialist repair and engineering units. Specifically to quickly repair bomb damage and get things up and running again. There’s heaps of old news reels on Youtube showing such units in action, ripping up and replacing 100 yards of rail in under an hour to get the trains rolling again.

yes thats nice

ever heard of bombs that had timers on them?

sorry DV you walked into that one

wookiemeister said:

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

no it prolonged the war

cities absorb bombs

bombs dropped on logistics assets such as railway lines , factories, bridges, power stations, comms links are more useful

hitting the railway lines to the concentration camps would have sent the nazis spare

I am due to go to bed, and I know you will ignore this anyway, you always have before, but you really should try and educate yourself on the accuracy of ww2 bomber accuracy. And ps, they were trying real hard to target all the things you talked about. You know, all the obvious to everyone targets, not just wookie secret plan to win the war in a week stuff that everyone else has ignored and just needs to be informed about by wookie brilliance.

say what you will

australia hasn’t won a war since malaya

hwhehe, you didn’t actually respond to my point that the allies were targeting just the things you mentioned. As were the axis.

You think they were not targeting those things? That they need to be pointed out by wookie brilliance and all of a sudden, everyone slaps thier heads and says “of course” then look at each other and all wonder, why why we ignoring transport and manufacturing and power and communication infrastructure anyway?

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

no it prolonged the war

cities absorb bombs

bombs dropped on logistics assets such as railway lines , factories, bridges, power stations, comms links are more useful

hitting the railway lines to the concentration camps would have sent the nazis spare

Both sides had specialist repair and engineering units. Specifically to quickly repair bomb damage and get things up and running again. There’s heaps of old news reels on Youtube showing such units in action, ripping up and replacing 100 yards of rail in under an hour to get the trains rolling again.

yes thats nice

ever heard of bombs that had timers on them?

they had specialist units for that too.

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

AwesomeO said:

I am due to go to bed, and I know you will ignore this anyway, you always have before, but you really should try and educate yourself on the accuracy of ww2 bomber accuracy. And ps, they were trying real hard to target all the things you talked about. You know, all the obvious to everyone targets, not just wookie secret plan to win the war in a week stuff that everyone else has ignored and just needs to be informed about by wookie brilliance.

say what you will

australia hasn’t won a war since malaya

hwhehe, you didn’t actually respond to my point that the allies were targeting just the things you mentioned. As were the axis.

You think they were not targeting those things? That they need to be pointed out by wookie brilliance and all of a sudden, everyone slaps thier heads and says “of course” then look at each other and all wonder, why why we ignoring transport and manufacturing and power and communication infrastructure anyway?

ever heard of dieppe?

why did we waste thousands of men on some stupid operation at dieppe instead of concentrating firepower on things that matter?

stop wasting men, money and machines on stupid things

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

Both sides had specialist repair and engineering units. Specifically to quickly repair bomb damage and get things up and running again. There’s heaps of old news reels on Youtube showing such units in action, ripping up and replacing 100 yards of rail in under an hour to get the trains rolling again.

yes thats nice

ever heard of bombs that had timers on them?

they had specialist units for that too.

yeah

but you never know when the bomb will go off do you?

seed a trainline with thousands of these things and things will grind to a halt quickly

you could drop mines on the trainlines

have all the specialists you want you’ll use your own explosive to blow up your own trainlines

wookiemeister said:

sorry DV you walked into that one

Quite true

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

yes thats nice

ever heard of bombs that had timers on them?

they had specialist units for that too.

yeah

but you never know when the bomb will go off do you?

seed a trainline with thousands of these things and things will grind to a halt quickly

At least 7 of them were located and successfully set off with charges during the blitz of London in WW2.

with afghanistan you’d need to ask yourself what you are trying to do there

osama escaped across the border (they watched him) and spent the rest of his life in a pakistani army camp

wookiemeister said:

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

say what you will

australia hasn’t won a war since malaya

hwhehe, you didn’t actually respond to my point that the allies were targeting just the things you mentioned. As were the axis.

You think they were not targeting those things? That they need to be pointed out by wookie brilliance and all of a sudden, everyone slaps thier heads and says “of course” then look at each other and all wonder, why why we ignoring transport and manufacturing and power and communication infrastructure anyway?

ever heard of dieppe?

why did we waste thousands of men on some stupid operation at dieppe instead of concentrating firepower on things that matter?

stop wasting men, money and machines on stupid things

You can pick out a million bad decisions, hindsight helps a lot, especially you. You don’t have to factor in the fog of war and the lack of perfect information and you never ever factor in political considerations or other complexities.

Instead you make statements that are bleeding obvious and think that you are the only one who has thought of them, in your world view everything is simple. Companies, businesses, armies, wars, you can do them all if only people would listen.

But you can hardly hold down a job.

And your predictions suck hard.

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

they had specialist units for that too.

yeah

but you never know when the bomb will go off do you?

seed a trainline with thousands of these things and things will grind to a halt quickly

At least 7 of them were located and successfully set off with charges during the blitz of London in WW2.

yes all requiring time and with railway lines destroying the infrastructure with it

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

AwesomeO said:

hwhehe, you didn’t actually respond to my point that the allies were targeting just the things you mentioned. As were the axis.

You think they were not targeting those things? That they need to be pointed out by wookie brilliance and all of a sudden, everyone slaps thier heads and says “of course” then look at each other and all wonder, why why we ignoring transport and manufacturing and power and communication infrastructure anyway?

ever heard of dieppe?

why did we waste thousands of men on some stupid operation at dieppe instead of concentrating firepower on things that matter?

stop wasting men, money and machines on stupid things

You can pick out a million bad decisions, hindsight helps a lot, especially you. You don’t have to factor in the fog of war and the lack of perfect information and you never ever factor in political considerations or other complexities.

Instead you make statements that are bleeding obvious and think that you are the only one who has thought of them, in your world view everything is simple. Companies, businesses, armies, wars, you can do them all if only people would listen.

But you can hardly hold down a job.

And your predictions suck hard.

oh

like the russians going into syria?

i’m surprised they didn’t mount a full scale invasion but that’s just me – arrive in force at the head of a few hundred thousand troops, helicopters, bombers, fighters, tanks, self propelled guns

drive straight into the umbilical cord latched onto turkey and see what gives

arrive in force

keep the war as short as possible

The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States:

Is a vital national security interest threatened?

Do we have a clear attainable objective?

Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?

Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?

Is the action supported by the American people?

Do we have genuine broad international support?

As Powell said in an April 1, 2009 interview on The Rachel Maddow Show, the Doctrine denotes the exhausting of all “political, economic, and diplomatic means”, which, only if those means prove to be futile, should a nation resort to military force. Powell has expanded upon the Doctrine, asserting that when a nation is engaging in war, every resource and tool should be used to achieve decisive force against the enemy, minimizing U.S. casualties and ending the conflict quickly by forcing the weaker force to capitulate.

wookiemeister said:

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

ever heard of dieppe?

why did we waste thousands of men on some stupid operation at dieppe instead of concentrating firepower on things that matter?

stop wasting men, money and machines on stupid things

You can pick out a million bad decisions, hindsight helps a lot, especially you. You don’t have to factor in the fog of war and the lack of perfect information and you never ever factor in political considerations or other complexities.

Instead you make statements that are bleeding obvious and think that you are the only one who has thought of them, in your world view everything is simple. Companies, businesses, armies, wars, you can do them all if only people would listen.

But you can hardly hold down a job.

And your predictions suck hard.

oh

like the russians going into syria?

i’m surprised they didn’t mount a full scale invasion but that’s just me – arrive in force at the head of a few hundred thousand troops, helicopters, bombers, fighters, tanks, self propelled guns

drive straight into the umbilical cord latched onto turkey and see what gives

I wasn’t surprised, Syria has long been a soviet/Russian client.

See what gives? That’s not very sun Tzu. He would offer a better war making method, something like “see what gives and make sure it is to your advantage”. Profound, no?

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

AwesomeO said:

You can pick out a million bad decisions, hindsight helps a lot, especially you. You don’t have to factor in the fog of war and the lack of perfect information and you never ever factor in political considerations or other complexities.

Instead you make statements that are bleeding obvious and think that you are the only one who has thought of them, in your world view everything is simple. Companies, businesses, armies, wars, you can do them all if only people would listen.

But you can hardly hold down a job.

And your predictions suck hard.

oh

like the russians going into syria?

i’m surprised they didn’t mount a full scale invasion but that’s just me – arrive in force at the head of a few hundred thousand troops, helicopters, bombers, fighters, tanks, self propelled guns

drive straight into the umbilical cord latched onto turkey and see what gives

I wasn’t surprised, Syria has long been a soviet/Russian client.

See what gives? That’s not very sun Tzu. He would offer a better war making method, something like “see what gives and make sure it is to your advantage”. Profound, no?

you can’t bribe ISIS

it has no real clear hierachy to bribe, you can’t negotiate with them

its not a state – its a band of fanatics

any operation is then structured as an eradication programme based on strangling main routes of supply

wookiemeister said:

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

oh

like the russians going into syria?

i’m surprised they didn’t mount a full scale invasion but that’s just me – arrive in force at the head of a few hundred thousand troops, helicopters, bombers, fighters, tanks, self propelled guns

drive straight into the umbilical cord latched onto turkey and see what gives

I wasn’t surprised, Syria has long been a soviet/Russian client.

See what gives? That’s not very sun Tzu. He would offer a better war making method, something like “see what gives and make sure it is to your advantage”. Profound, no?

you can’t bribe ISIS

it has no real clear hierachy to bribe, you can’t negotiate with them

its not a state – its a band of fanatics

any operation is then structured as an eradication programme based on strangling main routes of supply

In all fairness ISIS is pretty much a state. They have taken responsibility for distribution, industry, law and order, and defence in the territory they control.

wookiemeister said:

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

oh

like the russians going into syria?

i’m surprised they didn’t mount a full scale invasion but that’s just me – arrive in force at the head of a few hundred thousand troops, helicopters, bombers, fighters, tanks, self propelled guns

drive straight into the umbilical cord latched onto turkey and see what gives

I wasn’t surprised, Syria has long been a soviet/Russian client.

See what gives? That’s not very sun Tzu. He would offer a better war making method, something like “see what gives and make sure it is to your advantage”. Profound, no?

you can’t bribe ISIS

it has no real clear hierachy to bribe, you can’t negotiate with them

its not a state – its a band of fanatics

any operation is then structured as an eradication programme based on strangling main routes of supply

Simples. War will be over in a week. Cut off the supply lines. Brilliant.

Why did no one else think of this? How come it took a simple fellow on a small Australian forum to work it out. Kudos to you wookie, you are a genius.

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

AwesomeO said:

I wasn’t surprised, Syria has long been a soviet/Russian client.

See what gives? That’s not very sun Tzu. He would offer a better war making method, something like “see what gives and make sure it is to your advantage”. Profound, no?

you can’t bribe ISIS

it has no real clear hierachy to bribe, you can’t negotiate with them

its not a state – its a band of fanatics

any operation is then structured as an eradication programme based on strangling main routes of supply

In all fairness ISIS is pretty much a state. They have taken responsibility for distribution, industry, law and order, and defence in the territory they control.

syria is a state

isis has no social class of government officials as such

a state is more than some religious fanatics running around with guns, gold coins and collecting taxes

as for law and order its basically some dude chopping off limbs and heads for trivial offences not to mention stoning – all with the intention of striking fear into the population

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

AwesomeO said:

I wasn’t surprised, Syria has long been a soviet/Russian client.

See what gives? That’s not very sun Tzu. He would offer a better war making method, something like “see what gives and make sure it is to your advantage”. Profound, no?

you can’t bribe ISIS

it has no real clear hierachy to bribe, you can’t negotiate with them

its not a state – its a band of fanatics

any operation is then structured as an eradication programme based on strangling main routes of supply

Simples. War will be over in a week. Cut off the supply lines. Brilliant.

Why did no one else think of this? How come it took a simple fellow on a small Australian forum to work it out. Kudos to you wookie, you are a genius.

What can we do to keep this vital information from the enemy.

dv said:

AwesomeO said:

wookiemeister said:

you can’t bribe ISIS

it has no real clear hierachy to bribe, you can’t negotiate with them

its not a state – its a band of fanatics

any operation is then structured as an eradication programme based on strangling main routes of supply

Simples. War will be over in a week. Cut off the supply lines. Brilliant.

Why did no one else think of this? How come it took a simple fellow on a small Australian forum to work it out. Kudos to you wookie, you are a genius.

What can we do to keep this vital information from the enemy.

no idea

i went to syria for two weeks and observed the roads were slivers of asphalt laid on soft sand

how will you drive your big rigs on soft sand ?

wookiemeister said:

a state is more than some religious fanatics running around with guns, gold coins and collecting taxes

Dunno about that. I think the Papal States were states.

dv said:

In all fairness ISIS is pretty much a state. They have taken responsibility for distribution, industry, law and order, and defence in the territory they control.

Hmm, more on the lines of a zealot warlord’s fiefdom, taking advantage of the collapse of the local bigshots. Very fragile control of territory dependent purely on the West’s reluctance to go in and clear them out.

>any operation is then structured as an eradication programme based on strangling main routes of supply

As you say, they’re fanatics. Cutting off their supplies weakens them but the only way to eradicate them is to go in with overwhelming force (wouldn’t really take much) and mop them up. Not nice, but they’re not remotely nice chappies.

It appears that the law has no power over religious differences.

From the beginning of this thread I’ve been thinking about different categories of modern and futuristic armour.

Lightest level would be sunscreen-like spray on or wipe on. Protection against UV and skin contact chemicals, and for a fat-based protection against cold – think swimming English channel.

Second lightest level would be raincoat-like, or like normal clothes. Protection against rain, cold, scrapes, scratches.

Third lightest level would include sporting gear, leather, scuba gear, firefighting gear, welding mask, high temperature gear, motor racing gear.

Fourth level would include military armour for protection against knives, swords, crossbows and bullets, and against gas attack and flame.

Fifth level and you’re starting to talk about armour with a real power supply, onboard weapons, powered movement, power cooling, onboard targeting and artificial intelligence.

Sixth level and it has full medical facilities onboard, with bain-AI interface, life support for those who would die without it.

Is that as far as it goes?

a suit would need to be breathable and help wick away sweat from the skin

if the suit had a peltier mechanism, heat would be wicked away from the user

the suit would have a power system to it, to be marginally protective against shells it would be weighty and would make the wearer sweat

the suit would need to be like a second skin that helped control body temp

the suit would need to be able to direct away IR signature

the suit would have a basic camouflage scheme to it but in normal use baggy clothing would sit above it to break up body shape

if you went swimming the baggy suit would be folded up and rolled up leaving the second skin in tact

you’d need some power source that was moulded into the second skin suit

the second skin suit might have some provision for blades to be accommodated into the side of the tibia / calf muscle and the along the radius/ forearm

the suit would need some strength to it/ intelligence to be self supporting in some way – in essence the second skin would be formed of layers, camouflage, flexible armour, muscle, temp control

the suit would need to have a matt finish, wet or dry

the suit might wick moisture from the air to provide the user with water

suit would stem flow of blood from a wound

a shell wound would need to be treated by the user, i’m not sure how practical it would be for a suit to treat the user

the suit would obviously take a blow from an assailant and prevent a blade from penetrating

perhaps the user would normally leave the head mostly uncovered unless in a hand to hand situation

the helmet would need to block blinding lasers to the eyes

a powered suit would give strength to a blow and speed

the suit would need power from somewhere

covering it with lots of little solar cell dots might help though these might be covered in normal circumstances

the baggy clothing might be a solar collector creating electrical to be stored in some hi tec way

the backpack might also collect sunlight

the problem might be if the power source ever breaks down you’ll most likely have to dump the thing

perhaps the least thing you might wear would be a special second skin that protects you from graze injury knife attack, with minimal protection from shells

the minimal skin would protect you from mosquito attack/ stings – you might laugh but one fellow a sergeant had his knee blow up like a balloon, they told me about him , i went over and had a look, he told me had taken some pill but pills were useless, a quick spray from stingose and the swelling disappeared

being bitten in the field from any creature is a nagging injury

protection from flying debris is a must, in those days glasses over the eyes didnt exist, i saw another NCO being led away in a fake battle, the hot casing from the rifle had flown into an eye

crawling around cuts up your skin

a second skin created to protecting the skin is very helpful, it helps you crawl over prickly bushes

any kind of injury to the skin is good way to end up sick and demoralised

wookiemeister said:

crawling around cuts up your skin

a second skin created to protecting the skin is very helpful, it helps you crawl over prickly bushes

any kind of injury to the skin is good way to end up sick and demoralised

First line above: use drones, stop the crawling.

wookiemeister said:

crawling around cuts up your skin

a second skin created to protecting the skin is very helpful, it helps you crawl over prickly bushes

any kind of injury to the skin is good way to end up sick and demoralised

Achilles used herbal remedies.

the moment you invent better armour, someone else will invent a better bullet just to defeat it.

For thus it was; is now; and shall be evermore.

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

crawling around cuts up your skin

a second skin created to protecting the skin is very helpful, it helps you crawl over prickly bushes

any kind of injury to the skin is good way to end up sick and demoralised

Achilles used herbal remedies.

Doesn’t work for slings, arrows or being swamped by enemy when you can’t walk.

Postpocelipse said:

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

crawling around cuts up your skin

a second skin created to protecting the skin is very helpful, it helps you crawl over prickly bushes

any kind of injury to the skin is good way to end up sick and demoralised

Achilles used herbal remedies.

Doesn’t work for slings, arrows or being swamped by enemy when you can’t walk.

As for protective skins, silk worked well for the mongolian.

Postpocelipse said:

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

crawling around cuts up your skin

a second skin created to protecting the skin is very helpful, it helps you crawl over prickly bushes

any kind of injury to the skin is good way to end up sick and demoralised

Achilles used herbal remedies.

Doesn’t work for slings, arrows or being swamped by enemy when you can’t walk.

The dead can’t walk but those who can be put back at the front can keep the battle going.

The trouble with a protective coating applied to the skin is suffocation as per Goldfinger’s victims……..

roughbarked said:

Postpocelipse said:

roughbarked said:

Achilles used herbal remedies.

Doesn’t work for slings, arrows or being swamped by enemy when you can’t walk.

The dead can’t walk but those who can be put back at the front can keep the battle going.

Said like a true viking wife.

:P

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

crawling around cuts up your skin

a second skin created to protecting the skin is very helpful, it helps you crawl over prickly bushes

any kind of injury to the skin is good way to end up sick and demoralised

Achilles used herbal remedies.

For his heel, I’d‘ve recommended wool fat. Good for healing heels, in my experience.

Michael V said:

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

crawling around cuts up your skin

a second skin created to protecting the skin is very helpful, it helps you crawl over prickly bushes

any kind of injury to the skin is good way to end up sick and demoralised

Achilles used herbal remedies.

For his heel, I’d‘ve recommended wool fat. Good for healing heels, in my experience.

Apparently Vicks Vaporub cures dry soles.

Michael V said:

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

crawling around cuts up your skin

a second skin created to protecting the skin is very helpful, it helps you crawl over prickly bushes

any kind of injury to the skin is good way to end up sick and demoralised

Achilles used herbal remedies.

For his heel, I’d‘ve recommended wool fat. Good for healing heels, in my experience.

Indeed.

the suit could have a massage function to massage you after walking

often you have to lay down for extended periods motionless – a massage function would help you

it’s the cold and wet that fucks you up , the suit must be waterproof and not allow water to deep down your neck it would have to be one piece with a wicking action taking water on the head / neck away rather than allow it to seep into the suit

wookiemeister said:

a suit would need to be breathable and help wick away sweat from the skin

if the suit had a peltier mechanism, heat would be wicked away from the user

the suit would have a power system to it, to be marginally protective against shells it would be weighty and would make the wearer sweat

the suit would need to be like a second skin that helped control body temp

the suit would need to be able to direct away IR signature

the suit would have a basic camouflage scheme to it but in normal use baggy clothing would sit above it to break up body shape

if you went swimming the baggy suit would be folded up and rolled up leaving the second skin in tact

you’d need some power source that was moulded into the second skin suit

the second skin suit might have some provision for blades to be accommodated into the side of the tibia / calf muscle and the along the radius/ forearm

the suit would need some strength to it/ intelligence to be self supporting in some way – in essence the second skin would be formed of layers, camouflage, flexible armour, muscle, temp control

the suit would need to have a matt finish, wet or dry

the suit might wick moisture from the air to provide the user with water

Agree with all of that, except I totally fail to see how it could mask an IR signature.

Time seems to be an issue, the power supply would have a time limit. The protection against fire would have a time limit. The protection against gas and radiation would have a time limit. Even the protection against stabbing attacks wouldn’t last for ever.

wookiemeister said:

the suit could have a massage function to massage you after walking

often you have to lay down for extended periods motionless – a massage function would help you

it’s the cold and wet that fucks you up , the suit must be waterproof and not allow water to deep down your neck it would have to be one piece with a wicking action taking water on the head / neck away rather than allow it to seep into the suit

I love your idea of a massage function.

In my limited experience, heat is deadlier than cold and wet. If cold and wet then exercise will often suffice to warm up.

mollwollfumble said:

wookiemeister said:

a suit would need to be breathable and help wick away sweat from the skin

if the suit had a peltier mechanism, heat would be wicked away from the user

the suit would have a power system to it, to be marginally protective against shells it would be weighty and would make the wearer sweat

the suit would need to be like a second skin that helped control body temp

the suit would need to be able to direct away IR signature

the suit would have a basic camouflage scheme to it but in normal use baggy clothing would sit above it to break up body shape

if you went swimming the baggy suit would be folded up and rolled up leaving the second skin in tact

you’d need some power source that was moulded into the second skin suit

the second skin suit might have some provision for blades to be accommodated into the side of the tibia / calf muscle and the along the radius/ forearm

the suit would need some strength to it/ intelligence to be self supporting in some way – in essence the second skin would be formed of layers, camouflage, flexible armour, muscle, temp control

the suit would need to have a matt finish, wet or dry

the suit might wick moisture from the air to provide the user with water

Agree with all of that, except I totally fail to see how it could mask an IR signature.

Time seems to be an issue, the power supply would have a time limit. The protection against fire would have a time limit. The protection against gas and radiation would have a time limit. Even the protection against stabbing attacks wouldn’t last for ever.

hopefully you wouldnt have to endure stabbing attacks

you might be able to trigger an electric shock to the suit skin if you were being held down

mollwollfumble said:

wookiemeister said:

the suit could have a massage function to massage you after walking

often you have to lay down for extended periods motionless – a massage function would help you

it’s the cold and wet that fucks you up , the suit must be waterproof and not allow water to deep down your neck it would have to be one piece with a wicking action taking water on the head / neck away rather than allow it to seep into the suit

I love your idea of a massage function.

In my limited experience, heat is deadlier than cold and wet. If cold and wet then exercise will often suffice to warm up.

in the field i personally have a problem with the cold – it doesn’t agree with me

i can continue with detrmination even on the hottest of days

i was cycling around in the sun a few days ago delivering my newsletter to the good citizens of wookietown

the suit itself might be a weapon

the arm morphs a blade on the edge of the ulna ie when you strike out to defend yourself from a blow the edge of the arm becomes a blade

a kick sees the foot morph a blade at the tip of the toes

Evening folks

Stumpy_seahorse said:

Evening folks

How’s the war going?

Peak Warming Man said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

Evening folks

How’s the war going?

Elementally…..

Peak Warming Man said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

Evening folks

How’s the war going?

Very slowly

wookiemeister said:

mollwollfumble said:

wookiemeister said:

a suit would need to be breathable and help wick away sweat from the skin

if the suit had a peltier mechanism, heat would be wicked away from the user

the suit would have a power system to it, to be marginally protective against shells it would be weighty and would make the wearer sweat

the suit would need to be like a second skin that helped control body temp

the suit would need to be able to direct away IR signature

the suit would have a basic camouflage scheme to it but in normal use baggy clothing would sit above it to break up body shape

if you went swimming the baggy suit would be folded up and rolled up leaving the second skin in tact

you’d need some power source that was moulded into the second skin suit

the second skin suit might have some provision for blades to be accommodated into the side of the tibia / calf muscle and the along the radius/ forearm

the suit would need some strength to it/ intelligence to be self supporting in some way – in essence the second skin would be formed of layers, camouflage, flexible armour, muscle, temp control

the suit would need to have a matt finish, wet or dry

the suit might wick moisture from the air to provide the user with water

Agree with all of that, except I totally fail to see how it could mask an IR signature.

Time seems to be an issue, the power supply would have a time limit. The protection against fire would have a time limit. The protection against gas and radiation would have a time limit. Even the protection against stabbing attacks wouldn’t last for ever.

hopefully you wouldnt have to endure stabbing attacks

you might be able to trigger an electric shock to the suit skin if you were being held down

Better get some brilliant, lightweight batteries, or a long, unseverable power cord.

Peak Warming Man said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

Evening folks

How’s the war going?

its still going

the hill tribes are in revolt and armed with surface to air missiles and the helicopters can’t near them

Michael V said:

wookiemeister said:

mollwollfumble said:

Agree with all of that, except I totally fail to see how it could mask an IR signature.

Time seems to be an issue, the power supply would have a time limit. The protection against fire would have a time limit. The protection against gas and radiation would have a time limit. Even the protection against stabbing attacks wouldn’t last for ever.

hopefully you wouldnt have to endure stabbing attacks

you might be able to trigger an electric shock to the suit skin if you were being held down

Better get some brilliant, lightweight batteries, or a long, unseverable power cord.

a 555 timer, and a slow charge up from a capacitor can deliver thousands of volts at 1 A

not a good idea to get whacked by that

Michael V said:

wookiemeister said:

mollwollfumble said:

Agree with all of that, except I totally fail to see how it could mask an IR signature.

Time seems to be an issue, the power supply would have a time limit. The protection against fire would have a time limit. The protection against gas and radiation would have a time limit. Even the protection against stabbing attacks wouldn’t last for ever.

hopefully you wouldnt have to endure stabbing attacks

you might be able to trigger an electric shock to the suit skin if you were being held down

Better get some brilliant, lightweight batteries, or a long, unseverable power cord.

Taser batteries aren’t very big.

wookiemeister said:

Michael V said:

wookiemeister said:

hopefully you wouldnt have to endure stabbing attacks

you might be able to trigger an electric shock to the suit skin if you were being held down

Better get some brilliant, lightweight batteries, or a long, unseverable power cord.

a 555 timer, and a slow charge up from a capacitor can deliver thousands of volts at 1 A

not a good idea to get whacked by that

It’s been 18 years since I last had to touch a 555 timer. You’ve taken me right back, wook.

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

Michael V said:

Better get some brilliant, lightweight batteries, or a long, unseverable power cord.

a 555 timer, and a slow charge up from a capacitor can deliver thousands of volts at 1 A

not a good idea to get whacked by that

It’s been 18 years since I last had to touch a 555 timer. You’ve taken me right back, wook.

well it was an example – its a very simple curcuit using an IC and using basic resistors to create a fast switching circuit connected to a coil

wookiemeister said:

the suit itself might be a weapon

the arm morphs a blade on the edge of the ulna ie when you strike out to defend yourself from a blow the edge of the arm becomes a blade

Go, go gadget suit…

nowadays you’d use a microprocessor to create that fast switching by programming a pin to do it

the other pins might be used to discharge the capacitor if not being used or to discharge it to the “load”

Michael V said:

wookiemeister said:

the suit itself might be a weapon

the arm morphs a blade on the edge of the ulna ie when you strike out to defend yourself from a blow the edge of the arm becomes a blade

Go, go gadget suit…

the terminator film where the robot grows a spear for a hand is an example of what you could do

you might not need to kill the enemy but deliver an injury that would keep them out of action for a suitable time without serious damage

killing people isn’t efficient in a war, wounded will clog up the hospitals of the enemy and thus collapse them with logistics costs

ISIS and other extremists would be an exception – you’ll never change them

i’ve never liked the idea of bombing cities – it wastes too much money for almsot zero result

shut down the logistics, cut the weapons delivery

bombing cities just creates wastelands to no practical end

wookiemeister said:

Michael V said:

wookiemeister said:

hopefully you wouldnt have to endure stabbing attacks

you might be able to trigger an electric shock to the suit skin if you were being held down

Better get some brilliant, lightweight batteries, or a long, unseverable power cord.

a 555 timer, and a slow charge up from a capacitor can deliver thousands of volts at 1 A

not a good idea to get whacked by that

No, no, I think you misunderstand. You need some brilliant, lightweight batteries, or a long, unseverable power cord to power all of the functions of the suit.

enemy soldiers in a major war would be conscripts, whats the point of killing them?

wound them and they can tell their war stories to their children

Stumpy_seahorse said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

Evening folks

How’s the war going?

Very slowly

At least there is still action at the front?

Michael V said:

wookiemeister said:

Michael V said:

Better get some brilliant, lightweight batteries, or a long, unseverable power cord.

a 555 timer, and a slow charge up from a capacitor can deliver thousands of volts at 1 A

not a good idea to get whacked by that

No, no, I think you misunderstand. You need some brilliant, lightweight batteries, or a long, unseverable power cord to power all of the functions of the suit.

the suit charges up the batteries

it has small micro dots of solar cells

capacitors are light weight

in the end given the technology the suit itself is the battery – imagine that!

in the event of an invasion a thousand men in such a suit would wreak havoc behind enemy lines

assuming we might be engaged in a land war on the australian mainland in the near future a suit would deflect and do great damage to an invading army

a cheap mass produced solid fuel ICBM planted in tiny silos and planted in their tens of thousands could be used to target thousands of targets abroad

wookiemeister said:

assuming we might be engaged in a land war on the australian mainland in the near future a suit would deflect and do great damage to an invading army

a cheap mass produced solid fuel ICBM planted in tiny silos and planted in their tens of thousands could be used to target thousands of targets abroad

I call it the trump suit.

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

assuming we might be engaged in a land war on the australian mainland in the near future a suit would deflect and do great damage to an invading army

a cheap mass produced solid fuel ICBM planted in tiny silos and planted in their tens of thousands could be used to target thousands of targets abroad

I call it the trump suit.

I call misere.

Michael V said:

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

assuming we might be engaged in a land war on the australian mainland in the near future a suit would deflect and do great damage to an invading army

a cheap mass produced solid fuel ICBM planted in tiny silos and planted in their tens of thousands could be used to target thousands of targets abroad

I call it the trump suit.

I call misere.

I might access my twitter account solely to start a #misere

Postpocelipse said:

Michael V said:

dv said:

I call it the trump suit.

I call misere.

I might access my twitter account solely to start a #misere

misere or no misere

seems some NATO general has come out and said exactly what I was saying last year

the refugee crisis is being created to take down Europe

you might remember that the Russians had done little in Syria until America started a war on the Russian border with Ukraine – they won’t stand for it

Ukraine has now been fought to a standstill with the Russian army in the crimes

Europe has gone down the tubes overwhelmed – good luck with fighting a war with Russia – with 5000 Isis fighters wandering around Europe , millions of refugees with their hands out causing havoc and sucking the life out of the welfare system it’s already curtains

the proof bring Russia has proposed the ceasefire meaning by their estimates its all over , the countries on their borders are already over run

the cease fire situation creates the moderate swell of refugees into Europe – enough to do the damage , not enough for Europe to stop them

Saudi wants to build 200 mosques in Europe

the Brexit will see Britain pull up stakes and sit back across the channel as Europe burns ( they’ll ship them unwanted across the water and dump them
in Europe ).

Turkey will be fighting a civil war against ISIS , the PKK and any other organisation it’s been shelling

wookiemeister said:

seems some NATO general has come out and said exactly what I was saying last year

I saw that and I agree his comments matched yours. I am still not sure if I agree with them though.

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

seems some NATO general has come out and said exactly what I was saying last year

I saw that and I agree his comments matched yours. I am still not sure if I agree with them though.

Who should agree with warmongering in any form whatsoever?

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

seems some NATO general has come out and said exactly what I was saying last year

I saw that and I agree his comments matched yours. I am still not sure if I agree with them though.

Who should agree with warmongering in any form whatsoever?

not warmongering , making an assessment

Stumpy_seahorse said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

Evening folks

How’s the war going?

Very slowly

Reading “the art of war” seriously now. Was rather surprised that it said that if you are certain of victory then you must attack EVEN WHEN YOUR SOVEREIGN SAYS NOT TO. I can’t help wondering if that’s Pentagon strategy too.

mollwollfumble said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

Peak Warming Man said:

How’s the war going?

Very slowly

Reading “the art of war” seriously now. Was rather surprised that it said that if you are certain of victory then you must attack EVEN WHEN YOUR SOVEREIGN SAYS NOT TO. I can’t help wondering if that’s Pentagon strategy too.

The USA claiming victory even when they win is dubious in the last few decades, sure you may oust the bad guy but do you improve the lives of the majority of the population in the nation you invaded.

is that the samuel b griffith translation

that does follow though

according to sun tzu a ruler must not interfere with his generals decisions – let him make the calls

land is the essence of the state

understand why china builds islands in the ocean?

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

Very slowly

Reading “the art of war” seriously now. Was rather surprised that it said that if you are certain of victory then you must attack EVEN WHEN YOUR SOVEREIGN SAYS NOT TO. I can’t help wondering if that’s Pentagon strategy too.

The USA claiming victory even when they win is dubious in the last few decades, sure you may oust the bad guy but do you improve the lives of the majority of the population in the nation you invaded.

the aim of war is to roll up all under heaven

by rights you try to leave the population in tact – you will need them to service the fields

better than military invasion – bribery and the fifth column

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.

Marcus Tullius Cicero

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

Stumpy_seahorse said:

Very slowly

Reading “the art of war” seriously now. Was rather surprised that it said that if you are certain of victory then you must attack EVEN WHEN YOUR SOVEREIGN SAYS NOT TO. I can’t help wondering if that’s Pentagon strategy too.

The USA claiming victory even when they win is dubious in the last few decades, sure you may oust the bad guy but do you improve the lives of the majority of the population in the nation you invaded.

Military engagements (including recent engagements in the Middle East) generally have reasonably clear objectives. If you meet these objectives then the engagement was a success… it isn’t rocket science…

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

Reading “the art of war” seriously now. Was rather surprised that it said that if you are certain of victory then you must attack EVEN WHEN YOUR SOVEREIGN SAYS NOT TO. I can’t help wondering if that’s Pentagon strategy too.

The USA claiming victory even when they win is dubious in the last few decades, sure you may oust the bad guy but do you improve the lives of the majority of the population in the nation you invaded.

Military engagements (including recent engagements in the Middle East) generally have reasonably clear objectives. If you meet these objectives then the engagement was a success… it isn’t rocket science…

How long before it all goes back to the “good” old days once the military withdraw. I bet nothing has changed in making the world a safer place in any action in Iraq or Afghanistan and probably made it worse as a whole new generation of victims are out for revenge.

shit’s complex af

Am still reading Sun Tzu. Despite its date being 500 BC, it’s still remarkably relevant. I particularly enjoyed the sections on how to discover an ambush in advance, how to know what the enemy is doing when you can’t see them (sound, movement of trees, dust, birds, fleeing animals, banners), when is the best time to attack an enemy crossing a river, and the five types of spies.

¿How true is the following today, a direct quote. It’d be amazing if it held true for 2,500 years.

“In the operations of war, where there are in the field 1,000 swift vehicles, as many heavy vehicles, and 100,000 armoured soldiers, with provisions enough to carry them 500 km, the expenditure at home and at front, including entertainment of guests, small items such as glue and paint, and sums spent on vehicles and armour, will reach a total of 1,000 ounces of silver per day.”

That’d be in the order of 7 million dollars per year per for 100,000 soldiers. Way short of current expenditure, by a factor of about 1,000.

mollwollfumble said:

Am still reading Sun Tzu. Despite its date being 500 BC, it’s still remarkably relevant. I particularly enjoyed the sections on how to discover an ambush in advance, how to know what the enemy is doing when you can’t see them (sound, movement of trees, dust, birds, fleeing animals, banners), when is the best time to attack an enemy crossing a river, and the five types of spies.

¿How true is the following today, a direct quote. It’d be amazing if it held true for 2,500 years.

“In the operations of war, where there are in the field 1,000 swift vehicles, as many heavy vehicles, and 100,000 armoured soldiers, with provisions enough to carry them 500 km, the expenditure at home and at front, including entertainment of guests, small items such as glue and paint, and sums spent on vehicles and armour, will reach a total of 1,000 ounces of silver per day.”

That’d be in the order of 7 million dollars per year per for 100,000 soldiers. Way short of current expenditure, by a factor of about 1,000.

it’s why you can’t fight a protracted war

the treasury is emptied and the economy ruinous

wookiemeister said:

mollwollfumble said:

Am still reading Sun Tzu. Despite its date being 500 BC, it’s still remarkably relevant. I particularly enjoyed the sections on how to discover an ambush in advance, how to know what the enemy is doing when you can’t see them (sound, movement of trees, dust, birds, fleeing animals, banners), when is the best time to attack an enemy crossing a river, and the five types of spies.

¿How true is the following today, a direct quote. It’d be amazing if it held true for 2,500 years.

“In the operations of war, where there are in the field 1,000 swift vehicles, as many heavy vehicles, and 100,000 armoured soldiers, with provisions enough to carry them 500 km, the expenditure at home and at front, including entertainment of guests, small items such as glue and paint, and sums spent on vehicles and armour, will reach a total of 1,000 ounces of silver per day.”

That’d be in the order of 7 million dollars per year per for 100,000 soldiers. Way short of current expenditure, by a factor of about 1,000.

it’s why you can’t fight a protracted war
the treasury is emptied and the economy ruinous

Exactly. That’s why sieges are a very bad idea. Ditto trench warfare.