is the kind of conventional method of 'bean-counting' of WW2 invalid when dealing w/ issues of recent conflicts?

quote:

---

Originally posted by acetone:
is the kind of conventional method of 'bean-counting' of WW2 invalid when dealing w/ issues of recent conflicts?

---

You will note that TDI has done a casualty estimate for Bosnia, and done some in-depth analysis of guerrilla wars and SSCO in its EPW studies and Medium Weight Armor study. These all involve some "bean-counting". Whether it is "conventional bean-counting" I cannot tell, as I do not know what that is. As far as I can tell, "bean-counting" is still an unconventional methodology, as it appears that most published studies rely on very little real-world data.

quote:

---

furthermore, is the conventionally well-established military establishments throughout the world unprepared for the upsurge of widespread non-military radicalisms?

---

Since WWII, there has almost always been one or more major guerilla wars going on in the world that involved a major power. I am not sure we are really seeing something fundamentally different, other than its internationalization and its willingness to strike back directly at the major powers. I am not sure that "international terrorism" should be considered something radically different and seperate from any other "guerilla war". It appears that the primary difference is target selection (international vice regional). The basis of how it forms, how it recruits, and how it operates does not appear to be out of line with other movements that have existed in the past. It appears to have the same needs (recruitment, budget, santuary, PR) as other guerilla movements and as such, it would appear to be defeatable as other guerilla movements have been (which has not been a very encouraging track record).

quote:

---

Originally posted by acetone:
whether it be the infamous US-Vietnam, USSR-Afghanistan, US/Israel-Lebanon, US-Taleban, Israel-Palestine, US-Iraq, etc. ...

is the kind of conventional method of 'bean-counting' of WW2 invalid when dealing w/ issues of recent conflicts?

furthermore, is the conventionally well-established military establishments throughout the world unprepared for the upsurge of widespread non-military radicalisms?

---

The major threats to the United States of America are:

1. Foreign Armed Forces Threat (Least Likely to happen)
2. Economic Information Threat (very likely)
3. Weapons of Mass Destruction
a. Nuclear Devices (possible in wrong hands)
b. Chemical and Biological Threats (possible in wrong hands)
4. Gray Area Phenomena Threat (most likely to occur)
a. Terrorist Organizations
b. Rogue States
c. Illicit Drug Trade and Narco Terrorists

These are the threats to the US. Our current mix and match of forces and intelligence effort are focused on Foreign Armed Forces, this is the least likey scenario to occur. While the Gray Area Phenomena is the most realistic threat we face everyday.

Our Armed Forces are still struggling in Iraq with this problem. We are designed for the big war, but poorly equipped for the insurgency. We've learned little from Vietnam....that Special Forces living with, eating the same food, and speaking their language is the best type of force structure to be pushing now days.

John Wayne's "Green Beret" movie was the only movie officially assisted by the US Army that was ever made on Vietnam. In that movie the U.S. Army tried to show what a good counterinsurgency mission should consist of. While it is a much-maligned movie, it has a smattering of truth in it. That truth can be applied to today's war in Iraq. We are not designed, militarily, for winning the peace in Iraq.

The real threat to our nation is the War between the "Globalized World" and those that are shut out of this special club.

Ken

[This message has been edited by Lucky (edited 12-10-2004).]

1) Foreign armed forces are hardly the least likely threat to the US. If one looks at the post Vietnam eara for a good part of it this was the only major threat to the US (ie one capable of destroying the country). While it is not currently the case if one looks very far into the future the possiblity of another such threat is certainly present. If you don't consider the possiblity of the destruction of the US as necessary to constiture a major threat observe that we have engaged hostile armed forces several times since the end of the Vietnam war.

In regards to NBC weapons. Are they at all classifieable as a major threat if they are not in the "wrong" hands? Also they are much more dangerous to the US if they are used by forein armed forces than terrorist. The latter may be harder to defend against but the former are likely to do much more damage to the US if used.

Can't comment on "Gray Area Phenomena" because I'm not sure what you are talking about.

"Econmic information threat" may be likely but is also unlikely to do serious damage to the US although it may do considerable damage to individual companies. So does this even qualify as a major threat?

Some of your threats are mechanisms and some are organizations. IE a rogue state without NBC weapons is not much of a threat one with them is. Mixing organizations and mechanisms makes comparing the probabilty and severity a lot like the proverbial apples and oranges.

In any risk assesment there are 3 dimmensions that need to be addressed. You have addressed only one the probability of occurance and to my mind not done a particularly good job of that. The others are how severe is the damage likely to be and how much will it cost to protect against it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lucky:
John Wayne's "Green Beret" movie was the only movie officially assisted by the US Army that was ever made on Vietnam.

---

My father's helicopter company, based in Columbus Georgia (Ft. Benning) was the one used for the movie. John Wayne came by Ft. Benning and they put on an impressive live fire demonstration for him at the test range. Of course, as a young goober, I got to watch (and see the Duke). My father went on to C&GS before they starting filming, so he missed his chance to be in the movie.