Talk:Asymmetric warfare

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Archives

/Archive 1 (Feb 2004 - Jul 2007)

Viet-Nam war

Wasn't it an outstanding example of asymmetrical warfare? The most powerful army in the world with the backup up the local goverment all all major western military powers against a often poorly armed, politically, organically and military outlawed force of revolutionary dissidents/insurgents? Besides that ones used conventional full-scale warfare and razing, and the others rainforest guerrilla tactics... If that is not asymmetrical, then what is? --190.174.67.86 (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing and rewriting

I've started rewriting to remove some of the pov and plan to start finding sources. Everyone is welcome to join in on the fun! – Dreadstar † 08:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section about Iran should be removed, last time I checked it was 2008 and no one was in Iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.115.68.21 (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American revolution?

This article skips over the American revolution entirely, THE asymmetric war that set the standard for all asymmetric wars, Missing. Why? PiAndWhippedCream 06:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why, but it'll be fun finding out, so I've put in a basic attempt. David Trochos (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second footnote?

I went to check the second footnote, which appears after the author's description of Parthia's defeat of the Seleucid empire, and found an article that said nothing about Parthia. Though the article linked (and analysis of asymmetric warfare, with a great comparison of the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest to Chechen/Russian conflict) is great and I highly recommend it to anybody, I was really looking forward to a similar analysis of the Parthians' conflict with the Seleucid empire. If the original author is still around, please, please, PRETTY PLEASE post that article! :)

And while I would not say that the American Revolution set the standard for all such conflicts, it definitely deserves mention in an article about asymmetric warfare.

Timfever 05:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thermopylae?

I admit I'm no scholar in this field, but shouldn't the Battle of Thermopylae get some mention? 75.18.20.150 (talk) 07:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far, all the sections of the article refer to wars/campaigns; once we start including individual battles, it'll be hard to stop. because purely symmetrical battles are very rare. David Trochos (talk) 08:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

China vs US: Asymmetric warfare in the 21st century

Perhaps a speculative section be in order, e.g. 'asymmetric warfare in the 21st century', given that various experts have stated that in the event of a short war between China and the US over Taiwan, China would: 1) utilize asymmetric tactics against the US to take advantage of the (over)reliance on electronics, either in battle or against non-military targets in the US via hacking and related activities, and 2) capitalize on the US dependence on satellites via land-based attacks on US satellites. Recall the recent testing of a Chinese anti-satellite weapon (used I think, in this case, against one of their own weather satellites). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.230.216 (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Of all the proxy wars fought by the USA against the USSR during the Cold War this was the most cost effective and politically successful, as it was the USSR's most humiliating military defeat, and that defeat was a contributing factor to the implosion of the Soviet Union."

Hahaha when Americans withdraw their troops from Iraq, dont forget to call it the America's most humiliating defeat!!!!

Unnecessary; both the War of 1812 and the Vietnam War were far more embarassing to U.S. arms in their time than the Iraq War is today. Some elements of the U.S. government are even still able to pretend that Iraq has been a U.S. victory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.154.220.52 (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of sources

FYI, a list of sources on this subject can be found here: [1]. Cla68 (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Agincourt

The citation of the Battle of Agincourt requires further consideration. After review of the "Battle of Agincourt" page it seems that use of the English longbow was not critical in the discourse of the battle. Perhaps citation of the use of palings in this battle (although circumstantial as well) would better satisfy the epistemological integrity sought by the authors. Flux (talk) 07:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also read that the muddy, uneven terrain contributed more to the English victory than anything else —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.3.37.178 (talk) 08:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Longbow fire--although not very effective against the plate armored knights in the French vanguard--worked reasonably well against the French knights' horses and the common soldiery at Agincourt. But the main reason the English longbowmen were so effective in the battle had nothing to do with the longbow itself. It was more that, as unarmored forces, they were capable of engaging in the melee relatively unencumbered, whereas the French forces were exhausted from attacking on foot across muddy terrain. The superior numbers of the French also worked severely in their disfavor in the actual fighting, since the French were so closely hemmed in that soldiers at the fore were trapped in place by those in the rear ranks, allowing the longbowmen to carve them up with swords and hatchets. So Agincourt might be used in the article as an example of superior terrain, but the emphasis of the longbow's technological superiority is historically incorrect and needs to go. JoomTory (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was the author perhaps thinking of Crecy earlier in the Hundred Years War? Similarly the English were outnumbered, and won with longbow tactics to break conventional heavy cavalry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.195.70 (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what he was thinking--Agincourt being as decisive a battle as it was, there are plenty of popular myths that have sprung up around it, and the misconception about the longbow's significance is a widespread one. Fortunately, it doesn't matter, because the Battle of Crécy you mention is just a much, much better example. I'm changing the article to use that instead; feel free to update it if you come up with an even better example. JoomTory (talk) 08:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guantanamo Bay and Assymetric Warfare

That paragraph is ridiculous. Three people committing suicide is not warfare, assymetric or of any other type. It must be removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbastos7 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - 3 people committing suicide while in detention is not an act of war. PiCo (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israel/Palestinians

Quote: "The Palestinians deploy their forces inside civilian areas in an attempt to prevent Israel from responding with conventional forces and tactics. Israel tends to use focused targeting tactics, including intelligence-based assassinations of individual leaders, and assigns the responsibility for any resulting civilian casualties to Palestinian forces for their use of human shielding"

Their is an obvious bias in this section. This is not a place to display propagendas. give a reference. one that is neutral like the UN reports--SHAHINOVE (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan

It was a major effort from the Muslim world. The cost for them was far higher then the US. Also they sent volunteers. It also included a substantial Israeli commitment.

This all should be written into it.

Nor am I happy with it being called tactically secret. It was not plausible denial is probably a better description.

Also I am not sure from the US point of view it was the highest cost/benefit. Many proxy battles costed the US less and were also successful. Could you please come up with some facts to backup this statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reargun (talk • contribs) 09:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Petain, guerrilla leader

"Abd el-Krim led resistance in Morocco from 1920 to 1924 against French and Spanish colonial armies ten times as strong as the guerilla force, led by General Philippe Pétain." I was under the impression that Petain was leading a conventional army, but perhaps I was wrong. (Two 'r's in guerrilla, by the way). PiCo (talk) 07:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia-Serbia ?

Shouldn't there be at least one verifiable source for such bold claims? I'm deleting that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.65.19 (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-informative text moved to discussion

"For a more comprehensive listing, including outcomes, see Arreguin-Toft."^[1]

^ Arreguin-Toft, Ivan (2005). How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict. Cambridge University Press. pp. 228–232. ISBN 978-0-521-83976-1.

This text is not informative, within the text of the article.

Perhaps this book should be mentioned in the Literature-section. If someone wants to do that, I have no misgivings.--80.203.102.99 (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Arreguin-Toft, Ivan (2005). How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict. Cambridge University Press. pp. 228–232. ISBN 978-0-521-83976-1.

[1]