The concept of warfare. Then and now.

[redfella]

Answer the poll and/or reply. Have fun.

 

[jlbenedict]

Are we talking about "Geneva Convention" type of concepts??

 

[redfella]

Originally posted by: jlbenedict
Are we talking about "Geneva Convention" type of concepts??

Nah. Concepts regarding strategy and tactics and pre-emptive warfare.

 

[MonkeyK]

The concept of warfare has not changed since Sun Tzu wrote 'The Art of War"

 

[Train]

War has been the same since two neanderthals beat eachother with sticks.

"The Art of War" is about 2,500 years old, yet you can easily apply the same tactics to todays battlefields, with long range/automatic rifles, unmanned recon aircraft, halo jumpers, rocket propelled artillery, laser guided bombs that can count the floors before detonating. Sun Tzu could'nt have imagined any of these weapons in his wildest dreams, yet the tactics, the psychology, the risk, have remained the same.

EDIT: bah, monkey beat me to it.

 

[daveshel]

It is said that the American Revolutionaries beat the British by using novel form of warfare. The hidden ambush was very effective against the Redcoats' orderly columns. Now the shoe is on the other foot. The US is still trying to fight in ways that were effective in the 20th century and crying foul at today's enemies' methods. There have been a number of threads here trying to define terrorism and they have not settled the question because terrorism is whatever the US says it is.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: Train
War has been the same since two neanderthals beat eachother with sticks.

"The Art of War" is about 2,500 years old, yet you can easily apply the same tactics to todays battlefields, with long range/automatic rifles, unmanned recon aircraft, halo jumpers, rocket propelled artillery, laser guided bombs that can count the floors before detonating. Sun Tzu could'nt have imagined any of these weapons in his wildest dreams, yet the tactics, the psychology, the risk, have remained the same.

EDIT: bah, monkey beat me to it.

Yeah, but you gave examples :beer:

 

[Apocalypse X]

Since when has war ever been called a concept?

People amaze me on these forums.

The issue is again same as in Vietnam are our troops being allowed to win?

Are afraid that to win means we would have to face other Arab nations?

Same as in Vietnam. We were so totally afraid of China getting involved.

You cannot win a war if you are afaid to confront the consequences of winning.

Also as a Nation we are a bunch of panzies and our congressmen only think about re-election.

Is this was just in Iraq? Probably not.

Should we try to win it and get out?

Or should we just leave immediately?

All interesting questions.

War as a concept.

 

[stardrek]

I would say that the result of war has always been the same; plenty of dead people. But tactics and means of killing has altered and changes so much it is hard to quantify. The fact that we can threaten a nation capital with a single bomb changes the tactics of war all together. Planes changed how war was fought. Guns changes the way war was fought. You can boil down tactics to just: kill as many as possible and loose as little as possible. But the real deal is layered and varies by every situation. There are general tactics that never change, but there are plenty that do.

 

[GDaddy]

As stated before Sun Tzu said all that needed to be said about warfare in general.

I think one big difference you see today back towards about Vietnam, is that you are now trying to fight a people not just an army. With the gorilla warfare of today you don?t know if the person walking down the street is an "active" soldier. No set uniforms, no standing army, no bases, or headquarters and the like. With the Korean War and prior you knew who you were facing, now anyone can be your enemy.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: stardrek
I would say that the result of war has always been the same; plenty of dead people. But tactics and means of killing has altered and changes so much it is hard to quantify. The fact that we can threaten a nation capital with a single bomb changes the tactics of war all together. Planes changed how war was fought. Guns changes the way war was fought. You can boil down tactics to just: kill as many as possible and loose as little as possible. But the real deal is layered and varies by every situation. There are general tactics that never change, but there are plenty that do.

While I agree a nuke can definetly change the perception, it's still just a another weapon. Changing weapons don't change the tactics. What is a bomb other than a bigger gun? What is a gun other than a better crossbow? What is a crossbow other than a more powerful version of the bow and arrow? What is a bow and arrow other than a deadlier rock to throw at someone?

Even biological warfare has been around since damn near forever. They used to throw rotting animal coprses over the walls of beseiged cities to spread disease.

 

[stardrek]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: stardrek
I would say that the result of war has always been the same; plenty of dead people. But tactics and means of killing has altered and changes so much it is hard to quantify. The fact that we can threaten a nation capital with a single bomb changes the tactics of war all together. Planes changed how war was fought. Guns changes the way war was fought. You can boil down tactics to just: kill as many as possible and loose as little as possible. But the real deal is layered and varies by every situation. There are general tactics that never change, but there are plenty that do.

While I agree a nuke can definetly change the perception, it's still just a another weapon. Changing weapons don't change the tactics. What is a bomb other than a bigger gun? What is a gun other than a better crossbow? What is a crossbow other than a more powerful version of the bow and arrow? What is a bow and arrow other than a deadlier rock to throw at someone?

Even biological warfare has been around since damn near forever. They used to throw rotting animal coprses over the walls of beseiged cities to spread disease.

I guess it purely depends on how you perceive warfare. Personally I see the alteration of tactics to utilize new types of weapons as a change in warfare. In the same way I would say new instruments and ways of playing define the difference between baroque and classical music. In both cases you have the same result music or death, but the path is what I would define as the change.

 

[redfella]

Originally posted by: TrainWhile I agree a nuke can definetly change the perception, it's still just a another weapon. Changing weapons don't change the tactics. What is a bomb other than a bigger gun? What is a gun other than a better crossbow? What is a crossbow other than a more powerful version of the bow and arrow? What is a bow and arrow other than a deadlier rock to throw at someone?

I disagree. I think that the sheer destructive power capable from nuclear weapons puts it in a class all of its own. Its more than just a big gun or a devestating barrage of artillery.

This is where I believe the concept of warfare has changed. The concept (as already touched on) is not about fighting an enemy in uniform for territorial advantages, but instead preventing a potential enemy from acquiring the "Ace of Spades" (aka the nuke).

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: stardrek
I guess it purely depends on how you perceive warfare. Personally I see the alteration of tactics to utilize new types of weapons as a change in warfare.

In my opinion, you are not seeing a change in tactics, rather a change in scale. A nuke is just a much bigger rock you can throw a lot further. Both have the same application: to strike your enemy from a safe distance.

In the same way I would say new instruments and ways of playing define the difference between baroque and classical music. In both cases you have the same result music or death, but the path is what I would define as the change.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: redfella
I disagree. I think that the sheer destructive power capable from nuclear weapons puts it in a class all of its own. Its more than just a big gun or a devestating barrage of artillery.

It only changes the scale, killing someone with a nuke or a rock, still breaks down to killing them. A nuke isn't going to make someone "deader" than a person killed by a rock.

This is where I believe the concept of warfare has changed. The concept (as already touched on) is not about fighting an enemy in uniform for territorial advantages, but instead preventing a potential enemy from acquiring the "Ace of Spades" (aka the nuke).

War was never about territory, or uniforms. It is now, always has been, and always will be, one person or a group of people forcing thier will on another person or group of people.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: redfella

Originally posted by: TrainWhile I agree a nuke can definetly change the perception, it's still just a another weapon. Changing weapons don't change the tactics. What is a bomb other than a bigger gun? What is a gun other than a better crossbow? What is a crossbow other than a more powerful version of the bow and arrow? What is a bow and arrow other than a deadlier rock to throw at someone?

I disagree. I think that the sheer destructive power capable from nuclear weapons puts it in a class all of its own. Its more than just a big gun or a devestating barrage of artillery.

This is where I believe the concept of warfare has changed. The concept (as already touched on) is not about fighting an enemy in uniform for territorial advantages, but instead preventing a potential enemy from acquiring the "Ace of Spades" (aka the nuke).

Preventing access to a technology does put a new perspective on things.
I guess the most similar notion in the past would have been preventing access to a resource or potential ally.

 

[GDaddy]

Train is dead on, the tatics are the same just the weapons and how we think of them are different.

Hit where least expected, find the high ground, and other concepts are the same today as before.

Like find the high ground, it used to be a hill, now its the sky, someday it will be space. concept is the same, just the way we think about it is different.

 

[stardrek]

Standing in a field, in giant groups is a very different tactic then using trench warfare. Which is very different then calling in a plane or chopper to take out a target. Hell, using the same weapons but very different tactics Alexander the Great defeated many. I see tactics as the collective name for methods of engaging and defeating an enemy in battle. But it sounds like we have different definitions.

 

[BBond]

To begin with, war is not an art. Killing, maiming, destruction -- no matter how good we get at it -- isn't art.

And warfare hasn't changed much other than we have gotten much better at killing, maiming, and destruction no matter how many times bush tells you how careful we are or how many "smart" bombs they show you going down chimneys. If you don't believe me, just look at Fallujah.

There does seem to be some change in the way psychological warfare is waged. For example, The Lincoln Group. Not only is the bush administration paying The Lincoln Group to plant stories in the "free" Iraqi press, but now Lincoln Group consultants are giving information to U.S. main-stream media outlets without bothering to tell the MSM that they work for The Lincoln Group. And, true to their new lacky form, the MSM just prints the propoganda.

You can read all about it HERE.

And, after failing to find ANY WMD, they actually have the nerve to tell us they're spreading democracy! Bwahahahaha. bush wouldn't know democracy if it bit him on his a$$, in Iraq or here at home.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: stardrek
Standing in a field, in giant groups is a very different tactic then using trench warfare. Which is very different then calling in a plane or chopper to take out a target. Hell, using the same weapons but very different tactics Alexander the Great defeated many. I see tactics as the collective name for methods of engaging and defeating an enemy in battle. But it sounds like we have different definitions.

Well you're using more literal tactics. If you abstract it a little bit, "entrenching" is more than just trench warfare, its any type of fortified position. A trench is just another form of a fortified position. The same as forts or castles. Even today, US troops often do "entreching" in Iraq and Afghanistan (Even the name is still the same) Except digging holes is not as common, Now we can just use a bulldozer to create a large sand burm, so we have a barrier to protect us from stray bullets on the outside. Standing in a trench or standing near the top of a burm, is essentially the same, you are presenting as little of yourself as possible to hostile fire, just your eyes and up are visible to the outside.

Calling in an airstrike is no different then calling in the cavalry, or any other specialized unit. It's also no different than putting down your knife and picking up a rock. It all breaks down to using the right tool for the job.

but you also have to realize the actual fighting part of war only makes up about 5% of what a war actually is. There's a saying at the US War College "Novices talk tactics, pro's talk logistics" And besides logistics theres the psychological side of war, which is arguably a much bigger area of discussion than actual combat tactics.

 

[stardrek]

Originally posted by: Train
Well you're using more literal tactics. If you abstract it a little bit, "entrenching" is more than just trench warfare, its any type of fortified position. A trench is just another form of a fortified position. The same as forts or castles. Even today, US troops often do "entreching" in Iraq and Afghanistan (Even the name is still the same) Except digging holes is not as common, Now we can just use a bulldozer to create a large sand burm, so we have a barrier to protect us from stray bullets on the outside. Standing in a trench or standing near the top of a burm, is essentially the same, you are presenting as little of yourself as possible to hostile fire, just your eyes and up are visible to the outside.

Calling in an airstrike is no different then calling in the cavalry, or any other specialized unit. It all breaks down to using the right tool for the job.

but you also have to realize the actual fighting part of war only makes up about 5% of what a war actually is. There's a saying at the US War College "Novices talk tactics, pro's talk logistics" And besides logistics theres the psychological side of war, which is arguably a much bigger area of discussion than actual combat tactics.

Your opinon is well thought out but I must respectfully disagree. I just have a different perseption then that of yourself, while I think your points are mostly valid I think we look to different deffinitions to the topic.:beer:

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: stardrek
Your opinon is well thought out but I must respectfully disagree. I just have a different perseption then that of yourself, while I think your points are mostly valid I think we look to different deffinitions to the topic.:beer:

Fair enough, this rounds on me :beer::beer:

 

[techs]

What is slowly changing is the methods of waging war and winning a war.
In fact, warfare began to change during the American Revolution when victory on the battlefield no longer equalled victory. By Americans refusing to believe they had lost and just refusing to be follow British rule the war continued past the point of military defeat.
The Colonial Army was defeated, but by refusing to lay down its arms and just existing the war continued.
Ghandi recognized this and used his non-violent warfare to beat the British.
And the culmination of both tactics was used by the North Viet Namese.

 

[slatr]

Yes, it has changed since WW2.

Thanks to him


see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boyd_%28military_strategist%29

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-Manueverability_theory

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Strategy_%28John_Boyd%29

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: techs
What is slowly changing is the methods of waging war and winning a war.
In fact, warfare began to change during the American Revolution when victory on the battlefield no longer equalled victory. By Americans refusing to believe they had lost and just refusing to be follow British rule the war continued past the point of military defeat.
The Colonial Army was defeated, but by refusing to lay down its arms and just existing the war continued.
Ghandi recognized this and used his non-violent warfare to beat the British.
And the culmination of both tactics was used by the North Viet Namese.

Again, these are all tactics mentioned by Sun Tzu over 2,500 years ago. And they existed long before him, he was just the only/first one to write them down (and have his book survive this long)

Edit: In most studies of Tzu's work, there is often mention of manuals that pre-date him by over a thousand years. Most of them either never survived (thier existence only known through references in other works) or never became as popular.