Asymmetry in warfare need not be exploited only by the military underdog. Sometimes slightly asymmetric warfare tactics and strategies can be very effectively exploited by superpowers or more military-capable nations.
A newly released report opined how wide-ranging and extensive any attack on a particular nuclear-weapon-seeking nation would have to be to be effective. It offered a litany of aircraft arming and sortie activities, cruise missile launches, and so on and so on. Assuming... falsely.... that a fully conventional (read non-nuclear) attack would... or should... be prosecuted strictly by the old playbook. It included the usual laundry list of military targets to be suppressed, the low percentages of likely success, the liklihood and effects of counterattack.
What those experts' analysis did not consider, were even minimal asymmetric strategies that could dramatically change the game.
For example.... the use of non-nuclear EMP or HPM munitions in the first wave. Most of the critical air-defense radars and missile installations are carefully plotted through satellite, air, and human intelligence. Similarly, many likely coastal cruise missile installations have been mapped... even taking into account their mobility. Keep in mind the range of cruise missiles will still govern their general placement along the coast.
Rather than launch salvo after salvo of conventionally-explosive armed cruise missiles, and hundreds of preliminary fighter sorties on such air defense targets, coastal cruise missile targets, along with critical C3 nodes..... why not make the first strikes EMP/HPM standoff bombs or missile munitions which would dramatically degrade command, control, air defense, and coastal offense/defense installations across the board? This would render much of the country's anti-air missile and radar installations inoperable. Lack of C3 would hobble fighter-based air defense, which could be easily cleaned up by F-18 or F-22 assets.
Major military balllistic missile bases could be similarly targeted, very likely degrading a significant amount of retaliatory ability.
All this without significantly risking human pilots in the opening gambit.
And no... the supposed country in question is not EMP battle-hardened so don't even go there. In fact, the report assumed much more capability on the part of the nation's military than it would in fact be able to bring to bear.
Assume also that this country has a really finite number of national power generating stations. Several dams, and some fuel oil electricity producers. Taking out one or two strategic power grids would hobble the contry's ability to operate effectively. (By NOT actually targeting the power generating stations themselves, the civilian populace would not necessarily suffer months of torment. The country could repair their power grids in a few weeks, preserving the civil structure. The results would be temporary.)
Sure... there would be air defenses and missile batteries that would escape the initial attack... but dramatically few. And this without all the extensive several-days-long jet sorties. Mopping these up would be far less difficult for the fighters.
What's next? A country completely vulnerable from the air. The strike forces would then have the luxury of selecting their strategic targets at their leisure. Dropping deep penetrators could be a virtual milk run if the skys were as clear as the skies above Iraq were during the first and second Gulf Wars.
The use of high technology is itself asymmetric warfare if applied correctly.
What other asymmetric military options do any of you envision?
BTW, please don't begin a reply with "Even if these EMP weapons exist..."
A newly released report opined how wide-ranging and extensive any attack on a particular nuclear-weapon-seeking nation would have to be to be effective. It offered a litany of aircraft arming and sortie activities, cruise missile launches, and so on and so on. Assuming... falsely.... that a fully conventional (read non-nuclear) attack would... or should... be prosecuted strictly by the old playbook. It included the usual laundry list of military targets to be suppressed, the low percentages of likely success, the liklihood and effects of counterattack.
What those experts' analysis did not consider, were even minimal asymmetric strategies that could dramatically change the game.
For example.... the use of non-nuclear EMP or HPM munitions in the first wave. Most of the critical air-defense radars and missile installations are carefully plotted through satellite, air, and human intelligence. Similarly, many likely coastal cruise missile installations have been mapped... even taking into account their mobility. Keep in mind the range of cruise missiles will still govern their general placement along the coast.
Rather than launch salvo after salvo of conventionally-explosive armed cruise missiles, and hundreds of preliminary fighter sorties on such air defense targets, coastal cruise missile targets, along with critical C3 nodes..... why not make the first strikes EMP/HPM standoff bombs or missile munitions which would dramatically degrade command, control, air defense, and coastal offense/defense installations across the board? This would render much of the country's anti-air missile and radar installations inoperable. Lack of C3 would hobble fighter-based air defense, which could be easily cleaned up by F-18 or F-22 assets.
Major military balllistic missile bases could be similarly targeted, very likely degrading a significant amount of retaliatory ability.
All this without significantly risking human pilots in the opening gambit.
And no... the supposed country in question is not EMP battle-hardened so don't even go there. In fact, the report assumed much more capability on the part of the nation's military than it would in fact be able to bring to bear.
Assume also that this country has a really finite number of national power generating stations. Several dams, and some fuel oil electricity producers. Taking out one or two strategic power grids would hobble the contry's ability to operate effectively. (By NOT actually targeting the power generating stations themselves, the civilian populace would not necessarily suffer months of torment. The country could repair their power grids in a few weeks, preserving the civil structure. The results would be temporary.)
Sure... there would be air defenses and missile batteries that would escape the initial attack... but dramatically few. And this without all the extensive several-days-long jet sorties. Mopping these up would be far less difficult for the fighters.
What's next? A country completely vulnerable from the air. The strike forces would then have the luxury of selecting their strategic targets at their leisure. Dropping deep penetrators could be a virtual milk run if the skys were as clear as the skies above Iraq were during the first and second Gulf Wars.
The use of high technology is itself asymmetric warfare if applied correctly.
What other asymmetric military options do any of you envision?
BTW, please don't begin a reply with "Even if these EMP weapons exist..."