Superpower asymmetric warfare

Quiller

New Member
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..."
 

SpartanSG

New Member
Well, the military is supposed to plan with the worst case scenario. Which is why they often assumed the adversary has more capability.

Taking out the power generation is an interesting suggestion, but it assumes that there are no back-up generators for military systems to turn to.

Talking about asymmetric, why not just raid the place and blow it up. From the inside. Sure, it will be heavily defended, but it should be doable. Just like what they did in the raid on Osama's hideout.
 

USAF77

Banned Member
You pretty much described our already standard attack plans, minus the EMP weapons.

Remember Gulf-l started off with relatively low tech Helicopters shooting missiles at vital AAA centers opening corridors for attack waves already airborne. Stealth planes attacked CNC targets. Power generating targets were attacked with weapons "BLU-114/B" that killed the power lines but left the actual infrastructure intact. Much of Scud hunting was done by inserted teams on the ground.

The problem with using EMP weapons is its crossing a thresh hold much like using a standard nuke. We might end up getting one aimed at us. For instance NK has spent a lot of money on a ICBM/EMP capability. It could be called a "poor mans strategic arsenal in a single bomb".
 

Gremlin29

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
From this and many other posts I don't think most people understand how a country such as the US goes to war (or police action if you like).

First and foremost, the NCA (National Command Authority) outlines strategic objectives. The armed forces then set about developing COA's (Courses Of Action) which are influenced by enemy COA's. They are point, counter point, counter counter point. Contigencies are assigned for unknowns. This is all within the parameters of the strategic objective(s) provided by the NCA. It is not a question of miltiary capability, it falls squarely in the lap of the NCA.

In other words, the military must fight within the confines of securing the strategic objective which constrains the military to fight in a way usually not particularly advantageous to it and it's capabilites. EMP is a strategic weapon and it is improbable a responsible nation would use it against a point target.
 

Quiller

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
You pretty much described our already standard attack plans, minus the EMP weapons.

Remember Gulf-l started off with relatively low tech Helicopters shooting missiles at vital AAA centers opening corridors for attack waves already airborne. Stealth planes attacked CNC targets. Power generating targets were attacked with weapons "BLU-114/B" that killed the power lines but left the actual infrastructure intact. Much of Scud hunting was done by inserted teams on the ground.

The problem with using EMP weapons is its crossing a thresh hold much like using a standard nuke. We might end up getting one aimed at us. For instance NK has spent a lot of money on a ICBM/EMP capability. It could be called a "poor mans strategic arsenal in a single bomb".
This response may get me bounced... but North Korea has never evidenced any concern about "thresholds." Besides that, using non-nuclear EMP is going to hit the battlefield sooner or later. I suggest, IF the US intends to tackle the Iran nuclear problem militarily... then EMP should be used. Question: How many lives should be lost in exchange for NOT crossing the EMP lne? I say ZERO.
 

Quiller

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
From this and many other posts I don't think most people understand how a country such as the US goes to war (or police action if you like).

First and foremost, the NCA (National Command Authority) outlines strategic objectives. The armed forces then set about developing COA's (Courses Of Action) which are influenced by enemy COA's. They are point, counter point, counter counter point. Contigencies are assigned for unknowns. This is all within the parameters of the strategic objective(s) provided by the NCA. It is not a question of miltiary capability, it falls squarely in the lap of the NCA.

In other words, the military must fight within the confines of securing the strategic objective which constrains the military to fight in a way usually not particularly advantageous to it and it's capabilites. EMP is a strategic weapon and it is improbable a responsible nation would use it against a point target.
You must work for the US State Department! No, I'm just teasing.

But your response clearly frames how wars ARE fought. Wars are political, not military. Sad but true. Sad because there are way too many fingers in the combat pie, so to speak. The problem is... the NCA's strategy can get lots more people KILLED on both sides of the combat line. I know I am going to recieve a lot of nasty responses... but once the politcals institute the war, the generals ought to be able to prosecute it. Why? Because generally speaking, the military will prosecute a war with a mind toward winning it rapidly and effectively. Politicians have so many other byzantine plans and strategies.

Why do I say this? Well, maybe politicans would embark on FEWER wars if they lost control of the process. I very much like that idea,

Bottom line.... EMP clears pathways for jet bombers versus my jet pilot son gets shot down and dies because we DIDN'T use EMP. Simple enough math?
 

Quiller

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #7
From this and many other posts I don't think most people understand how a country such as the US goes to war (or police action if you like).

First and foremost, the NCA (National Command Authority) outlines strategic objectives. The armed forces then set about developing COA's (Courses Of Action) which are influenced by enemy COA's. They are point, counter point, counter counter point. Contigencies are assigned for unknowns. This is all within the parameters of the strategic objective(s) provided by the NCA. It is not a question of miltiary capability, it falls squarely in the lap of the NCA.

In other words, the military must fight within the confines of securing the strategic objective which constrains the military to fight in a way usually not particularly advantageous to it and it's capabilites. EMP is a strategic weapon and it is improbable a responsible nation would use it against a point target.
BTW -- History Lesson 101. The United States crossed that threshold in 1945. We dropped not one but TWO nuclear weapons. Nobody has done it since, despite our doing it. Thresholds are artificial impediments that may or may not matter one way or the other. There has been much conjecture around the military establishment about use of high altitude Nuclear EMP's agains Europe and the US as a first strike. Using fairly pin-point EMP's isn't crossing any significant strategic threshold.
 

Quiller

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
Well, the military is supposed to plan with the worst case scenario. Which is why they often assumed the adversary has more capability.

Taking out the power generation is an interesting suggestion, but it assumes that there are no back-up generators for military systems to turn to.

Talking about asymmetric, why not just raid the place and blow it up. From the inside. Sure, it will be heavily defended, but it should be doable. Just like what they did in the raid on Osama's hideout.
Assuming an adversary has more capability is, quite simply, intelligence failure. There have been many examples of that throughout history. Of course, intelligence failure can underestimate a strong enemy as well... no doubt.

The issue becomes... does overestimation result in reckless abandon of necessary mlitary options? Versus underestimation recklessly launch under-prepared military adventures? Such is the way of history for the last, oh, what, several thousand years? Miscalculation has always been the bane of history.
 

USAF77

Banned Member
Thanks for the History Lesson. I had forgotten about that. Before you start "bouncing" posts maybe you should realize that we ourselves consider any radiation weapon a WMD. And any country that used them against the West would have a lot more to worry about then their hair driers and gaming computers not working.

Oh, and "even if these weapons exist" can you point out one we own whose EMP isnt generated by a nuke? I know we have a program but its not operational, or close to it, and until it is we still have "thresh holds" over nukes.

The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki "created" the thresh hold. First in terms of humanity and later by the concept of MAD. I served at the base where our "platform" was, and our EMP hardening program. Its impossible to completely take out Americas nuclear response capability with an EMP device. An d only a few countries have the ability to deliver such a device.

However the window is closing. We have made no progress to develop an adequate "super EMP" weapon to counter. Nor have we done enough to harden our infrastructure against such devices. The threat of this "poor mans nuke" will only grow. I agree we have to fund programs for both nuclear and non-nuke EMP weapons, and protection against same. But if we consider EMP as a WMD you can be sure any enemy will also. Thus the thresh hold.

40 years from now many countries will be able to cripple us with an EMP air burst. Many already own simple scuds that, conceivably, can be launched off of cargo ships off our coast. All thats lacking is the two stage weapon that would generate enough EMP. Iran has itself tested IRBMs whose trajectory's can only be assumed to be a pre- EMP test.

We can already cripple power grids and infrastructure with standard weapons. To start shooting EMP, even non-nuke point, IS crossing a line and nobody should assume its like using a standard weapon.

Even so we have to develop both types of EMP weapons. If only for the deterrent effect.

BTW -- History Lesson 101. The United States crossed that threshold in 1945. We dropped not one but TWO nuclear weapons. Nobody has done it since, despite our doing it. Thresholds are artificial impediments that may or may not matter one way or the other. There has been much conjecture around the military establishment about use of high altitude Nuclear EMP's agains Europe and the US as a first strike. Using fairly pin-point EMP's isn't crossing any significant strategic threshold.
 

Quiller

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #10
Thanks for the History Lesson. I had forgotten about that. Before you start "bouncing" posts maybe you should realize that we ourselves consider any radiation weapon a WMD. And any country that used them against the West would have a lot more to worry about then their hair driers and gaming computers not working.

Oh, and "even if these weapons exist" can you point out one we own whose EMP isnt generated by a nuke? I know we have a program but its not operational, or close to it, and until it is we still have "thresh holds" over nukes.

The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki "created" the thresh hold. First in terms of humanity and later by the concept of MAD. I served at the base where our "platform" was, and our EMP hardening program. Its impossible to completely take out Americas nuclear response capability with an EMP device. An d only a few countries have the ability to deliver such a device.

However the window is closing. We have made no progress to develop an adequate "super EMP" weapon to counter. Nor have we done enough to harden our infrastructure against such devices. The threat of this "poor mans nuke" will only grow. I agree we have to fund programs for both nuclear and non-nuke EMP weapons, and protection against same. But if we consider EMP as a WMD you can be sure any enemy will also. Thus the thresh hold.

40 years from now many countries will be able to cripple us with an EMP air burst. Many already own simple scuds that, conceivably, can be launched off of cargo ships off our coast. All thats lacking is the two stage weapon that would generate enough EMP. Iran has itself tested IRBMs whose trajectory's can only be assumed to be a pre- EMP test.

We can already cripple power grids and infrastructure with standard weapons. To start shooting EMP, even non-nuke point, IS crossing a line and nobody should assume its like using a standard weapon.

Even so we have to develop both types of EMP weapons. If only for the deterrent effect.
I guess it was apparent I am not an apologist for using the first nukes. Let's move on.

There has been ample evidence the US Navy tested EMP munitions in the first Gulf War, and that Russia used them in Georgia. (See the Report from the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament.) So that line appears to have been crossed already, albeit quietly and without any significant international uproar or political blowback to either nation.

Using a pinpoint EMP is not the same as using a high-altitude nuke to fry an entire country's electronic infrastructure. It is not the same, and it is not a slippery slope. They simply do not equate. Using a small EMP munition is not even in the same league as using a "tactical" or theater nuclear weapon.

Reasonable minds (as I think we all are) can disagree. But if those weapons are available and can rapidly achieve a significant tactical edge that could dramatically reduce the time frame of the conflict, I say use them.

One of the biggest problems the world has had for the last few centuries is governments considering war as an extension of diplomacy. War should be war, and embarked on as an end game. Not a parchesi match for small advantages. Politicians start wars, not generals.
 
Top