Is war simply a matter of numbers???

[Richard45s]

Interesting point Richard. Sometimes superior numbers can be a disadvantage. Think of the chaos in the opposing ranks one could create if enough key supply depots where taken out. If the infantry has no ammo, if the tanks, trucks, and planes have no fuel, what good are superior numbers?

Also, I like the fact that you bring up EMP. While there is no historical precedent for its use, based on the known effects, its effective use has the potential to tilt the scales in any conflict in this increasingly technologically reliant world. This becomes especially true if it is used to disrupt the economy of the opposing nation. We all know that the prosecution of a war cannot continue without an economy to support it. Therefore, if EMP can also be used to disrupt the civilians who support the military effort, the effect is multiplied many times over. This is a great example for all the naysayers out there who quickly disregard some of the more advanced tech out there and its effects, and who talk about superior numbers as if they were all that is required in order to win.

nfloorl:

Yes I agree Feros, based on the known effects EMP does show some significant potential. And among any of our potential rivals, I strongly believe that China represents the most viable test subject. Both because of its size and population would make its subjugation almost impossible, in turn making the preservation of its infrastructure a non-issue and also because once we use this there is likely going to be significant pressure from citizens, the civilian government and foreign allies to classify EMP as a WMD and legislate against its use. We’ll get one shot, we might as well make the best of it.


We all know that the prosecution of a war cannot continue without an economy to support it. Therefore, if EMP can also be used to disrupt the civilians who support the military effort, the effect is multiplied many times over

Very good, you understand perfectly what I’m saying. Though I do believe there are more benefits to be realized in EMPing China than simple disruption. Here’s what I see.

Chinese governance is more a centralized top down phenomenon and despite its obvious human rights abuses and restrictions on freedom it enjoys popular support from the population because of the economic miracle it has managed to create over the past 30 years.

Government usually has a primary role in the organizing of society during wartime as well as the promotion of it as an honourable and just endeavour and success in both of these tasks is usually dependent on the legitimacy and support the governing structure enjoys among the populace.

So in theory, by massively EMPing the Chinese economy in the opening phases of a war we undo the very thing which gives the Chinese government its legitimacy, causing impairment of its vital role it has to play during a conflict. Now normally any level of disruption among the opposing side is a desirable thing, however I do believe that in the case of the Chinese we well get far more than disruption, we will get societal collapse.

Government and militaries have this very bad habit of resorting to habitual patterns of behaviour that have proven successful in the past. As an example consider the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, doesn’t this look a lot like a replay of their opening attack on Vladivostok in the Russo-Japanese war? Looking at the habitual behaviours of the Chinese government I see one which in the case of an EMP attack on their economy could potentially be their undoing, their knee-jerk reaction to using excessive force to deal with unrest.

China is an autocracy, and very rarely do these government types simply give up power. When in danger of collapse they usually seek to re-consolidate their power. Qaddafi anyone? In a situation where we have just taken out their economy, their primary source of legitimacy, I believe it will be very likely they will resort to their back up source of legitimacy, deadly force to keep their civilian population in line.

Given the high population density on their eastern seaboard which will no longer have running water, fridges to keep food from spoiling, vehicles for transportation or any electricity whatsoever, I can see this unrest becoming being quite high quite quickly.

Now, their economy is offline, their civilian population is massively disrupted and to top it off you have a panicked autocratic and unelected government painfully aware of and trying to restore its lost and badly need legitimacy it has enjoyed for the past decade. Given the natural human tendency to get teed off when you don’t have food and water and your prospects for the future suddenly vanish before your eyes that will start to emerge in the billion Chinese affected by the EMP attack, I can see their society start to collapse. And each and every time the panicked Chinese government orders the Chinese army to suppress the rising unrest the only way it knows how will only hasten their demise. No food, no water, + government shooting at you = your despot leaders becoming the enemy.

To a society democracy provides a stability advantage, as individuals we are more likely to support our leaders and governments in time of national crisis because we had a say in their election. China, because of its autocratic and unelected system will enjoy no such advantage and as a result, will be more likely to implode under these conditions.

Of course all this is just a theory. It will require more work to determine its viability, however if there is even a chance we could collapse the Chinese nation through a simple EMP attack I do believe it needs to be explored further. In a war it would mean a lot less coffins coming back home, plus there would be opportunities to literally shrink the Chinese nation through liberation of its subjugated western territories, territories which hold its only source of domestic oil, resulting in a reduction of their future threat potential. And as an added bonus taking out the Chinese economy will bring the commodity prices back down which are hindering our economic growth back home.

 

[Feros Ferio]

...among any of our potential rivals, I strongly believe that China represents the most viable test subject. I do believe there are more benefits to be realized in EMPing China than simple disruption. Here’s what I see.

....in the case of the Chinese... we will get societal collapse.

Of course all this is just a theory. It will require more work to determine its viability, however if there is even a chance we could collapse the Chinese nation through a simple EMP attack I do believe it needs to be explored further. In a war it would mean a lot less coffins coming back home, plus there would be opportunities to literally shrink the Chinese nation through liberation of its subjugated western territories, territories which hold its only source of domestic oil, resulting in a reduction of their future threat potential. And as an added bonus taking out the Chinese economy will bring the commodity prices back down which are hindering our economic growth back home.

First of all, depending on the effectiveness of such strikes, I believe you are quite possibly right. If all things (or at least most things) electronic are fried, coupled with the incredible population size and density of the Chinese eastern seaboard, I don't think it would take too long to see chaos. However, I believe this would also be true in the case of any highly populated region, regardless of political structure. For example, a democratic government wouldn't save LA if all the lights went out. Trust me, I've heard from a few cops down there and they are scared shiteless of what would happen in such a scenario. So if this is the case, and the ensuing chaos results in societal collapse, this would have to be a last resort sort of action. Many, many people would die as a result of this, therefore the West would have to be pretty much back to the wall.

Second, while I agree that the use of EMP would be effective, detonating nukes in the atmosphere would be counter productive. I'm not quite sure but I believe to have an effect on the sort of scale youre thinking of it would take many warheads, and if this is correct, we would do some serious ecological damage, not only to China, but also to allies of ours such as Japan and Korea. I'm not an expert on fallout but wouldn't some of it reach North America on the Jet Stream as well? Also, the West would lose any legitimacy when it comes to Nuclear Arms Control. After that, every country that can build them, will build them, and proliferation will run wild, no matter what we say.

In the end, I think there is a lot of complicating factors in this scenario. I do realize that if a war was to break out, people will die. This is just a fact of war. Yet, it is definitely not something that should be taken lightly when seeking to turn the tables on an opponent with superior numbers.

 

[Richard45s]

First of all, depending on the effectiveness of such strikes, I believe you are quite possibly right. If all things (or at least most things) electronic are fried, coupled with the incredible population size and density of the Chinese eastern seaboard, I don't think it would take too long to see chaos. However, I believe this would also be true in the case of any highly populated region, regardless of political structure. For example, a democratic government wouldn't save LA if all the lights went out. Trust me, I've heard from a few cops down there and they are scared shiteless of what would happen in such a scenario. So if this is the case, and the ensuing chaos results in societal collapse, this would have to be a last resort sort of action. Many, many people would die as a result of this, therefore the West would have to be pretty much back to the wall.

Second, while I agree that the use of EMP would be effective, detonating nukes in the atmosphere would be counter productive. I'm not quite sure but I believe to have an effect on the sort of scale youre thinking of it would take many warheads, and if this is correct, we would do some serious ecological damage, not only to China, but also to allies of ours such as Japan and Korea. I'm not an expert on fallout but wouldn't some of it reach North America on the Jet Stream as well? Also, the West would lose any legitimacy when it comes to Nuclear Arms Control. After that, every country that can build them, will build them, and proliferation will run wild, no matter what we say.

In the end, I think there is a lot of complicating factors in this scenario. I do realize that if a war was to break out, people will die. This is just a fact of war. Yet, it is definitely not something that should be taken lightly when seeking to turn the tables on an opponent with superior numbers.

By ecological damage I’m assuming that you’re referring to nuclear fallout right? Fallout is related to the height of the explosion. During the nuclear detonation the lower you detonate the more opportunities there is for the high temperatures and pressures created to interact with surrounding matter. It is this interaction between the high temperatures and pressures during a nuclear detonation and the surrounding matter that produces fallout. The denser the concentrations of matter interacted with the greater the amount of fallout generated. If you detonated a nuke on the ground you would create a lot of fallout, high in the air (so there is no interaction with the ground) some fallout, in space, no fallout. If your using a nuke solely for the purpose of creating an EMP blast your detonation height would be anywhere from 30 miles to 600 miles depending on the area you want to affect as well as how optimized the nuke is for purposely creating EMP . Space begins at 62 miles. Keep the detonation around 70-100 miles and fallout will not be a concern.

Lol, many nukes? No, just one very optimized one. In the case of EMPing China, very achievable without any ill effects on our Japanese or South Korean allies. The effects your thinking of would be created by the actual nuking of Chinese population centers and their military facilities.

In a situation where we face off with China and they have achieved a numerical superiority on land, sea and air, then I have no qualms about EMPing them whatsoever. My only concern is for the sailors, airmen and marines who this conflict will endanger. Our patriots are not expendable and if we can collapse China with a single nuke and bring all these people home safe and sound I think it’s a damn good idea.

After being EMPed the only thing that Chinese superior numbers will mean will be a longer civil war.

 

[Feros Ferio]

By ecological damage I’m assuming that you’re referring to nuclear fallout right? Fallout is related to the height of the explosion. During the nuclear detonation the lower you detonate the more opportunities there is for the high temperatures and pressures created to interact with surrounding matter. It is this interaction between the high temperatures and pressures during a nuclear detonation and the surrounding matter that produces fallout. The denser the concentrations of matter interacted with the greater the amount of fallout generated. If you detonated a nuke on the ground you would create a lot of fallout, high in the air (so there is no interaction with the ground) some fallout, in space, no fallout. If your using a nuke solely for the purpose of creating an EMP blast your detonation height would be anywhere from 30 miles to 600 miles depending on the area you want to affect as well as how optimized the nuke is for purposely creating EMP . Space begins at 62 miles. Keep the detonation around 70-100 miles and fallout will not be a concern.

Lol, many nukes? No, just one very optimized one. In the case of EMPing China, very achievable without any ill effects on our Japanese or South Korean allies. The effects your thinking of would be created by the actual nuking of Chinese population centers and their military facilities.

In a situation where we face off with China and they have achieved a numerical superiority on land, sea and air, then I have no qualms about EMPing them whatsoever. My only concern is for the sailors, airmen and marines who this conflict will endanger. Our patriots are not expendable and if we can collapse China with a single nuke and bring all these people home safe and sound I think it’s a damn good idea.

After being EMPed the only thing that Chinese superior numbers will mean will be a longer civil war.

Fair enough. I haven't done much reading on nuclear weapons an their effects, however, your somewhat condescending response has caused me to do a quick study. You're right. From what I've read, fallout is a non issue when detonation occurs that high. Also, in order to achieve the EMP effect on the scale you are thinking of, you would have to go that high in the atmosphere. Too low to the ground and the process of "Compton scattering" cant run its full course, right?

I was not able to find any info on possible effects to the ozone layer of high altitude detonations. Do you know of any links?

 

[CheeZe]

As a Singaporean Chinese living in the US, I must say that this talk about China as the enemy has always been very... disconcerting for me.

I can understand the desire to compare military strengths on paper to satisfy nationalistic leanings. However, too much of it creates the illusion that China (or whoever else you choose to compare your own country to) is the enemy.

Living in the US, I've seen the general reaction in people when they hear something about China's military. China's military rise threatens the dominance of the US as the top global military power. However, China, as some seem to have hinted at, have a very limited power projection. Their military strength is limited to a regional level.

Having friends and relatives in Singapore and Hong Kong, I've also seen how the U.S. can viewed as the aggressor and a neo-Imperialist power. After all, as the proponents of "self-determination (a la Woodrow Wilson)," what right do the Americans have to tell Asian countries what they can or cannot do? I've heard that very question in Singapore. Of course, Wilson seemed to apply that only to western European/Caucasian nations and peoples. Else, by his doctrine, he would have helped Ho Chi Minh end French rule in, what was then, Indochina (and saved the US two decades of conflict in the region).

I've also heard some people opine that China's military power is all that ensures the independence of east Asian nations. Food for thought.

I further find it odd that, rather than attempt to improve relations and work through diplomacy (especially on issues like N. Korea), the US government seems to subtly promote the image of China as a threat. I do not have any sources on hand, but I have read enough articles quoting Pentagon spokespeople about how disturbed they are by China's increased military spending. I concede that the Chinese do need to be more transparent with their spending and intentions but at the same time, I trust their spending as much as I trust the US spending, which is exponentially greater.

As regards to each side being frosty towards the other, I believe that the US ought to be the first one to make a concession. The People's Republic takes more grievance with the US than the other way around, and is thus less likely to be open to taking that first step. So the US, as the one who is supposed to be more progressive, accepting and all-round nice guy, seems better suited to taking the lead on that matter.

Finally, I realize this has little to do with the original question of numbers in war. But, none of the recent posts seem related at all and I was interested to see how people would react to what I have said.

 

[rip]

As a Singaporean Chinese living in the US, I must say that this talk about China as the enemy has always been very... disconcerting for me.

I can understand the desire to compare military strengths on paper to satisfy nationalistic leanings. However, too much of it creates the illusion that China (or whoever else you choose to compare your own country to) is the enemy.

Living in the US, I've seen the general reaction in people when they hear something about China's military. China's military rise threatens the dominance of the US as the top global military power. However, China, as some seem to have hinted at, have a very limited power projection. Their military strength is limited to a regional level.

Having friends and relatives in Singapore and Hong Kong, I've also seen how the U.S. can viewed as the aggressor and a neo-Imperialist power. After all, as the proponents of "self-determination (a la Woodrow Wilson)," what right do the Americans have to tell Asian countries what they can or cannot do? I've heard that very question in Singapore. Of course, Wilson seemed to apply that only to western European/Caucasian nations and peoples. Else, by his doctrine, he would have helped Ho Chi Minh end French rule in, what was then, Indochina (and saved the US two decades of conflict in the region).

I've also heard some people opine that China's military power is all that ensures the independence of east Asian nations. Food for thought.

I further find it odd that, rather than attempt to improve relations and work through diplomacy (especially on issues like N. Korea), the US government seems to subtly promote the image of China as a threat. I do not have any sources on hand, but I have read enough articles quoting Pentagon spokespeople about how disturbed they are by China's increased military spending. I concede that the Chinese do need to be more transparent with their spending and intentions but at the same time, I trust their spending as much as I trust the US spending, which is exponentially greater.

As regards to each side being frosty towards the other, I believe that the US ought to be the first one to make a concession. The People's Republic takes more grievance with the US than the other way around, and is thus less likely to be open to taking that first step. So the US, as the one who is supposed to be more progressive, accepting and all-round nice guy, seems better suited to taking the lead on that matter.

Finally, I realize this has little to do with the original question of numbers in war. But, none of the recent posts seem related at all and I was interested to see how people would react to what I have said.

As an American I too am somewhat disturbed about the (us versus them mentality) that is all too common both in the USA and in China for I can see no reason how that it can help anything but for far different reasons than you do. I do not believe that physical conflict between the USA and China is destined to happen but the problems are very real and should concern all of us.

There is a great gulf that stands between the two of us that goes beyond the individual issues that have and will continue to come up between great powers which I think which in general are very solvable though some will be harder to solve than others.

The most important difference between the two of us is what China and the USA considers to be, the legitimate uses of power itself no matter how much you might have. Where power should be used and where it should not be used and for what reasons. It is sometimes like even when we do speak the same language at the same time the concepts are not transferred. Personably sometimes I feel like I am beating my head against a stone wall when I try to explain these differences.

From the USA ‘s point of view the problem is not that China will gain military and economic power in the world equal to its size and population but what it thinks it can then do with that power and what it thinks it has the right to do with it after it gains it.

It is a matter of the most valuable thing in the world that promotes and keeps world peace. It is about trust and though we hope for the best and have not given up hope that everything will in time work itself out satisfactory, China has a long way to go in earn our trust and the trust of many other‘s besides us.

I will use as just one example of our differences in the proper use of national power that is found within the concept of (a sphere of influence) but there are others. In the Chinese use of the concept, it goes far beyond having influence in other societies through the acceptable methods of sharing ideas, cultures, knowledge, fair and profitable trade and other types of cooperation between nations within a given region to include such addational things as having veto power over smaller and weaker nations both in their internal societal arrangements and in their relation with other nations.

The idea that China will dictate the relationship between the US and the other nations in Asia is and always will be completely unacceptable. To compete for influence through other methods than the use of threats is to be expected and in fact maybe beneficial for all the parties concerned in the long run but never by the use of coercion. The idea that the guy with the biggest stick gets to boss other people around is one whose time is pasted but the Chinese mind-set seems to have yet to catch up.

No we will not split the Pacific Ocean down the middle and then we then get the eastern half and China then gets the western half. It is not nor will it ever be ours nor is it China’s to ever divide. The very idea, if it was ecer again adopted would tear the world apart in ways the Chinese mind-set has not even considered and would be a disaster for us of all. And don't say that is not how many in China think. I know better.

 

[Feros Ferio]

As a Singaporean Chinese living in the US, I must say that this talk about China as the enemy has always been very... disconcerting for me.


Finally, I realize this has little to do with the original question of numbers in war. But, none of the recent posts seem related at all and I was interested to see how people would react to what I have said.

Hey Cheeze, to be honest, I was trying to tone down that aspect of the discussion. I believe if you look at my posts, I really was trying not to make it an us vs them sort of discussion. I don't want this to turn into a China bashing session either.

However, the use of nuclear weapons to create an EMP blast does have something to do with the discussion. If you go back and read the article I posted when I started the thread, the author of it claims that superior technology or no, numbers = victory. The use of EMP however could negate numbers to a great degree due to the world's increasing reliance on technology.

So lets steer this debate back on course shall we? What do you think about the original question posed? Can certain tech turn the balance in the favour of the smaller group?

 

[Feanor]

Can certain tech turn the balance in the favour of the smaller group?

Obviously the answer is yes. Just think back to the British in Africa, and the Maxim gun. It all depends on the circumstance.

 

[rip]

Hey Cheeze, to be honest, I was trying to tone down that aspect of the discussion. I believe if you look at my posts, I really was trying not to make it an us vs them sort of discussion. I don't want this to turn into a China bashing session either.

However, the use of nuclear weapons to create an EMP blast does have something to do with the discussion. If you go back and read the article I posted when I started the thread, the author of it claims that superior technology or no, numbers = victory. The use of EMP however could negate numbers to a great degree due to the world's increasing reliance on technology.

So lets steer this debate back on course shall we? What do you think about the original question posed? Can certain tech turn the balance in the favour of the smaller group?

The theoretical use of infrastructure weapons which do not kill very many people directly, reminds me of the Neutron bomb debates that once raged in Europe. Except it was the opposite story, neutron bombs killed people but left most of the infrastructure still in place and with far less radioactive debris to deal with.

EMP weapons that are not driven by nuclear bombs have effect only over very limited areas and we will, I am sure, see their use sometime in the future. But a nuclear driven EMP is an act of nuclear war, plain and simple, no matter where it goes off and as such is not useful. That is leaving aside the fact that it would wipe out far more satellites, everybody’s satellites, than anything else if detonated high in the atmosphere.

The destruction of life supporting infrastructure used as a strategy to subdue a people, is as old as the bible when the Roman’s poisoned the wells and laid sail into the Earth to subdue Israel. It is a strategy that may deserve a thread of its own but is tangential to the question of numbers.

 

[Richard45s]

The theoretical use of infrastructure weapons which do not kill very many people directly, reminds me of the Neutron bomb debates that once raged in Europe. Except it was the opposite story, neutron bombs killed people but left most of the infrastructure still in place and with far less radioactive debris to deal with.

EMP weapons that are not driven by nuclear bombs have effect only over very limited areas and we will, I am sure, see their use sometime in the future. But a nuclear driven EMP is an act of nuclear war, plain and simple, no matter where it goes off and as such is not useful. That is leaving aside the fact that it would wipe out far more satellites, everybody’s satellites, than anything else if detonated high in the atmosphere.

The destruction of life supporting infrastructure used as a strategy to subdue a people, is as old as the bible when the Roman’s poisoned the wells and laid sail into the Earth to subdue Israel. It is a strategy that may deserve a thread of its own but is tangential to the question of numbers.

Well I was going to shut up and let others chime in, but I think your post is deserving of a comment.

For starters your comparison to the Roman tactic of poisoning the wells and salting the earth bears little relation to the use of modern EMP. The Romans used these tactics AFTER the war to prevent conquered foes from rebuilding and presenting a new threat in the future, I’m talking about using EMP DURING a war. A more appropriate comparison from antiquity would be if the Gaul’s started blowing up Roman aqueducts to piss of the Roman senators who’s support was required for the war. Using EMP in the way I’m talking is about attacking the societal cohesion, and the modern economy that is necessary to support superior numbers. Also there is another substantial difference “destruction of life supporting infrastructure” EMP does not destroy life supporting infrastructure, it damages it. It is still there, it just has to be repaired.

I do agree the use of EMP on the scale I’m talking is an act of nuclear war, however I strongly disagree with the statement that this makes it of little value. The fact that you do implies that if you were running a country and it was EMPed you’d be ****** enough to respond with a nuclear strike on the opposing sides civilian population. Yes, you’ve been massively EMPed, it sucks but your entire civilian population is still alive. You may lose some while you ‘repair’ your economy, but most will survive. Inviting a nuclear strike on your civilians through a nuclear strike on their civilians would ensure that most will NOT survive and your country’s economy is destroyed. Germany never would have been able to rebuild to such an extent if WW1 had cost them substantial amounts of their civilian population. Also, this is not east vs west anymore, the world is becoming multipolar. Getting your country depopulated and your economy destroyed is just asking to become a ‘province’ of one of the other major powers down the road.

Now how does satellites even relate to this discussion? Lol, the EMP blast is not just going to magically go around the earth a few times, destroy all the satellites, then head out into space. Satellite damage will be a localized effect. If anything an EMP blast taking out satellites will only be a bonus. Bye bye military satellites, bye bye communication satellites. So what if they can’t watch the Simpsons after the war.

Now my favourite part of your post, neutron bombs. Yes, you remember the debates, but were you paying attention? Do you remember the part about the walking death? How you’d get an opposing army who will still be on their feet, but knows their end is coming? I’d hate to be on the defending side of people who know they are already dead. Likewise, unlike an EMP attack were you would only require a single optimized nuke, a neutron bomb attack would require many nukes to be retooled, unless of course your planning on using something the size of the Tsar bomba at full yield. My argument is about using EMP to destabilize an enemy’s economy to create massive unrest for the purpose of tying up its superior numbers through crowd control, and potentially even civil war. A neutron bomb attack fails to create this effect because the people, rather than being disrupted, are simply dead. Dead people don’t complain about food and water. Yes there will be causalities from an EMP attack, but you don’t need an EMP attack to create causalities. Plenty of Iraqi civilians died in our recent campaign there.

Thank you for your comment regarding my thoughts on EMP, however your points are only tangentially related to what I’m saying.

 

[My2Cents]

I do agree the use of EMP on the scale I’m talking is an act of nuclear war, however I strongly disagree with the statement that this makes it of little value. The fact that you do implies that if you were running a country and it was EMPed you’d be ****** enough to respond with a nuclear strike on the opposing sides civilian population. Yes, you’ve been massively EMPed, it sucks but your entire civilian population is still alive. You may lose some while you ‘repair’ your economy, but most will survive. Inviting a nuclear strike on your civilians through a nuclear strike on their civilians would ensure that most will NOT survive and your country’s economy is destroyed. Germany never would have been able to rebuild to such an extent if WW1 had cost them substantial amounts of their civilian population. Also, this is not east vs west anymore, the world is becoming multipolar. Getting your country depopulated and your economy destroyed is just asking to become a ‘province’ of one of the other major powers down the road.

No, they do not launch a nuclear strike on your cities, they launch a multiple nuke EMP attack on your country and those of your allies.

What is YOUR response going to be to having your entire economy coming to a halt?
What is the response of your population going to be to the results of your leadership decisions?

What do your allies do to you for getting them included in this tit-for-tat?
Did you consult with them and get their approval ahead of the decision to employ nuclear EMP as a weapon?

 

[rip]

Well I was going to shut up and let others chime in, but I think your post is deserving of a comment.

For starters your comparison to the Roman tactic of poisoning the wells and salting the earth bears little relation to the use of modern EMP. The Romans used these tactics AFTER the war to prevent conquered foes from rebuilding and presenting a new threat in the future, I’m talking about using EMP DURING a war. A more appropriate comparison from antiquity would be if the Gaul’s started blowing up Roman aqueducts to piss of the Roman senators who’s support was required for the war. Using EMP in the way I’m talking is about attacking the societal cohesion, and the modern economy that is necessary to support superior numbers. Also there is another substantial difference “destruction of life supporting infrastructure” EMP does not destroy life supporting infrastructure, it damages it. It is still there, it just has to be repaired.

I do agree the use of EMP on the scale I’m talking is an act of nuclear war, however I strongly disagree with the statement that this makes it of little value. The fact that you do implies that if you were running a country and it was EMPed you’d be ****** enough to respond with a nuclear strike on the opposing sides civilian population. Yes, you’ve been massively EMPed, it sucks but your entire civilian population is still alive. You may lose some while you ‘repair’ your economy, but most will survive. Inviting a nuclear strike on your civilians through a nuclear strike on their civilians would ensure that most will NOT survive and your country’s economy is destroyed. Germany never would have been able to rebuild to such an extent if WW1 had cost them substantial amounts of their civilian population. Also, this is not east vs west anymore, the world is becoming multipolar. Getting your country depopulated and your economy destroyed is just asking to become a ‘province’ of one of the other major powers down the road.

Now how does satellites even relate to this discussion? Lol, the EMP blast is not just going to magically go around the earth a few times, destroy all the satellites, then head out into space. Satellite damage will be a localized effect. If anything an EMP blast taking out satellites will only be a bonus. Bye bye military satellites, bye bye communication satellites. So what if they can’t watch the Simpsons after the war.

Now my favourite part of your post, neutron bombs. Yes, you remember the debates, but were you paying attention? Do you remember the part about the walking death? How you’d get an opposing army who will still be on their feet, but knows their end is coming? I’d hate to be on the defending side of people who know they are already dead. Likewise, unlike an EMP attack were you would only require a single optimized nuke, a neutron bomb attack would require many nukes to be retooled, unless of course your planning on using something the size of the Tsar bomba at full yield. My argument is about using EMP to destabilize an enemy’s economy to create massive unrest for the purpose of tying up its superior numbers through crowd control, and potentially even civil war. A neutron bomb attack fails to create this effect because the people, rather than being disrupted, are simply dead. Dead people don’t complain about food and water. Yes there will be causalities from an EMP attack, but you don’t need an EMP attack to create causalities. Plenty of Iraqi civilians died in our recent campaign there.

Thank you for your comment regarding my thoughts on EMP, however your points are only tangentially related to what I’m saying.

There is so much to address within your comments. Let us be real for a moment, any massive destruction of life supporting infrastructures within a highly populated highly urban society will cause a massive amounts of human deaths over time when the structures of that highly dependent society collapses. Can you grow your own food? I can’t.

I will specifically address only the single technical issue and that is the satellites, though there is much else that I disagree with. First I do not think you are completely aware of how dependent the world has become on its all of it satellite assets. Not just a few communication birds, but weather, intelligence gathering of all kinds that include missile launch detection, ocean surveillance, ground imagery and so many others uses not only belonging to your opponent and to yourself, but all the other nations on the earth you would hope would remain neutral and not then then go against you for destroying their infrastructures.

Any Nuclear driven EMP of sufficient power to take out a large part of a large nation’s infrastructure would have to be both powerful and detonated high in the atmosphere, both to reduce ground effect of the nuclear blast making it an EMP weapon and not just a nuclear bomb with EMP side effects and to also cover a large area. Most of that energy would go outwards into space where it will travel unimpeded.

I do not know how up you are on the effects of nuclear explosions in space but without an atmosphere to absorb them the greatest effect in space form a nuclear detonation is not EMP but that of neutron bombardment. Fast Neutrons are far more destructive to satellites and to everything else, than is EMP. One large nuclear detonation above most of the atmosphere would take off line almost one third of the satellites in orbit. Some of those bird could be restarted in time but many could not.

 

[Richard45s]

There is so much to address within your comments. Let us be real for a moment, any massive destruction of life supporting infrastructures within a highly populated highly urban society will cause a massive amounts of human deaths over time when the structures of that highly dependent society collapses. Can you grow your own food? I can’t.

I will specifically address only the single technical issue and that is the satellites, though there is much else that I disagree with. First I do not think you are completely aware of how dependent the world has become on its all of it satellite assets. Not just a few communication birds, but weather, intelligence gathering of all kinds that include missile launch detection, ocean surveillance, ground imagery and so many others uses not only belonging to your opponent and to yourself, but all the other nations on the earth you would hope would remain neutral and not then then go against you for destroying their infrastructures.

Any Nuclear driven EMP of sufficient power to take out a large part of a large nation’s infrastructure would have to be both powerful and detonated high in the atmosphere, both to reduce ground effect of the nuclear blast making it an EMP weapon and not just a nuclear bomb with EMP side effects and to also cover a large area. Most of that energy would go outwards into space where it will travel unimpeded.

I do not know how up you are on the effects of nuclear explosions in space but without an atmosphere to absorb them the greatest effect in space form a nuclear detonation is not EMP but that of neutron bombardment. Fast Neutrons are far more destructive to satellites and to everything else, than is EMP. One large nuclear detonation above most of the atmosphere would take off line almost one third of the satellites in orbit. Some of those bird could be restarted in time but many could not.

Well, as much as I’d like to ‘address’ the lobbyist from the People for the Ethical Treatment of Satellites Society, it’s time to close my participation in this thread and let others bring it back to what it was meant to be.

 

[Bonza]

Well, as much as I’d like to ‘address’ the lobbyist from the People for the Ethical Treatment of Satellites Society, it’s time to close my participation in this thread and let others bring it back to what it was meant to be.

Maybe that's for the best if you're going to start being a smart-arse with other posters when they disagree with you.

 

[kwaigonegin]

I would certainly hope numbers isn't the case. Otherwise various countries that rely on a tech and training advantage should just give up. It is more about the commander, his troops and their morale. One lion is stronger than a thousand mice.

Depending on the situation I may have to disagree with your analogy. In a small enclose space I would say 1000 aggressive rats can easily overwhelm and ultimately kill the lion.

 

[Feanor]

Depending on the situation I may have to disagree with your analogy. In a small enclose space I would say 1000 aggressive rats can easily overwhelm and ultimately kill the lion.

Lions don't have machine guns.

Or aerosolized rat poison.

 

[My2Cents]

Lions don't have machine guns.

Or aerosolized rat poison.

Fine, shoot the rat that is running up inside your pant leg. You know, the one that made you take a deep breath :drunk to yell when it bit you.

Now stop turning green and stand up on your 2 feet . . . er, foot . . . whatever. . . :hul

 

[Feanor]

Lions also don't hav MOPP gear, or an understanding of geometry of fire. In fact lions are pretty much not intelligent creatures like ourselves. Hence why they have serious trouble managing rats in a confined environment.

 

[Sampanviking]

The notion that any large, populous and reasonably developed nation can somehow be stopped dead in its tracks by a single weapon event is utterly ludicrous.

The most any such thing would do is p*** them off royally and generate a level of response that nobody would find "comfortable".

In this situation I believe a version of an old adage; originally created to help modify adolescent behaviour, definitely applies.

"Nobody can stop you from doing something stupid if you really want to do it, they can however make you wish you hadn't !"

 

[rip]

I am sure that any known or adequately pre-conceived threat based solely upon numbers can be neutralized with a technological solution. But just because one group of people may not be as technologically advanced as the other, doesn’t mean that they cannot be very cleaver in other ways.

Tactics and strategy count even more. The assumption we have been working on up to now is that the numerically superior side is at best only equally as smart in everything else needed to win a war or probably less smart, than the smaller sized but technology superior force.

I think as I stated before it’s the ability to choose the battle space that makes the difference but another question that must be asked can the smaller but technology superior side always anticipate every trick the other side might come up with? Maybe or maybe not.