Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Fighting the Capitalists Weapons

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1151
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Jan 2007, 19:56
Party Member
Post 13 Jun 2007, 02:24
The development of weapons used by capitalist nations is increasing everyday the earn experiance testing and deploying highly developed weapons of keeping the burgeoisie in power. How would a guerilla revolution fare against these weapons and at what point are we going to stop these weapons in their tracks and start a revolution?
Image

Don't Worry I'm Not Banned!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 355
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Apr 2007, 07:56
Komsomol
Post 13 Jun 2007, 04:42
wow, are you a complete retard or are you trolling, the weapons are not being made to just keep burgeoisie in power but for a number of reasons not just for ideological purposes .. ex: national security etc... Weapons dont make the battle, you have to take into the account the strength of the opposing sides, environment ... jungle, urban, and situation, just take into account nazi germany vs ussr, germans had way better technologicaly advanced weaponary but the environment played a significant role. you wont win a revolution by just stopping the production of weapons.

A man does not fight for a half pence a day or for a petty distinction, you must reach the soul in order to electrify him.
Never trust a computer you cant throw out a window.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1151
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Jan 2007, 19:56
Party Member
Post 13 Jun 2007, 14:59
Well at least I'm not a flamer. Anyways you may hype up all your troops but how are you going to combat superweapons that can kill from thousands of miles? Surely any revolution should start in an urban environment. Urban warfare allows you to cover under anything and you can destroy many buildings with one air raid.
Image

Don't Worry I'm Not Banned!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2510
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Feb 2004, 20:50
Party Bureaucrat
Post 13 Jun 2007, 15:45
You should read books about modern warfare and perhaps on ancient/medieval warfare in order to get basic knowledge on the matter.

Quote:
Urban warfare allows you to cover under anything and you can destroy many buildings with one air raid.


You just can say things like this. Urban warfare follows rules just like any other form of warfare. It depends on many variables. It is very complex and you really should look that up, because to be honest, I just do not understand what you want.
Image

Ya Basta!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1175
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Jun 2006, 06:00
Party Member
Post 29 Jun 2007, 02:05
Quote:
How would a guerilla revolution fare against these weapons and at what point are we going to stop these weapons in their tracks and start a revolution?


Its nearly a golden Guerilla rule that you use the weapons of your enemy, as your not going to get arms of any other kind. So technically, your not going to "stop the weapons in their tracks"... you are going to utalize them for your own liberation war.
Image

"What has 1 year of Capitalism achieved that 70 years of Communism could not? It has made Communism look good" - Russian joke, 1993.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 198
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 15 May 2007, 22:05
Unperson
Post 05 Jul 2007, 22:39
Quote:
Its nearly a golden Guerilla rule that you use the weapons of your enemy, as your not going to get arms of any other kind. So technically, your not going to "stop the weapons in their tracks"... you are going to utalize them for your own liberation war.


He is right.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2693
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2006, 08:59
Party Bureaucrat
Post 06 Jul 2007, 00:33
I suggest investigating the American revolutionary war, Algerian war of independence, the Vietnam war, and of course, the current Iraq war, which are all examples of highly outnumbered and technically outclassed indigenous forces ultimately defeated occupying colonial armies. Then there is this guy - he had a few ideas about that particular problem.
Image

"To know a thing you must study it." --Dagoth Ur
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 716
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2007, 23:25
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 01 Apr 2008, 09:42
The key of guerilla warfare is that you attack quickly and unexpectedly, kill a few enemies, an disappear as quickly as you have come. You need many hideouts in woods, deserted places, or at best onder the ground.
Against guerilla warfare, weapons of mass destruction are useless. The enemy can't throw nukes at you if he doesn't know where you are. And furthermore, a nucleair, chemical or biological weapon is not a useful tool to get more supporters.If the USA uses a nuke one time, support will drop dramatically. Even the chief of staff of the American army knows that. It's officially and internaationally forbidden to use biological, chemical and I think also nuclair weapons.
The terrifying napalm and Agent Orange didn't help the Americans win the Vietnam war.
Image

"Communism is more about love for mankind than about politics."
Me
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jan 2008, 18:35
Komsomol
Post 01 Apr 2008, 12:56
To effectively use guerilla warfare one must know the terrain. In this sense, one would most likely wage it in their own country. By doing this, it deeply hampers the government's usual method of waging war.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 01 Apr 2008, 22:33
Proper guerilla warfare requires a professional force. Otherwise you have almost no chance, since most of the world's major armies have sizeable dedicated COIN forces at this point.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10805
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 01 Apr 2008, 23:21
The military stops lisening to the bourgeois.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jan 2008, 18:35
Komsomol
Post 02 Apr 2008, 03:41
Quote:
Proper guerilla warfare requires a professional force. Otherwise you have almost no chance, since most of the world's major armies have sizeable dedicated COIN forces at this point.


That's why in guerilla warfare, the guerillas are almost always backed by a foreign power. The force itself need not to consist entirely of professional soldiers, though it would be wise to have some. Another important factor of guerilla warfare is movement, this needs great discipline to pull off.
Last edited by Lensky1917 on 02 Apr 2008, 12:29, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 02 Apr 2008, 08:04
Bullseye. Without foreign support it's almost impossible for guerilla troops to defeat a modern properly trained COIN force.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 02 Apr 2008, 10:58
If you are talking about a revolution, there is one thing that is far more important than foreign backing, that is popular support, for it to have any chance, a guerrilla war has to be a people's war, a war that suits the interest of the people and is supported by the people, regardless how professional an enemy's COIN force is or how advanced his weapons are, he is not going to win if he is fighting against an entire or at least a large part of the population. In order to do that, you will have to show the people that you are a far better alternative to the current regime, so, at the early stage, fighting is only second to politics, and once you build up some strength and base of operations, then you will have to defeat the enemy militarily to show the world that you can win.

Remember, no one will bet on the losing team, in order to gain foreign support, it is important to show the world that you won't be annihilated anytime soon and you are capable of winning the war.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 03 Apr 2008, 04:16
The simple truth is that an American force could win a people's war against a determined guerilla resistance, by simply stacking up bodies until there's no one left capable or willing to fight. They can also close the borders and prevent any weapons from entering the country. Finally, provided they have boots on the ground, they can establish a firm presence throughout the country. The simple truth is that if the political will is there, they can massacre the entire combat age population of the country.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3873
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 03 Apr 2008, 04:29
Really? then why haven't they done that in Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua or Irak?
Politics aren't that simple


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 03 Apr 2008, 05:18
Notice the "If the political will is there" part? I'm speaking purely in terms of military capability. Politics is a whole other level.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 03 Apr 2008, 05:22
Quote:
The simple truth is that an American force could win a people's war against a determined guerilla resistance, by simply stacking up bodies until there's no one left capable or willing to fight. They can also close the borders and prevent any weapons from entering the country. Finally, provided they have boots on the ground, they can establish a firm presence throughout the country. The simple truth is that if the political will is there, they can massacre the entire combat age population of the country.

==So why didn't the Americans do that in Vietnam or in Iraq?

It's no longer the days of Genghis Khan, it is extremely difficult to convince the international community or even your own supporters that wiping out a significant part of a population is a good thing to do, it it has the potential to turn everyone against you, which in turn will translate into huge financial and political losses.

War is far more than just killing, participants of wars always face many political, economic and diplomatic constraints that prevent them to fight the war the way they wanted.

Quote:
Notice the "If the political will is there" part? I'm speaking purely in terms of military capability. Politics is a whole other level.

==But war is an extension of politics, there can be no war with out politics, and many wars have been won in the political arena rather than on the battle field.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 03 Apr 2008, 08:47
I prefer to distinguish between war and politics for simplicities sake. Naturally wars can be and have been won in the political arena. But from a purely military standpoint major foreign assistance is not just desirable, it's vital.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 831
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 03 Apr 2008, 20:50
There hasn't been a major guerrilla war in the 1st world since the American Revolution, so its hard to say.

But if a revolutionary force had the support of the people, tanks and aircraft would not prove as effective. You can't blitzkrieg territory you already control.

The Iraqi insurgency is of far less quality than the Vietcong, yet they are holding out against the US Army which has improved by leaps since the 1960s.

Even in the USA during urban riots, the government often is forced to abandon the streets to rioters.
Kamran Heiss
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.