![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
|
Wasn't it an outstanding example of asymmetrical warfare? The most powerful army in the world with the backup up the local goverment all all major western military powers against a often poorly armed, politically, organically and military outlawed force of revolutionary dissidents/insurgents? Besides that ones used conventional full-scale warfare and razing, and the others rainforest guerrilla tactics... If that is not asymmetrical, then what is? -- 190.174.67.86 ( talk) 08:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
that kind of buys the romantic "Revolutionary War Minutemen" view of the war and misses the point that the NVA was a conventional army and that some of the battles were much more stand up fights (Ia Drang Valley, Hue, Khe Sanh etc) than guerilla warfare — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.107.238 ( talk) 20:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I've started rewriting to remove some of the pov and plan to start finding sources. Everyone is welcome to join in on the fun! – Dreadstar † 08:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The section about Iran should be removed, last time I checked it was 2008 and no one was in Iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.115.68.21 ( talk) 14:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This article skips over the American revolution entirely, THE asymmetric war that set the standard for all asymmetric wars, Missing. Why? PiAndWhippedCream 06:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The new section that addresses the American Revolution references the movie, 'The Patriot', in its' depiction of retribution massacres, and such massacres being creative license. Not entirely; there are apocryphal reports that certain dragoons DID engage in brutality. Also, the church-burning scene was deliberately intended to evoke the memory of the Waco Massacre in the minds of 'modern patriots'. 68.58.152.113 ( talk) 18:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I removed the reference to the American film "the Patriot" altogether. There may be a reasonable way to mention the movie, but the article reads like an opinion piece in a magazine rather than an encyclopaedia's article on the subject of the American Revolution. 173.168.230.101 ( talk) 03:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I went to check the second footnote, which appears after the author's description of Parthia's defeat of the Seleucid empire, and found an article that said nothing about Parthia. Though the article linked (and analysis of asymmetric warfare, with a great comparison of the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest to Chechen/Russian conflict) is great and I highly recommend it to anybody, I was really looking forward to a similar analysis of the Parthians' conflict with the Seleucid empire. If the original author is still around, please, please, PRETTY PLEASE post that article! :)
And while I would not say that the American Revolution set the standard for all such conflicts, it definitely deserves mention in an article about asymmetric warfare.
Timfever 05:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I admit I'm no scholar in this field, but shouldn't the Battle of Thermopylae get some mention? 75.18.20.150 ( talk) 07:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a speculative section be in order, e.g. 'asymmetric warfare in the 21st century', given that various experts have stated that in the event of a short war between China and the US over Taiwan, China would: 1) utilize asymmetric tactics against the US to take advantage of the (over)reliance on electronics, either in battle or against non-military targets in the US via hacking and related activities, and 2) capitalize on the US dependence on satellites via land-based attacks on US satellites. Recall the recent testing of a Chinese anti-satellite weapon (used I think, in this case, against one of their own weather satellites). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.230.216 ( talk) 03:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
"Of all the proxy wars fought by the USA against the USSR during the Cold War this was the most cost effective and politically successful, as it was the USSR's most humiliating military defeat, and that defeat was a contributing factor to the implosion of the Soviet Union."
Hahaha when Americans withdraw their troops from Iraq, dont forget to call it the America's most humiliating defeat!!!!
FYI, a list of sources on this subject can be found here: [1]. Cla68 ( talk) 03:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The citation of the Battle of Agincourt requires further consideration. After review of the "Battle of Agincourt" page it seems that use of the English longbow was not critical in the discourse of the battle. Perhaps citation of the use of palings in this battle (although circumstantial as well) would better satisfy the epistemological integrity sought by the authors. Flux ( talk) 07:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I've also read that the muddy, uneven terrain contributed more to the English victory than anything else —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.3.37.178 ( talk) 08:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Longbow fire--although not very effective against the plate armored knights in the French vanguard--worked reasonably well against the French knights' horses and the common soldiery at Agincourt. But the main reason the English longbowmen were so effective in the battle had nothing to do with the longbow itself. It was more that, as unarmored forces, they were capable of engaging in the melee relatively unencumbered, whereas the French forces were exhausted from attacking on foot across muddy terrain. The superior numbers of the French also worked severely in their disfavor in the actual fighting, since the French were so closely hemmed in that soldiers at the fore were trapped in place by those in the rear ranks, allowing the longbowmen to carve them up with swords and hatchets. So Agincourt might be used in the article as an example of superior terrain, but the emphasis of the longbow's technological superiority is historically incorrect and needs to go. JoomTory ( talk) 16:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Was the author perhaps thinking of Crecy earlier in the Hundred Years War? Similarly the English were outnumbered, and won with longbow tactics to break conventional heavy cavalry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.195.70 ( talk) 23:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what he was thinking--Agincourt being as decisive a battle as it was, there are plenty of popular myths that have sprung up around it, and the misconception about the longbow's significance is a widespread one. Fortunately, it doesn't matter, because the Battle of Crécy you mention is just a much, much better example. I'm changing the article to use that instead; feel free to update it if you come up with an even better example. JoomTory ( talk) 08:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
That paragraph is ridiculous. Three people committing suicide is not warfare, assymetric or of any other type. It must be removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbastos7 ( talk • contribs) 00:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Quote: "The Palestinians deploy their forces inside civilian areas in an attempt to prevent Israel from responding with conventional forces and tactics. Israel tends to use focused targeting tactics, including intelligence-based assassinations of individual leaders, and assigns the responsibility for any resulting civilian casualties to Palestinian forces for their use of human shielding"
Their is an obvious bias in this section. This is not a place to display propagendas. give a reference. one that is neutral like the UN reports-- SHAHINOVE ( talk) 15:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
It was a major effort from the Muslim world. The cost for them was far higher then the US. Also they sent volunteers. It also included a substantial Israeli commitment.
This all should be written into it.
Nor am I happy with it being called tactically secret. It was not plausible denial is probably a better description.
Also I am not sure from the US point of view it was the highest cost/benefit. Many proxy battles costed the US less and were also successful. Could you please come up with some facts to backup this statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reargun ( talk • contribs) 09:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
"Abd el-Krim led resistance in Morocco from 1920 to 1924 against French and Spanish colonial armies ten times as strong as the guerilla force, led by General Philippe Pétain." I was under the impression that Petain was leading a conventional army, but perhaps I was wrong. (Two 'r's in guerrilla, by the way). PiCo ( talk) 07:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be at least one verifiable source for such bold claims? I'm deleting that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.65.19 ( talk) 09:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
"For a more comprehensive listing, including outcomes, see Arreguin-Toft." [1]
This text is not informative, within the text of the article.
Perhaps this book should be mentioned in the Literature-section. If someone wants to do that, I have no misgivings.-- 80.203.102.99 ( talk) 06:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The article does NOT mention the attack on the modern Destroyer Ship USS Cole, where a comparatively large Destroyer was heavily damaged by a small boat full of explosives, a rudimentary vessel in comparison. Very Assymetric losses of 17 death and 39 wounded against tow to three attackers is a good example of an "assymmetric warfare". There is a link to the attack in Wikipedia detailing it. Another example is the complete destruction of heavily armed "Humvee" type vehicles with improvised explosive devices IED's, much less costly but effective. amclaussen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.180.20 ( talk) 17:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
This is copied from the article
... Since 1950, however, weak actors have won a majority of all asymmetric conflicts.
Advancements in this type of warfare have been dramatically amplified with the evolution of advanced weaponry. The perpetual evolutionary arms race has made industrialized countries incredibly advanced in comparison to primitive nations. This has given those advanced countries huge advantages in asymmetric warfare.
The first sentence above and the paragraph after it can not be both correct. The two juxtaposed together exhibit the worst type of example of the Wikipedia tendency towards " a camel is a horse designed by a committee".
Also "industrialized countries" and "primitive nations" is not the best wording. Many developed counties have less of their GDP in the industrial section than they did 30 years ago and bigger service sectors, so "industrialized countries" is misleading. Developed and underdeveloped are better adjectives than industrialized and primitive.
-- PBS ( talk) 16:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Pentagon Tries to Counter Cheap, Potent Weapons by Thom Shanker published January 9, 2012; excerpt "... the use of inexpensive weapons like mines and cyberattacks that aim not to defeat the American military in battle but to keep it at a distance."
99.181.131.214 ( talk) 01:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Asymmetric warfare can not be reduced to the fact that one party has advanced technologies and the other party does not, or to a significant numerical advantage over the other party to the conflict. Asymmetry does not mean a disproportionate difference of potential, but the clash of two different types of organizations, ways of thinking, and even ways of life. -- Matrek ( talk) 00:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Due to the edit war this article is currently experiencing, it is a good idea to start a section for this on the talk page.
Those who keep removing this section from the article, why do you say it is irrelevant? The suspect declared "asymmetric warfare" in his manifesto and his actions provide an example of what it is. Warfare is not just instigated my an group of people, it can also be done by an individual as well. Until someone can clearly explain why this section does not belong, I will work to make sure that it stays, because I(among the many others editing) feel that it is completely relevant.
Susanknowledgeguru ( talk) 23:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
In regard to the content of the article I feel that it is completely relevant. First of all the article for the 2013 Southern California shootings has a link to this article. That is what made me choose to add this section in the first place. No one has claimed that what the suspect in these shootings did is in fact asymmetric warfare. If you use such a narrow definition as you are using, I could make an argument to delete several other sections as well. This article isn't just about people/nations who have been involved in asymmetric warfare. It also is about putting meaning behind the phrase and providing context for it. Anyhow the suspect in these shooting did execute asymmetric warfare. The fact that he randomly attacked cops who were not expecting or ready for it gave him a huge power advantage over them. How else could he have killed several before his death? Susanknowledgeguru ( talk) 00:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, it is absurd to include Dorner's fulmination in this article on asymetric warfare. The "2013 Southern California Shootings" section should be deleted.-- Other Choices ( talk) 06:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
To anyone reading concerned about the section "2013 Southern California Shootings", my apologies for letting things escalate out of control. I should not have undid deletions that several users made, without going to the talk page right way. I will not engage in any more name calling or any such behavior, and I expect other users to extend the same courtesy. I should have stated my case clearly from the beginning for the inclusion of this section. I want to now make my case for the inclusion of this section in the article. I have done so previously, but probably not as well as I should have.
The term "Asymmetric Warfare" is defined on the page as "war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly". Belligerent is defined as an "individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat". These definitions are taken from the respective Wikipedia pages. No doubt, Christopher Dorner and the LAPD were engaged in combat with each other. A key point about Asymmetric Warfare is that the two parties involved either have unequal military power or have significantly different strategies and tactics. Christopher Dorner was an ex-LAPD officer, so he was well aware of their strategies and tactics. Also, before anything happened, I am sure that he was aware that the ensuing combat would be him against thousands of other officers.
I believe that what happened with Dorner was in fact Asymmetrical Warfare, because 1) The was a great power imbalance between him and the LAPD (as well as other law enforcement agencies involved), and 2) He used vastly different tactics than the LAPD(and law enforcement in general), mainly through surprise attacks. I think that is a pretty strong case for why Christopher Dorner's actions were Asymmetric Warfare, but nonetheless, if the majority feels that what he did does not satisfy the criteria, it might be good to still have this section and at least state Dorner claimed that he would execute Asymmetric Warfare. The term I think is unfamiliar to many people, so it is good to provide examples of how a term is used, not just historically but in the modern day as well. I think that while it's debatable whether or not Dorner's actions were Asymmetric Warfare, it certainly satisfies enough criteria to deserve serious consideration. Hope this explanation help clarify my thoughts behind why I added this section. Susanknowledgeguru ( talk) 19:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
On second thought, since no one has yet to agree with my position, I think it would be best if someone were to delete the section on Christopher Dorner when the article is unlocked. That seems to be the general consensus here and while I do not agree with the reasoning, think it would be best to just let it go for now. Until I see more people who agree with my position on the talk page, I will assume in good faith that the article is best as-is(without Christopher Dorner section), and I will refrain from editing it in any way. I would also recommend that maybe all the back and forth on the talk page for this section be removed(I don't want to be the one to do it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanknowledgeguru ( talk • contribs) 01:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think that the Vitnam war deserves a significant mention on the page,specifically in the Examples section. It is a perhaps the most significant example of a small country fighting a more powerful country to a standstill,mostly using asymmetrical tactics.I see this is mentioned above,but without any significant objections. Rwenonah ( talk) 21:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Asymmetric warfare was used significantly by the Vietcong during the Vietnam War. Vietcong forces used guerrilla tactics against superior American forces to considerable effect,enabling them to launch hit-and-run attacks,then disappear into the South Vietnamese countryside. The text added could go like that,and be headed "Vietnam War"(duh). Rwenonah ( talk) 22:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
a) When Southern California Shootings has an entire section,there is precedent to give every tiny military encounter containing even a mention of asymmetric warfare a section on the page,let alone a conflict as major as the Vietnam war. It seems to deserve a subsection to itself. b)About three-quarters of the examples section has no citations. c)I never referred to the Vietnam People's Army,and it made a smaller contribution to the war than the Viet Cong anyway. I'll try to find some citations. Rwenonah ( talk) 20:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. I have been adding references to topics my supervisor (T.V. Paul) has written extensively on. Asymmetric warfare is one of them. I will not add any of his argument here or try to sell what he is doing. I just want to provide the reference for further reading. Is that ok? I received a warning about that (I am very new to the editing business here) and I want to do things right in the future. Thank you! Coercive Diplomacy ( talk) 01:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I added one reference to the further reading section this morning (Complex Deterrence). I am the student of one of the author, T.V. Paul. I will not add summaries anymore as it was mentioned to me it may be a conflict of interest. Simply adding books or articles (in this case one) that are of relevance to the topic. Is that ok? Thank you! Coercive Diplomacy ( talk) 02:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
By the definition of partisan (in the article of that namej, the word is used incorrectly in the section about the American Revolution:“The return of the British force to Boston … was subject to constant skirmishing, using partisan forces…” The definition is given as: “A partisan is a member of an irregular military force formed to oppose control of an area by a foreign power or by an army of occupation …” Despite the propagandists efforts to portray the British as a foreign power or an occupying army, they were not, at least until the treaty creating the United States and certainly before the Declaration of Independence. They were the legitimate authority in the colonies. Consequently those who opposed them were rebels rather than partisans. Nevertheless, I anticipate some resistance to calling them rebels. Moreover, the definition of partisan is debatable. (See the talk page of the article Partisan, under the topics “terminology” and “etymology”.) Therefore I have changed it to the accepted “Patriots.” Humphrey Tribble ( talk) 05:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
|
Wasn't it an outstanding example of asymmetrical warfare? The most powerful army in the world with the backup up the local goverment all all major western military powers against a often poorly armed, politically, organically and military outlawed force of revolutionary dissidents/insurgents? Besides that ones used conventional full-scale warfare and razing, and the others rainforest guerrilla tactics... If that is not asymmetrical, then what is? -- 190.174.67.86 ( talk) 08:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
that kind of buys the romantic "Revolutionary War Minutemen" view of the war and misses the point that the NVA was a conventional army and that some of the battles were much more stand up fights (Ia Drang Valley, Hue, Khe Sanh etc) than guerilla warfare — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.107.238 ( talk) 20:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I've started rewriting to remove some of the pov and plan to start finding sources. Everyone is welcome to join in on the fun! – Dreadstar † 08:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The section about Iran should be removed, last time I checked it was 2008 and no one was in Iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.115.68.21 ( talk) 14:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This article skips over the American revolution entirely, THE asymmetric war that set the standard for all asymmetric wars, Missing. Why? PiAndWhippedCream 06:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The new section that addresses the American Revolution references the movie, 'The Patriot', in its' depiction of retribution massacres, and such massacres being creative license. Not entirely; there are apocryphal reports that certain dragoons DID engage in brutality. Also, the church-burning scene was deliberately intended to evoke the memory of the Waco Massacre in the minds of 'modern patriots'. 68.58.152.113 ( talk) 18:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I removed the reference to the American film "the Patriot" altogether. There may be a reasonable way to mention the movie, but the article reads like an opinion piece in a magazine rather than an encyclopaedia's article on the subject of the American Revolution. 173.168.230.101 ( talk) 03:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I went to check the second footnote, which appears after the author's description of Parthia's defeat of the Seleucid empire, and found an article that said nothing about Parthia. Though the article linked (and analysis of asymmetric warfare, with a great comparison of the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest to Chechen/Russian conflict) is great and I highly recommend it to anybody, I was really looking forward to a similar analysis of the Parthians' conflict with the Seleucid empire. If the original author is still around, please, please, PRETTY PLEASE post that article! :)
And while I would not say that the American Revolution set the standard for all such conflicts, it definitely deserves mention in an article about asymmetric warfare.
Timfever 05:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I admit I'm no scholar in this field, but shouldn't the Battle of Thermopylae get some mention? 75.18.20.150 ( talk) 07:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a speculative section be in order, e.g. 'asymmetric warfare in the 21st century', given that various experts have stated that in the event of a short war between China and the US over Taiwan, China would: 1) utilize asymmetric tactics against the US to take advantage of the (over)reliance on electronics, either in battle or against non-military targets in the US via hacking and related activities, and 2) capitalize on the US dependence on satellites via land-based attacks on US satellites. Recall the recent testing of a Chinese anti-satellite weapon (used I think, in this case, against one of their own weather satellites). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.230.216 ( talk) 03:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
"Of all the proxy wars fought by the USA against the USSR during the Cold War this was the most cost effective and politically successful, as it was the USSR's most humiliating military defeat, and that defeat was a contributing factor to the implosion of the Soviet Union."
Hahaha when Americans withdraw their troops from Iraq, dont forget to call it the America's most humiliating defeat!!!!
FYI, a list of sources on this subject can be found here: [1]. Cla68 ( talk) 03:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The citation of the Battle of Agincourt requires further consideration. After review of the "Battle of Agincourt" page it seems that use of the English longbow was not critical in the discourse of the battle. Perhaps citation of the use of palings in this battle (although circumstantial as well) would better satisfy the epistemological integrity sought by the authors. Flux ( talk) 07:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I've also read that the muddy, uneven terrain contributed more to the English victory than anything else —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.3.37.178 ( talk) 08:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Longbow fire--although not very effective against the plate armored knights in the French vanguard--worked reasonably well against the French knights' horses and the common soldiery at Agincourt. But the main reason the English longbowmen were so effective in the battle had nothing to do with the longbow itself. It was more that, as unarmored forces, they were capable of engaging in the melee relatively unencumbered, whereas the French forces were exhausted from attacking on foot across muddy terrain. The superior numbers of the French also worked severely in their disfavor in the actual fighting, since the French were so closely hemmed in that soldiers at the fore were trapped in place by those in the rear ranks, allowing the longbowmen to carve them up with swords and hatchets. So Agincourt might be used in the article as an example of superior terrain, but the emphasis of the longbow's technological superiority is historically incorrect and needs to go. JoomTory ( talk) 16:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Was the author perhaps thinking of Crecy earlier in the Hundred Years War? Similarly the English were outnumbered, and won with longbow tactics to break conventional heavy cavalry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.195.70 ( talk) 23:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what he was thinking--Agincourt being as decisive a battle as it was, there are plenty of popular myths that have sprung up around it, and the misconception about the longbow's significance is a widespread one. Fortunately, it doesn't matter, because the Battle of Crécy you mention is just a much, much better example. I'm changing the article to use that instead; feel free to update it if you come up with an even better example. JoomTory ( talk) 08:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
That paragraph is ridiculous. Three people committing suicide is not warfare, assymetric or of any other type. It must be removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbastos7 ( talk • contribs) 00:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Quote: "The Palestinians deploy their forces inside civilian areas in an attempt to prevent Israel from responding with conventional forces and tactics. Israel tends to use focused targeting tactics, including intelligence-based assassinations of individual leaders, and assigns the responsibility for any resulting civilian casualties to Palestinian forces for their use of human shielding"
Their is an obvious bias in this section. This is not a place to display propagendas. give a reference. one that is neutral like the UN reports-- SHAHINOVE ( talk) 15:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
It was a major effort from the Muslim world. The cost for them was far higher then the US. Also they sent volunteers. It also included a substantial Israeli commitment.
This all should be written into it.
Nor am I happy with it being called tactically secret. It was not plausible denial is probably a better description.
Also I am not sure from the US point of view it was the highest cost/benefit. Many proxy battles costed the US less and were also successful. Could you please come up with some facts to backup this statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reargun ( talk • contribs) 09:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
"Abd el-Krim led resistance in Morocco from 1920 to 1924 against French and Spanish colonial armies ten times as strong as the guerilla force, led by General Philippe Pétain." I was under the impression that Petain was leading a conventional army, but perhaps I was wrong. (Two 'r's in guerrilla, by the way). PiCo ( talk) 07:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be at least one verifiable source for such bold claims? I'm deleting that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.65.19 ( talk) 09:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
"For a more comprehensive listing, including outcomes, see Arreguin-Toft." [1]
This text is not informative, within the text of the article.
Perhaps this book should be mentioned in the Literature-section. If someone wants to do that, I have no misgivings.-- 80.203.102.99 ( talk) 06:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The article does NOT mention the attack on the modern Destroyer Ship USS Cole, where a comparatively large Destroyer was heavily damaged by a small boat full of explosives, a rudimentary vessel in comparison. Very Assymetric losses of 17 death and 39 wounded against tow to three attackers is a good example of an "assymmetric warfare". There is a link to the attack in Wikipedia detailing it. Another example is the complete destruction of heavily armed "Humvee" type vehicles with improvised explosive devices IED's, much less costly but effective. amclaussen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.180.20 ( talk) 17:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
This is copied from the article
... Since 1950, however, weak actors have won a majority of all asymmetric conflicts.
Advancements in this type of warfare have been dramatically amplified with the evolution of advanced weaponry. The perpetual evolutionary arms race has made industrialized countries incredibly advanced in comparison to primitive nations. This has given those advanced countries huge advantages in asymmetric warfare.
The first sentence above and the paragraph after it can not be both correct. The two juxtaposed together exhibit the worst type of example of the Wikipedia tendency towards " a camel is a horse designed by a committee".
Also "industrialized countries" and "primitive nations" is not the best wording. Many developed counties have less of their GDP in the industrial section than they did 30 years ago and bigger service sectors, so "industrialized countries" is misleading. Developed and underdeveloped are better adjectives than industrialized and primitive.
-- PBS ( talk) 16:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Pentagon Tries to Counter Cheap, Potent Weapons by Thom Shanker published January 9, 2012; excerpt "... the use of inexpensive weapons like mines and cyberattacks that aim not to defeat the American military in battle but to keep it at a distance."
99.181.131.214 ( talk) 01:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Asymmetric warfare can not be reduced to the fact that one party has advanced technologies and the other party does not, or to a significant numerical advantage over the other party to the conflict. Asymmetry does not mean a disproportionate difference of potential, but the clash of two different types of organizations, ways of thinking, and even ways of life. -- Matrek ( talk) 00:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Due to the edit war this article is currently experiencing, it is a good idea to start a section for this on the talk page.
Those who keep removing this section from the article, why do you say it is irrelevant? The suspect declared "asymmetric warfare" in his manifesto and his actions provide an example of what it is. Warfare is not just instigated my an group of people, it can also be done by an individual as well. Until someone can clearly explain why this section does not belong, I will work to make sure that it stays, because I(among the many others editing) feel that it is completely relevant.
Susanknowledgeguru ( talk) 23:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
In regard to the content of the article I feel that it is completely relevant. First of all the article for the 2013 Southern California shootings has a link to this article. That is what made me choose to add this section in the first place. No one has claimed that what the suspect in these shootings did is in fact asymmetric warfare. If you use such a narrow definition as you are using, I could make an argument to delete several other sections as well. This article isn't just about people/nations who have been involved in asymmetric warfare. It also is about putting meaning behind the phrase and providing context for it. Anyhow the suspect in these shooting did execute asymmetric warfare. The fact that he randomly attacked cops who were not expecting or ready for it gave him a huge power advantage over them. How else could he have killed several before his death? Susanknowledgeguru ( talk) 00:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, it is absurd to include Dorner's fulmination in this article on asymetric warfare. The "2013 Southern California Shootings" section should be deleted.-- Other Choices ( talk) 06:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
To anyone reading concerned about the section "2013 Southern California Shootings", my apologies for letting things escalate out of control. I should not have undid deletions that several users made, without going to the talk page right way. I will not engage in any more name calling or any such behavior, and I expect other users to extend the same courtesy. I should have stated my case clearly from the beginning for the inclusion of this section. I want to now make my case for the inclusion of this section in the article. I have done so previously, but probably not as well as I should have.
The term "Asymmetric Warfare" is defined on the page as "war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly". Belligerent is defined as an "individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat". These definitions are taken from the respective Wikipedia pages. No doubt, Christopher Dorner and the LAPD were engaged in combat with each other. A key point about Asymmetric Warfare is that the two parties involved either have unequal military power or have significantly different strategies and tactics. Christopher Dorner was an ex-LAPD officer, so he was well aware of their strategies and tactics. Also, before anything happened, I am sure that he was aware that the ensuing combat would be him against thousands of other officers.
I believe that what happened with Dorner was in fact Asymmetrical Warfare, because 1) The was a great power imbalance between him and the LAPD (as well as other law enforcement agencies involved), and 2) He used vastly different tactics than the LAPD(and law enforcement in general), mainly through surprise attacks. I think that is a pretty strong case for why Christopher Dorner's actions were Asymmetric Warfare, but nonetheless, if the majority feels that what he did does not satisfy the criteria, it might be good to still have this section and at least state Dorner claimed that he would execute Asymmetric Warfare. The term I think is unfamiliar to many people, so it is good to provide examples of how a term is used, not just historically but in the modern day as well. I think that while it's debatable whether or not Dorner's actions were Asymmetric Warfare, it certainly satisfies enough criteria to deserve serious consideration. Hope this explanation help clarify my thoughts behind why I added this section. Susanknowledgeguru ( talk) 19:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
On second thought, since no one has yet to agree with my position, I think it would be best if someone were to delete the section on Christopher Dorner when the article is unlocked. That seems to be the general consensus here and while I do not agree with the reasoning, think it would be best to just let it go for now. Until I see more people who agree with my position on the talk page, I will assume in good faith that the article is best as-is(without Christopher Dorner section), and I will refrain from editing it in any way. I would also recommend that maybe all the back and forth on the talk page for this section be removed(I don't want to be the one to do it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanknowledgeguru ( talk • contribs) 01:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think that the Vitnam war deserves a significant mention on the page,specifically in the Examples section. It is a perhaps the most significant example of a small country fighting a more powerful country to a standstill,mostly using asymmetrical tactics.I see this is mentioned above,but without any significant objections. Rwenonah ( talk) 21:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Asymmetric warfare was used significantly by the Vietcong during the Vietnam War. Vietcong forces used guerrilla tactics against superior American forces to considerable effect,enabling them to launch hit-and-run attacks,then disappear into the South Vietnamese countryside. The text added could go like that,and be headed "Vietnam War"(duh). Rwenonah ( talk) 22:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
a) When Southern California Shootings has an entire section,there is precedent to give every tiny military encounter containing even a mention of asymmetric warfare a section on the page,let alone a conflict as major as the Vietnam war. It seems to deserve a subsection to itself. b)About three-quarters of the examples section has no citations. c)I never referred to the Vietnam People's Army,and it made a smaller contribution to the war than the Viet Cong anyway. I'll try to find some citations. Rwenonah ( talk) 20:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. I have been adding references to topics my supervisor (T.V. Paul) has written extensively on. Asymmetric warfare is one of them. I will not add any of his argument here or try to sell what he is doing. I just want to provide the reference for further reading. Is that ok? I received a warning about that (I am very new to the editing business here) and I want to do things right in the future. Thank you! Coercive Diplomacy ( talk) 01:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I added one reference to the further reading section this morning (Complex Deterrence). I am the student of one of the author, T.V. Paul. I will not add summaries anymore as it was mentioned to me it may be a conflict of interest. Simply adding books or articles (in this case one) that are of relevance to the topic. Is that ok? Thank you! Coercive Diplomacy ( talk) 02:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
By the definition of partisan (in the article of that namej, the word is used incorrectly in the section about the American Revolution:“The return of the British force to Boston … was subject to constant skirmishing, using partisan forces…” The definition is given as: “A partisan is a member of an irregular military force formed to oppose control of an area by a foreign power or by an army of occupation …” Despite the propagandists efforts to portray the British as a foreign power or an occupying army, they were not, at least until the treaty creating the United States and certainly before the Declaration of Independence. They were the legitimate authority in the colonies. Consequently those who opposed them were rebels rather than partisans. Nevertheless, I anticipate some resistance to calling them rebels. Moreover, the definition of partisan is debatable. (See the talk page of the article Partisan, under the topics “terminology” and “etymology”.) Therefore I have changed it to the accepted “Patriots.” Humphrey Tribble ( talk) 05:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)