Modern Military Tactics and Strategy

[Mutanatia]

Well, let's talk about it here, or take to PM. LEt's see if we can really light up a discussion. I seriously LOVE good debates! ^_^

For one thing, I don't believe that the Geneva Convention protects alleged terrorists. Could we also make the argument that the US Constitution could not apply in certain situations as in suspected terrorism charges, and leave it up to the SC to determine in which instances?

[Kannex]

There's a distinction between terrorists and insurgents. Alleged terrorists should be treated as alleged criminals, because that's essentially what terrorism is--crime. Terrorists use terror against a populace, and that often involves mass murder or destruction of public property.

Insurgents, meanwhile, fight on the battlefield. I think the Geneva Conventions should apply to insurgents and guerrilla fighters (once they're captured, that is), because like the regular armed forces of an enemy nation, they're defending their country. Not to mention, they're human beings.

[Mal]

Jul 8, 2011 21:02:45 GMT -5 Mutanatia said:

Well, let's talk about it here, or take to PM. LEt's see if we can really light up a discussion. I seriously LOVE good debates! ^_^

For one thing, I don't believe that the Geneva Convention protects alleged terrorists. Could we also make the argument that the US Constitution could not apply in certain situations as in suspected terrorism charges, and leave it up to the SC to determine in which instances?

I think the Court already decided that, if I'm not mistaken. Check this article:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush

The Court in this case held that foreign terrorism suspects held in U.S. territory can challenge their detention in U.S. courts.

Do you guys agree or disagree with that?

[Mal]

Jul 8, 2011 21:09:29 GMT -5 Kannex said:

There's a distinction between terrorists and insurgents. Alleged terrorists should be treated as alleged criminals, because that's essentially what terrorism is--crime. Terrorists use terror against a populace, and that often involves mass murder or destruction of public property.

Insurgents, meanwhile, fight on the battlefield. I think the Geneva Conventions should apply to insurgents and guerrilla fighters (once they're captured, that is), because like the regular armed forces of an enemy nation, they're defending their country. Not to mention, they're human beings.

Yeah, a lot of folks forget to make that distinction. And it's a critical point that we need to remember in order to keep the proper perspective.

This may sound a little off topic but the reimagined Battlestar Galctica did an arc where the enemy showed up and dominated the humans, thus turning the good guys into insurgents. The argument that the insurgent leader made was that he had a job to do and that was to keep the Cylons distracted and out of position so their response would be hampered when the rescue party showed up.

It made me think about things that I used to just accept without thinking at all. If a foreign nation showed up here and started imposing its will, how would you react, and would you be a terrorist or a freedom fighter?

[Mutanatia]

First of all, I think terms like "Freedom fighter" are overrated. You're either fighting against the army of the occupying nation (To win freedom), or you're fighting against the citizens of some country that hasn't done you any wrong necessarily (As in occupy your country) in order to strike fear into them to achieve some sort of political objective. That's the main difference to me.

The latter shouldn't be protected; the former should. For instance, the Iraqis that are trying to repel us from our country and are going, "Dammit, it's my country and I want it back!" should be protected if we pick them up and arrest them. But the ones who are actively plotting to blow up U.S. civilians who may be in Iraq, or their own citizens and may want the release of 100 Guantanamo Bay prisoners in exchange for the bombing to stop (And hence striking fear into the people involved) shouldn't be protected.

Hope that made sense... somewhat >.<

[Mal]

Well I think that illustrates Kannex's point. And I agree. My problem goes back to who gets tried in a military court and who gets a civil trial.

In your scenario, the second example you give definitley meets the definition of terrorism as I understand it. Thus, they should stand trial for committing Acts of Terror.

[Kannex]

Of course, insurgents would kill some of their own civilians. I'm not saying that their actions are justified, but if you were a human insurgent fighting against Cylon occupation and you saw some of your fellow humans collaborating with the aliens and apparently betraying their own race, wouldn't you do the same thing?

I think it's fair that a suspected terrorist can challenge his detention, but the U.S. courts may be biased and they (the judges and jury) may not have the sufficient information to make a good decision, especially when the crime took place halfway across the world.

[Mutanatia]

Yes, but would you attack your own citizens to free 100 detainees in the Cylon's jail, or would you kill them to free your citizens from your rule? THat's the difference.

Also, this is a great debate Kannex! ^_^

EDIT: Mal: I'm saying that those tried for Acts of Terror should be tried in military courts. Those that are tried for being an insurgent should be tried using your in camera method as I'd imagine (I think? Though I could be wrong?) there's be less "in camera" moments.

Also Mal: Doesn't the "in camera" thing pretty much mean you're effectively trying someone, in a sense, in a military court run by civilians? Does that make sense somewhat? >.<

[Kannex]

I'm not saying anything about killing some of your own citizens to free some 100 detainees from some foreign jail. Like I said, I'm not trying to justify the Iraqi insurgents' actions.

I don't think terrorists should be tried in military courts. Terrorist acts may be military in nature, but in the end, acts of terror are criminal acts.

[Mal]

My apologies, you guys. I should have clarified "in camera." In essence, it means "in private" and it essentially is an exception to the 6th Amendment. It's used when there are matters of national security to consider, but mostly it is used to protect information that is privileged between an attorney and a client.

In MOST instances, in camera means that the portion of the proceeding held in private is held in the judge's chamber with only the interested parties participating. However, there are instances where a judge will order the courtroom cleared and in camera hearings will include juries.

[Mal]

Jul 8, 2011 21:50:26 GMT -5 Mutanatia said:

Yes, but would you attack your own citizens to free 100 detainees in the Cylon's jail, or would you kill them to free your citizens from your rule? THat's the difference.

Also, this is a great debate Kannex! ^_^

EDIT: Mal: I'm saying that those tried for Acts of Terror should be tried in military courts. Those that are tried for being an insurgent should be tried using your in camera method as I'd imagine (I think? Though I could be wrong?) there's be less "in camera" moments.

Also Mal: Doesn't the "in camera" thing pretty much mean you're effectively trying someone, in a sense, in a military court run by civilians? Does that make sense somewhat? >.<

That's the essence of the question. How far will you go and how many innocent lives are you willing to sacrifice?

I put up these questions because they have no right answer, but they ancourage lateral thinking. I'm hoping you guys will let me know if a question seems irrelevant.

[Mutanatia]

The question I would pose to you, then, Malecia, is when is a guilty life worth 5? (God this is sounding so cliched right now >.<)

[Mal]

Jul 14, 2011 19:17:27 GMT -5 Mutanatia said:

The question I would pose to you, then, Malecia, is when is a guilty life worth 5? (God this is sounding so cliched right now >.<)

Great Question! The answer? I just don't know. What I do know is that I'm glad we get to discuss it here and I will thankfully never have to make that call. But maybe this will help a little bit:

Jefferson once said that it was better to "let 100 guilty men go free than to put one inncocent man in jail."

Anyway... Syllabus change. For the week ending August 6th, my esteemed colleague Professor Mutanatia will be guest lecturer. We have been PMing as to what he will be teaching and I think you will all find it interesting and thoguth provoking.

Thus, the lesson on Nuclear Biological and Chemical Defense is scratched.

[Mutanatia]

In response to your Jefferson quote, that was from a different time when there were no such things as severe chemical, nuclear, and biological warfare. There were no IEDs blowing up, and so forth. I think that that quote has to be updated by someone to reflect the current times

[Mal]

Jul 16, 2011 10:57:08 GMT -5 Mutanatia said:

In response to your Jefferson quote, that was from a different time when there were no such things as severe chemical, nuclear, and biological warfare. There were no IEDs blowing up, and so forth. I think that that quote has to be updated by someone to reflect the current times

Fair enough... But do you still agree with the basic principle of not sending an innocent to jail so as to protect liberty and freedom?

[Mutanatia]

There is a different term that applies to terrorism, IMHO, and it is applied to schools as well: "Reasonable Suspicion." In schools, that means that if I think you have contraband, as in I can smell it, I can search you without a warrant (though usually it is applied to things like potential school shootings and stuff like that).

I think the same principle should be applied here: If I have reason to believe that you are a terrorist, I can hold you. However, I must provide--either as a group, or as an individual--evidence that you are a terrorist with x days of, let's say, an interrogation.

For instance, there was recently a War News Radio story I heard about the "Shepherd of Guantanamo." This guy was arrested and put in detention because his brother was a member of a terrorist cell. He was interrogated and provided scant details. THe kick is this: When the guy doing the interview finished, he wrote "Should be released." Because they didn't have evidence that he is a terrorist; rather ,they suspected he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He's still in Guantanamo. That should not happen.

Does this make sense?

[Mal]

Yes it does make sense. I'm still wondering why in light of the previous decision that I talked about, the Administration has continued holding people at "Gitmo" indefinitely without charge.

[Mal]

Course notice: I am scratching "Large Scale Assaults on fixed positions" because we have actually covered many of the components of assaults already, and this week's lesson on Amphibious Landings is going to add to that.

Amphibious Landings are a very old and time tested battle tactic that has been in use for nearly 500 years. With the advent of parachute infantry, helicopters, and long range bombers, many argued after the 2d World War that amphibious warfare was obsolete.

There was a brief period where President Truman proposed to disband the Marines and fold them into the Army.

But a funny thing happened on the way to abandoning amphibious warfare: the landings at Inchon during the Korean War. It was here that General MacArthur executed a landing with a combined Army/ Marine force that cut the North Koreans supply lines and forced them to withdraw back above the 38th parallel.

Because the Inchon Assault was so successful, Amphibious landings were not only preserved as an integral part of modern military doctrine, but they are also now considered a specialized type of warfare. So important are they to U.S. military strategy, that an Amphibious Assault school is run by the U.S. Navy at Little Creek, VA.

Because it's summer, I'm going to go easy on you this week and I'm only posting one reading: Battle of Tarawa

Read this brief article and, if you like, do some independent research. Then, look at the map of Malecia. For the purposes of this exercise, you are part of an invasion force, and you have been tasked with seizing the deep water port in Shiloh Harbor.

Your intelligence and support is solid and the landing zone is just south of the harbor on the North Myrkyr/ Islington border.

Before you move north to capture the harbor, what will you want to do first? How will you accomplish this task?

This week's question is discussion only. Sort of my way of giving you a "summer break."

Attachments:

[Kannex]

Putting aside all political or diplomatic factors, I would seize a few islands off the coast of the southeastern coast, which would serve as my launching point (I'm not sure what the official term is).

If an extensive spy network is at my fingertips, I would use it to spread false rumors that my landing zone is north of Shiloh Harbor, rather than south.

If this is not possible, I would move on to the next step: bombing the heck out of the southeastern coast. I would launch missiles and airstrikes at several targets throughout the southeastern coast.
IF had a reputation among the enemy for being sneaky and sly, I would use double psychology and bomb the actual landing zone, so that the enemy thinks that is not the real landing zone.
If I'm not well-known among the enemy, I'll go with the original plan and bomb someplace north of Shiloh Harbor so that the enemy is misled and thinks that the landing zone is there.

To further confuse the enemy, I would use decoy ships and planes and pretend I'm going to strike someplace north of Shiloh Harbor.

On the morning of the attack, there will be a massive bombardment of the southeastern coast. Before the enemy can realize that I'm focusing most of my air-power on the actual landing zone that is south of the North Myrkyr/Islington border harbor, I will launch the amphibious assault via boat and aircraft launched from larger ships. I will also launch smaller amphibious assaults along the southeastern coast to yet again confuse the enemy.

[Mal]

Actually, the very first thing you listed is the most important. Establishing a beachhead, which will serve as your assembly point before you begin pushing north.

Remember, in this scenario, you have good intel and support elements, so you should be able to move north relatively unhindered once you make your initial landing.

I am going to hold off on my answer until Mark and Mut chime in.

[Markanite]

Hey Malecia (I was away this week, just got back) Wheres the article, the link i clicked just says http.

I read online about this so I'll try an answer.

I would first listen to the intel then act accordingly. I would just some ships to bombard the coastal area near to the port, this would allow my ships to move forward hopefully safely, this could create a cover for my land units. I would also carry this out at night for extra cover. Once my initial landing is complete I would create a perimeter using the natural landscape for cover and advance on the port.

[Mal]

www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1752.html

Sorry kids.

[Mal]

Okay...This week we take a look at modern helicopter tactics and strategy. We will also discuss the V-22 Osprey and its impact on airborne strategy.

The helicopter came into its own as a military vehicle during the Korean war, when it proved itself as a viable MEDEVAC tool. Indeed, during Korea, most helicopters were assigned to the famous M*A*S*H units.

Vietnam changed all that. It was during Vietnam that Bell helicopter started selling a militarized version of the Model 204 to the United States Army, re-designated as the UH-1 Iroquois and nicknamed the "Huey."

Because of the geography and terrain of Vietnam, the parachute infantry tactics developed for the European Theater of Operations in World War II were impractical for use in the mountains and jungle of Southeast Asia. The Huey, by contrast, could land troops nearly anywhere and this had a tremendous impact on airborne warfare. So significant was this impact that the 101st Airborne Division was re-designated as an "air assault" division and its members were re-trained into insertion by helicopter as opposed to parachute.

Helicopter tactics today include insertion via rappel, fast rope, and a tactic know as Special Purpose Insertion and Extraction. These tactics are utilized because there are places where landing a helicopter is impractical/ impossible.

Read the following short articles:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast-roping

After reading that, read this article:

www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/how-to-rappel-from-a-helicopter

Answer 2 of the following via PM:

1) Why is fast roping more dangerous?
2) What is the main difference between the two?
3) What is the main drawback to rappelling versus fast roping?

For discussion:

On your own, find an article or two and share it with the class on the V-22 Osprey. After reading, discuss in thread why the Osprey was designed and adopted, in spite of its 20 year development cycle from drawing board to production.

Next week, Professor Mutanatia will be guest lecturing, and I think you will like his lesson.

As always, answers are due in my inbox via PM by midnight, EDT, Friday.

[Markanite]

www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1666282,00.html

Heres the article I read, I also read the wikipedia too for more information. The Time article gives a lot of information on and its pros and cons.

The V 22 really is an amazing piece of technology but the price tag is huge, I can see why Cheney wanted to cut it. But I can also see the benefits that have been attributed to it. The Time article isn't supportive of it at all.

[Mal]

Yeah it was a prolonged development cycle, to say the least. I was actually STILL IN the Marines when it first started its development, and that was in the mid 1980s.

One of the biggest advantages is its range. It has an operational range that dwarfs the CH-46 by comparison, and this is attributable to its ability to fly like a fixed wing aircraft once it is in flight.

[Markanite]

It is an amazing piece of technology, no wonder it took ages to complete

[Mutanatia]

From two classes ago, from the battle of Tarawa:

The first step is, as Kannex said, to establish a beachhead. You really do need an ability to defend yourself when advancing. You really don’t want to be sitting ducks for like an air force or something. Now, as to how I would go about doing this:

1) Make sure it’s during high tide, not low tide.
2) Call in reinforcements, especially if the retaliation is large and fierece.
3) Knock out communications
4) Again, make sure it’s during high tide. I cannot stress this enough
5) Make sure that you go forward. IT seems to me that doing this gets your enemy on edge and they’re more likely to make mistakes when there is advancement rather than retreat.

[Mutanatia]

Discussion:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell-Boeing_V-22_Osprey

^ The article

My answer: It seems that Mark is right: It is very expensive; it took a very long time to fully develop. However, depending on when Cheney wanted to cut it, the economy may have been in a tailspin. Finally, there seems to be a LOT of crashes with these helicopters. Additionally, to respond directly to Mark here: Looking at the wikipedia article I have, it seems that the Marine Corps was quick to respond to the article. I think the whole situation wound up being expensive and embarrassing and it was “too late” to turn back from producing it.

I’m interested in seeing Malecia’s take on this one, however ☺

[Mal]

I think that it was too ambitious for the technology that was available during the development stage. By the time they got to production, they were already using tech that had been outstripped.

[Markanite]

Yeah I agree Malecia, at least its in use now though