Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by papermill 2625 days ago
They are formidable platforms for sure, but you aren't claiming any territory with 1600 marines against a major country with millions of troops like china.

1600 marines could hold territory against a bunch of ill-equipped and unorganized terrorists or insurgents. But 1600 marines ain't holding territory against any major state military.
2 comments
PopeDotNinja 2625 days ago
1600 marines could occupy the heck out of a non-trivial amount of land. The thing to keep in mind is that it's not like the USS Wasp would show up on a beach of some million person, do an amphibious assault in it's own, and then get an Insta message from the other armed forces saying "we're gonna be late, still playing Fortnite because no parents lol". Military campaigns are ridiculously large, complex, and coordinated. It's not a one ship operation (unless you watch The Last Ship).
link
linuxftw 2625 days ago
With air support, 1600 marines could probably seize any city on the planet. The key is, strike first and hard before the enemy has time to mobilize. Destroying their comms, they'll have no way to repel them, because aside from the people fleeing on foot, the enemy's central command will be completely unaware that an invasion took place, only that they're being attacked.

This is exactly what happened with war in Iraq. The enemy was completely unable to mobilize.

Naturally, if the enemy is already in a war-time posture and already mobilized, you can't employ this tactic for any city, but it might be enough to seize a port or other piece of strategic infrastructure (such as an air field).

link
u10 2625 days ago
1600 Marines even with air support is not enough to seize a city (by reasonable definition). Sadar City and Fallujah show that even asymmetric Opfor can provide a serious threat.

Of course this is different when conducting maneuver warfare such as the initial invasion of Iraq in 03, still took 250,000 troops 3 weeks to claim 'victory'.

link
uncoder0 2625 days ago
If we're talking about most developed cities outside they US they're going to have a hard time waging an asymmetric war without a substantial amount of semi-automatic rifles. If we're talking about better armed populace like you are in the middle east yes it is indeed very difficulty to hold a city with such a force.
link
linuxftw 2625 days ago
Depends on your desired level of despotism. Could be achieved with 'shoot anything that moves' strategy. Asymmetric response with artillery and airstrikes on any hostile target.
link
pasabagi 2625 days ago
People have tried playing exceedingly dirty in the past - colonial powers, especially. It doesn't usually work. Ultimately, unless you're willing to build your own infrastructure, you need to rely on local infrastructure. That requires supporters who won't try and sabotage you at every turn, and report everything you do to the enemy. Building your own infrastructure takes lots of people, money, and time. Successful asymmetric warfare works exactly the opposite way to killing all your enemies - it works by taking a group of your enemies, then convincing them you're the better bet.
link
linuxftw 2625 days ago
There are different approaches, it depends entirely on what your strategic goals are for the city. You can drop leaflet propaganda informing citizens to evacuate such as they did in Aleppo [1] and many other places. The premise is simple: give harbor to combatants and you will be treated as such.

Here's a great site that has some leaflets from the Iraq war: [2]

1: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syrian-...

2: http://www.psywarrior.com/IraqNFL062.html

link