21st Century Chevauchee

[kentonio]

But what's the point? What are they going to achieve other than to over time make the affected population more willing to sanction revenge attacks or military action? You might have a small economic effect on the other side, but so what? If you can never militarily engage anyway, what do you really gain for that enormous risk?

[Sava]

Okay, reduce the body count to 250.

That's realistic.

I don't know a lot about the power of explosives. The number of casualties is relatively unimportant, since (with apologies for callousness) most of them are going to be just average travelers. The fear and economic disruption would be far more powerful.

I don't what sort of economic disruption you are thinking about.

The aftermath of 9-11 is worth examining.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_arising_from_the_September_11_attacks

$40 billion in total losses. The wiki breaks it down: property damage, insurance payouts, disruption to business (which is very high, due to the type of businesses at the WTC ).

In the aftermath, tourism suffered. Security costs rose. But tourism returned. We're just left dealing with the costs of security.

Maybe the War on Terrortm should be included in this evaluation. I'm not sure.

In order for large economic disruptions, you'd need to destroy something big, important, and in a major urban center.

A dirty bomb in a port would probably be your best bang for your buck. That could potentially cause huge economic disruptions. But the direct body count would be low... or zero.

You might get some first responders to develop cancers in the long term.

Most of the big targets would require something more than man-portable destruction.

[Sava]

Regardless of the scenario, I think you are generally describing modern asymmetrical warfare and making a valid comparison to chevauchee tactics. There are certainly similarities to the chevauchee tactics.

But... another correction:

During the Hundred Years' War, the English invented a tactic called the chevauchee

The chevauchée has gained recognition for its use during the Hundred Years' War between the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of France. It was not a new tactic and had been used many times before; for example, William the Conqueror had used the tactic before the Battle of Hastings to encourage Harold to engage in a battle.

[molly bloom]

I said explosives, not guns, and nothing about hostages. Not going into details b/c I have no particular desire to wind up on anybody's watch list. Use your imagination.

Mumbai terror attack. The desire to put economic targets ahead of dead civilians also occurred to the I.R.A. as a strategy :

1993: IRA bomb devastates City of London
A massive bomb has ripped through the heart of the City of London, killing one and injuring more than 40.
The explosion shook buildings and shattered hundreds of windows, sending glass showering down into the streets below. A mediaeval church, St Ethelburga's, collapsed; another church and Liverpool Street underground station were also wrecked.

The cost of repairing the damage has been estimated at more than £1bn.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/24/newsid_2523000/2523345.stm

&

1996: Huge explosion rocks central Manchester
A massive bomb has devastated a busy shopping area in central Manchester.
Two hundred people were injured in the attack, mostly by flying glass, and seven are said to be in a serious condition. Police believe the IRA planted the device.

The bomb exploded at about 1120 BST on Corporation Street outside the Arndale shopping centre.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/15/newsid_2527000/2527009.stm

Although the Mumbai terrorists did kill hotel guests and workers, the point of the attack seemed to be to hit Mumbai's tourist trade.

[C0ckney]

The trick would be proving it definitively, and being in a position where you can strike back.

....

Okay, reduce the body count to 250. I don't know a lot about the power of explosives. The number of casualties is relatively unimportant, since (with apologies for callousness) most of them are going to be just average travelers. The fear and economic disruption would be far more powerful.

however one such attack could only do a certain amount of damage and carry a relatively high risk of discovery. to increase the damage, more attacks would be needed, with each one increasing the chance of discovery until it reaches 1. you then reach an escalation cycle which could lead to all out war.

if we're talking about economic damage then a cyber attack has far more potential, combined with a much lower risk. imagine an attack for example that disrupted e-commerce in the US for several days*; the cost would be enormous, yet at the same time it's hard to get public support for launching bombs, airstrikes etc. as a response to the disruption of 1s and 0s.

* i don't really know how feasible this kind of thing is.

[Elok]

Fair enough. I don't know enough about military stuff to say for sure, and I'm probably lowballing the difficulty of evading detection. I was envisioning economic damage as a ripple effect from a major hub being shut down for an extended period of time, combined with sustained fear. This would work best as part of a sustained attack, to keep a population in a state of fear and confusion. It helps that, more than a decade after 9/11, our security apparatus is still pretty primitive, and our infrastructure isn't that strong anyway. The TSA, for example, is a sad joke. But even the officially recognized at-risk points would not necessarily require attack. A few low-casualty bombings or shootings on Thanksgiving evening would do utterly obscene things to our economy. I didn't have 9/11 in mind when I started this thread so much as the Beltway Sniper. Two stupid *******s with a gun kept a whole region terrified for weeks, with no external support. The long-term effects of multiple incidents, if you could keep up a rhythm, would be formidable.

The gain would be the crippling and demoralization of a rival; a country occupied with internal unrest and the fear of terrorism is a country that is not standing up to, or meddling in, other countries' business.

[Sava]

Mumbai terror attack.

Good example.

[Sava]

Fair enough. I don't know enough about military stuff to say for sure, and I'm probably lowballing the difficulty of evading detection. I was envisioning economic damage as a ripple effect from a major hub being shut down for an extended period of time, combined with sustained fear. This would work best as part of a sustained attack, to keep a population in a state of fear and confusion. It helps that, more than a decade after 9/11, our security apparatus is still pretty primitive, and our infrastructure isn't that strong anyway. The TSA, for example, is a sad joke. But even the officially recognized at-risk points would not necessarily require attack. A few low-casualty bombings or shootings on Thanksgiving evening would do utterly obscene things to our economy. I didn't have 9/11 in mind when I started this thread so much as the Beltway Sniper. Two stupid *******s with a gun kept a whole region terrified for weeks, with no external support. The long-term effects of multiple incidents, if you could keep up a rhythm, would be formidable.

The gain would be the crippling and demoralization of a rival; a country occupied with internal unrest and the fear of terrorism is a country that is not standing up to, or meddling in, other countries' business.

Strategically, I think you're on the right track.

Describing individual operations isn't necessary.

The chevauchee is an interesting comparison. The aggressor's goal is to bring the defending army into the fight. 9-11 is probably a textbook example of this tactic. Crash planes into the WTC --(leads to)--> America's involvement in Afghanistan. OBL wanted American troops in the region for the long haul. He got his wish.

[Dr Strangelove]

Actually the English were more diabolical than that. The Hundred Year's War was actually a series of wars. After each peace treaty the English would not transport their mercenary troops back to England, instead they released them, then forced them across the border into French land. There the freebooters would pillage without restraint, keeping the French weak.

[molly bloom]

Actually the English were more diabolical than that. The Hundred Year's War was actually a series of wars. After each peace treaty the English would not transport their mercenary troops back to England, instead they released them, then forced them across the border into French land. There the freebooters would pillage without restraint, keeping the French weak.

To be fair this also happened in Italy with the free companies. Admittedly the most notorious of the condottiere was an Englishman...

[Dr Strangelove]

IIRC those guys pillaged their way from Gascony to northern Italy.

[molly bloom]

IIRC those guys pillaged their way from Gascony to northern Italy.

I'd recommend an excellent book on Hawkwood to you, but I've seen how you get when I recommend actual books to you.

So I won't unless you ask for it...

[Elok]

Actually the English were more diabolical than that. The Hundred Year's War was actually a series of wars. After each peace treaty the English would not transport their mercenary troops back to England, instead they released them, then forced them across the border into French land. There the freebooters would pillage without restraint, keeping the French weak.

The equivalent would be a guy with a small chunk of his county's military discretionary budget flying to Mexiso and asking the local muscle if they'd like to raise some hell. It might be some time before we even figured out that it wasn't simply ordinary gang activity ramping up. The airport thing, come to think of it, would probably be a no-go; the amount/grade of explosives required would be beyond an independent operator's means.

[Elok]

This is not to say that cyber-warfare is a waste, or anything like that. There's no reason why an antagonist couldn't do both.

[Dr Strangelove]

There was an American officer who attempted to take over one of the Central American countires twice in the early 19th century.