Tweet
A spinoff from my thread with C0ckney:
Since everybody and their brother has a nuclear arsenal these days, direct conflict between major powers seems unlikely for the foreseeable future. The stakes are just too high. However, I can't really see countries in competition with each other resolving those differences entirely peacefully, either. One alternative I can envision is state-sponsored terrorism on a wide scale. We did it during the Cold War, sponsoring thug militias in this troubled country or that, but is there any particular reason it wouldn't work on a major country?
During the Hundred Years' War, the English invented a tactic called the chevauchee. Basically, a chevauchee is when you sweep into a village, loot and burn it, then move on to the next village as quickly as possible. The goal is not to get money but to disrupt the economy, spread fear, and undermine people's trust in their sovereign. It seems to me that America is acutely vulnerable to this sort of attack; recent events have shown that relatively minor incidents can make us pretty crazy, and neither our law enforcement nor our infrastructure could handle heavy, coordinated attacks.
For example, a handful of men supplied with explosives could easily shut down a major airport for a week, killing at least a thousand in the process and causing direct economic damage in the millions. Indirect effects could well be far more costly, especially if you can arrange to hit multiple airports on the same day. This has not happened already, AFAICT, because terrorist rings have difficulty acquiring that much explosive secretly. A government--say, Russia or China, or even Iran or North Korea--could supply that, plus logistical aid. Keeping their own part deniable would be trickier, but Mexico right next door has a ready supply of "expendable" thugs. This kind of "war" would be cheap and incredibly cost-effective. The terror-spreading aspect would be far easier today, with modern mass communications.
There is precedent for this, in that chevauchees (IIUC) started because the French were not directly assailable in their castles. Similar tactics were used during the Peloponnesian War. In general, if direct military conflict with the enemy are not feasible, terror raids make sense; why should the nuclear age be different?
Since everybody and their brother has a nuclear arsenal these days, direct conflict between major powers seems unlikely for the foreseeable future. The stakes are just too high. However, I can't really see countries in competition with each other resolving those differences entirely peacefully, either. One alternative I can envision is state-sponsored terrorism on a wide scale. We did it during the Cold War, sponsoring thug militias in this troubled country or that, but is there any particular reason it wouldn't work on a major country?
During the Hundred Years' War, the English invented a tactic called the chevauchee. Basically, a chevauchee is when you sweep into a village, loot and burn it, then move on to the next village as quickly as possible. The goal is not to get money but to disrupt the economy, spread fear, and undermine people's trust in their sovereign. It seems to me that America is acutely vulnerable to this sort of attack; recent events have shown that relatively minor incidents can make us pretty crazy, and neither our law enforcement nor our infrastructure could handle heavy, coordinated attacks.
For example, a handful of men supplied with explosives could easily shut down a major airport for a week, killing at least a thousand in the process and causing direct economic damage in the millions. Indirect effects could well be far more costly, especially if you can arrange to hit multiple airports on the same day. This has not happened already, AFAICT, because terrorist rings have difficulty acquiring that much explosive secretly. A government--say, Russia or China, or even Iran or North Korea--could supply that, plus logistical aid. Keeping their own part deniable would be trickier, but Mexico right next door has a ready supply of "expendable" thugs. This kind of "war" would be cheap and incredibly cost-effective. The terror-spreading aspect would be far easier today, with modern mass communications.
There is precedent for this, in that chevauchees (IIUC) started because the French were not directly assailable in their castles. Similar tactics were used during the Peloponnesian War. In general, if direct military conflict with the enemy are not feasible, terror raids make sense; why should the nuclear age be different?
Comment