Any answers from defence experts from all countries?

[thesolar65]

@he-man, @desert warrior, @scorpionx @SarthakGanguly, @Nexus
This one of my personal query. I was thinking to write it because I have now got some knowledge relating to defense and after reading all those posts.

This is in reference to wars in Yugoslavia, Iraq, and now Syria. Of course these countries might have also done wrong in the first place and also I am not against any countries be these three or USA and allies. But my question is purely from the point of view of defense strategy involved.

In each of these wars the opposition (here USA and allies) gets time to built up their force, say some weeks (assemble weapons, ammunition, built plans etc.). The country which will be attacked knows this. The following are my queries.

1. Why the less powerful country does not attack first while the other begins preparation?

2. If it attacks first then the others will say, see he attacked us first while we were fishing, so we have to attack?

3. If it does not attack then also they will attack no matter what.

The country which is going to be attacked knows that in both cases defeat is his for sure.
So what it should do according to experts here? Surrender is an ego issue!!

 

[Imran Khan]

my dear brother regional and international politics didn't work as you wrote . its dirtiest game on planet earth . sometime i hate borders and names .

 

[SRP]

This is all about politics. Also some western countries fight war to fuel their economy.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

@he-man, @desert warrior, @scorpionx @SarthakGanguly, @Nexus
This one of my personal query. I was thinking to write it because I have now got some knowledge relating to defense and after reading all those posts.

This is in reference to wars in Yugoslavia, Iraq, and now Syria. Of course these countries might have also done wrong in the first place and also I am not against any countries be these three or USA and allies. But my question is purely from the point of view of defense strategy involved.

In each of these wars the opposition (here USA and allies) gets time to built up their force, say some weeks (assemble weapons, ammunition, built plans etc.). The country which will be attacked knows this. The following are my queries.

1. Why the less powerful country does not attack first while the other begins preparation?

2. If it attacks first then the others will say, see he attacked us first while we were fishing, so we have to attack?

3. If it does not attack then also they will attack no matter what.

The country which is going to be attacked knows that in both cases defeat is his for sure.
So what it should do according to experts here? Surrender is an ego issue!!

1. A pre-emptive attack is beyond the capability of most nations
2. It should not make the first move - at all.
3. It can resort to protracted defense - or guerrilla warfare. Overt battles will end in Western victory. Otherwise if there are enough mountains/forests - it can help.
It must hunt for allies - may be a declare a peace conference unilaterally to amicably settle the issue(knowing fully well that they can give nothing) This has a big impact on PR.

But in the end all these will fall short.
The main objective of the West is to topple the Govt. In this case - the present Govt may engineer a coup and establish a 'fake' democracy and 'co-operate'. But this has low chance of success.

IMO - the best is to go out for a PR blitz. Unilaterally submitting to UN inspectors(to buy time)

 

[scorpionx]

For an weaker country,war has never been a subject of choice,rather a forceful infliction of fabricated punishment. Tactically attacking the stronger nation is just a Military and diplomatic Harakiri and it will led to complete annihilation of your forces. You are putting the lives of your civilians in danger and most importantly you have given your stronger enemy an unwanted alibi to attack your country. So attacking first is just not the right choice.

If you take a look at the ancient history,when weaker nations faced an immediate threat from a stronger nation,they used three major policies.First,settle the issue amicably by sending delegates,trying to make family ties by means of marriage. When the first method was out of question,they used to make allies with common interest and tried to build up a larger allied force. When all attempt failed the most common method was scorched earth policy,destroying everything usable,edible and drinkable.Then moving its civilians to a safer place and positioning its troops in a much favorable position and to bring the enemy in the desired position.

But today the situation has been changed.Other than moving to UN and acquiring diplomatic upper hand are the only ways to avert a possible defeat.

 

[Nexus]

@he-man, @desert warrior, @scorpionx @SarthakGanguly, @Nexus
This one of my personal query. I was thinking to write it because I have now got some knowledge relating to defense and after reading all those posts.

This is in reference to wars in Yugoslavia, Iraq, and now Syria. Of course these countries might have also done wrong in the first place and also I am not against any countries be these three or USA and allies. But my question is purely from the point of view of defense strategy involved.

In each of these wars the opposition (here USA and allies) gets time to built up their force, say some weeks (assemble weapons, ammunition, built plans etc.). The country which will be attacked knows this. The following are my queries.

1. Why the less powerful country does not attack first while the other begins preparation?

2. If it attacks first then the others will say, see he attacked us first while we were fishing, so we have to attack?

3. If it does not attack then also they will attack no matter what.

The country which is going to be attacked knows that in both cases defeat is his for sure.
So what it should do according to experts here? Surrender is an ego issue!!

@layman ji i am not expert like @he-man @desert warrior @scorpionx @SarthakGanguly they are seniors. (u too) i am just new active members here.
but i have short answers.

1. Why the less powerful country does not attack first while the other begins preparation?

coz less powerful countris dont have more powerful army like power ful countris like china,india,usa,russia etc.

i only know 1 answer sorry.and @hinduguy @SpArKs can help u. and we will meet today after 12:30.

 

[scorpionx]

@Nexus:

Don't call me expert. Am just a reader.It's just an embarrassment to call me that

 

[Nexus]

@Nexus:

Don't call me expert. Am just a reader.It's just an embarrassment to call me that

u passed 1200 posts thats mean u are expert.

 

[scorpionx]

u passed 1200 posts thats mean u are expert.

Post count does not indicate the level of merit here anyways I have not greeted you yet.Welcome to the forum.

 

[thesolar65]

@layman ji i am not expert like @he-man @desert warrior @scorpionx @SarthakGanguly they are seniors. (u too) i am just new active members here.

Arre, why do you feel like that? You can answer what it comes to your mind. If you are active member, do also answer actively, not mention senior or junior. I am senior to most members regarding age but I do not have that feeling in me before joining this forum. And also I am not layman anymore...

 

[Sugarcane]

@Nexus:

Don't call me expert. Am just a reader.It's just an embarrassment to call me that

For a Captain - Brigadier is much senior rank-

 

[scorpionx]

For a Captain - Brigadier is much senior rank-

I know sirjee. But calling me expert is just an insult to Jr.TT,TT and professionals

 

[Nexus]

For a Captain - Brigadier is much senior rank-

for a captain - general is much senior rank btw captain nexus is comming......

 

[Alpha1]

u passed 1200 posts thats mean u are expert.

There are TTs here with less then a thousand posts and some members with Thousands of posts who are pathalogical Idiots

 

[SRP]

@Nexus No one is expert here. Everyone is here to gain some knowledge and give some knowledge. That is all about a forum. So don't call us expert anymore. If we were expert, we were never been to here in the first place.