Talk:Asymmetric warfare

Viet-Nam war

Wasn't it an outstanding example of asymmetrical warfare? The most powerful army in the world with the backup up the local goverment all all major western military powers against a often poorly armed, politically, organically and military outlawed force of revolutionary dissidents/insurgents? Besides that ones used conventional full-scale warfare and razing, and the others rainforest guerrilla tactics... If that is not asymmetrical, then what is? --190.174.67.86 (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

that kind of buys the romantic "Revolutionary War Minutemen" view of the war and misses the point that the NVA was a conventional army and that some of the battles were much more stand up fights (Ia Drang Valley, Hue, Khe Sanh etc) than guerilla warfare — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.107.238 (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing and rewriting

I've started rewriting to remove some of the pov and plan to start finding sources. Everyone is welcome to join in on the fun! – Dreadstar † 08:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The section about Iran should be removed, last time I checked it was 2008 and no one was in Iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.115.68.21 (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

American revolution?

This article skips over the American revolution entirely, THE asymmetric war that set the standard for all asymmetric wars, Missing. Why? PiAndWhippedCream 06:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why, but it'll be fun finding out, so I've put in a basic attempt. David Trochos (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The new section that addresses the American Revolution references the movie, 'The Patriot', in its' depiction of retribution massacres, and such massacres being creative license. Not entirely; there are apocryphal reports that certain dragoons DID engage in brutality. Also, the church-burning scene was deliberately intended to evoke the memory of the Waco Massacre in the minds of 'modern patriots'. 68.58.152.113 (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed the reference to the American film "the Patriot" altogether. There may be a reasonable way to mention the movie, but the article reads like an opinion piece in a magazine rather than an encyclopaedia's article on the subject of the American Revolution. 173.168.230.101 (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Second footnote?

I went to check the second footnote, which appears after the author's description of Parthia's defeat of the Seleucid empire, and found an article that said nothing about Parthia. Though the article linked (and analysis of asymmetric warfare, with a great comparison of the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest to Chechen/Russian conflict) is great and I highly recommend it to anybody, I was really looking forward to a similar analysis of the Parthians' conflict with the Seleucid empire. If the original author is still around, please, please, PRETTY PLEASE post that article! :)

And while I would not say that the American Revolution set the standard for all such conflicts, it definitely deserves mention in an article about asymmetric warfare.

Timfever 05:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thermopylae?

I admit I'm no scholar in this field, but shouldn't the Battle of Thermopylae get some mention? 75.18.20.150 (talk) 07:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

So far, all the sections of the article refer to wars/campaigns; once we start including individual battles, it'll be hard to stop. because purely symmetrical battles are very rare. David Trochos (talk) 08:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

China vs US: Asymmetric warfare in the 21st century

Perhaps a speculative section be in order, e.g. 'asymmetric warfare in the 21st century', given that various experts have stated that in the event of a short war between China and the US over Taiwan, China would: 1) utilize asymmetric tactics against the US to take advantage of the (over)reliance on electronics, either in battle or against non-military targets in the US via hacking and related activities, and 2) capitalize on the US dependence on satellites via land-based attacks on US satellites. Recall the recent testing of a Chinese anti-satellite weapon (used I think, in this case, against one of their own weather satellites). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.230.216 (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Of all the proxy wars fought by the USA against the USSR during the Cold War this was the most cost effective and politically successful, as it was the USSR's most humiliating military defeat, and that defeat was a contributing factor to the implosion of the Soviet Union."

Hahaha when Americans withdraw their troops from Iraq, dont forget to call it the America's most humiliating defeat!!!!

• Unnecessary; both the War of 1812 and the Vietnam War were far more embarassing to U.S. arms in their time than the Iraq War is today. Some elements of the U.S. government are even still able to pretend that Iraq has been a U.S. victory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.154.220.52 (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

List of sources

FYI, a list of sources on this subject can be found here: [1]. Cla68 (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Agincourt

The citation of the Battle of Agincourt requires further consideration. After review of the "Battle of Agincourt" page it seems that use of the English longbow was not critical in the discourse of the battle. Perhaps citation of the use of palings in this battle (although circumstantial as well) would better satisfy the epistemological integrity sought by the authors. Flux (talk) 07:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've also read that the muddy, uneven terrain contributed more to the English victory than anything else —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.3.37.178 (talk) 08:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Longbow fire--although not very effective against the plate armored knights in the French vanguard--worked reasonably well against the French knights' horses and the common soldiery at Agincourt. But the main reason the English longbowmen were so effective in the battle had nothing to do with the longbow itself. It was more that, as unarmored forces, they were capable of engaging in the melee relatively unencumbered, whereas the French forces were exhausted from attacking on foot across muddy terrain. The superior numbers of the French also worked severely in their disfavor in the actual fighting, since the French were so closely hemmed in that soldiers at the fore were trapped in place by those in the rear ranks, allowing the longbowmen to carve them up with swords and hatchets. So Agincourt might be used in the article as an example of superior terrain, but the emphasis of the longbow's technological superiority is historically incorrect and needs to go. JoomTory (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Was the author perhaps thinking of Crecy earlier in the Hundred Years War? Similarly the English were outnumbered, and won with longbow tactics to break conventional heavy cavalry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.195.70 (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what he was thinking--Agincourt being as decisive a battle as it was, there are plenty of popular myths that have sprung up around it, and the misconception about the longbow's significance is a widespread one. Fortunately, it doesn't matter, because the Battle of Crécy you mention is just a much, much better example. I'm changing the article to use that instead; feel free to update it if you come up with an even better example. JoomTory (talk) 08:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay and Assymetric Warfare

That paragraph is ridiculous. Three people committing suicide is not warfare, assymetric or of any other type. It must be removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbastos7 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree - 3 people committing suicide while in detention is not an act of war. PiCo (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Israel/Palestinians

Quote: "The Palestinians deploy their forces inside civilian areas in an attempt to prevent Israel from responding with conventional forces and tactics. Israel tends to use focused targeting tactics, including intelligence-based assassinations of individual leaders, and assigns the responsibility for any resulting civilian casualties to Palestinian forces for their use of human shielding"

Their is an obvious bias in this section. This is not a place to display propagendas. give a reference. one that is neutral like the UN reports--SHAHINOVE (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Afghanistan

It was a major effort from the Muslim world. The cost for them was far higher then the US. Also they sent volunteers. It also included a substantial Israeli commitment.

This all should be written into it.

Nor am I happy with it being called tactically secret. It was not plausible denial is probably a better description.

Also I am not sure from the US point of view it was the highest cost/benefit. Many proxy battles costed the US less and were also successful. Could you please come up with some facts to backup this statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reargun (talk • contribs) 09:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Petain, guerrilla leader

"Abd el-Krim led resistance in Morocco from 1920 to 1924 against French and Spanish colonial armies ten times as strong as the guerilla force, led by General Philippe Pétain." I was under the impression that Petain was leading a conventional army, but perhaps I was wrong. (Two 'r's in guerrilla, by the way). PiCo (talk) 07:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Croatia-Serbia ?

Shouldn't there be at least one verifiable source for such bold claims? I'm deleting that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.65.19 (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-informative text moved to discussion

"For a more comprehensive listing, including outcomes, see Arreguin-Toft."

This text is not informative, within the text of the article.

Perhaps this book should be mentioned in the Literature-section. If someone wants to do that, I have no misgivings.--80.203.102.99 (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The USS Cole attack is not mentioned in the article, along with other examples

The article does NOT mention the attack on the modern Destroyer Ship USS Cole, where a comparatively large Destroyer was heavily damaged by a small boat full of explosives, a rudimentary vessel in comparison. Very Assymetric losses of 17 death and 39 wounded against tow to three attackers is a good example of an "assymmetric warfare". There is a link to the attack in Wikipedia detailing it. Another example is the complete destruction of heavily armed "Humvee" type vehicles with improvised explosive devices IED's, much less costly but effective. amclaussen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.180.20 (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

paragraph in the section "Definition and differences"

This is copied from the article

... Since 1950, however, weak actors have won a majority of all asymmetric conflicts.

Advancements in this type of warfare have been dramatically amplified with the evolution of advanced weaponry. The perpetual evolutionary arms race has made industrialized countries incredibly advanced in comparison to primitive nations. This has given those advanced countries huge advantages in asymmetric warfare.

The first sentence above and the paragraph after it can not be both correct. The two juxtaposed together exhibit the worst type of example of the Wikipedia tendency towards "a camel is a horse designed by a committee".

Also "industrialized countries" and "primitive nations" is not the best wording. Many developed counties have less of their GDP in the industrial section than they did 30 years ago and bigger service sectors, so "industrialized countries" is misleading. Developed and underdeveloped are better adjectives than industrialized and primitive.

-- PBS (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

NYT resource

Pentagon Tries to Counter Cheap, Potent Weapons by Thom Shanker published January 9, 2012; excerpt "... the use of inexpensive weapons like mines and cyberattacks that aim not to defeat the American military in battle but to keep it at a distance."

99.181.131.214 (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Is the definition of asymetric warfare in this article right ? Doubt

Asymmetric warfare can not be reduced to the fact that one party has advanced technologies and the other party does not, or to a significant numerical advantage over the other party to the conflict. Asymmetry does not mean a disproportionate difference of potential, but the clash of two different types of organizations, ways of thinking, and even ways of life. --Matrek (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Where did you get that from? Is that something you just made up? Please provide a reference to this new definition that you are giving. Instead of sticking [fact] tags all through the article you could have corrected what you perceive to be wrong, and provided the appropriate citations. What you have stated, "the clash of two different types of organizations, ways of thinking and even ways of life" is what we call "war". It is only when the two sides are not relatively equal in capability that we call it "asymmetric war". Primium mobile (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

2013 Southern California Shootings

Due to the edit war this article is currently experiencing, it is a good idea to start a section for this on the talk page.

Those who keep removing this section from the article, why do you say it is irrelevant? The suspect declared "asymmetric warfare" in his manifesto and his actions provide an example of what it is. Warfare is not just instigated my an group of people, it can also be done by an individual as well. Until someone can clearly explain why this section does not belong, I will work to make sure that it stays, because I(among the many others editing) feel that it is completely relevant.

Susanknowledgeguru (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Just because someone mentions they will be preforming Asymmetrical Warfare does not mean it actually IS Asymmetrical Warfare. If anything, from the events that have taken place since his statement, there has been no 'warfare' at all. He got hunted to a cabin, and then someone inside burned it down. The facts aren't 100% yet, but it's pretty likely he died in that cabin. The rationale for the section being added was and still is very poor. Unless you want to create a section for every person who has ever said they will preform Asymmetrical Warfare, delete it. --Tarage (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, I question the validity of the claim that multiple people believe this section should stay. I'm trying very hard not to assume bad faith here, but an anonymous IP has been inserting this same paragraph into the article to the point of edit warring, and then magically, a new editor with no prior editing history re-adds the same paragraph, claiming that I am the vandal even though two editors have agreed that the section doesn't belong. If you cannot come up with more consensus than your argument, I will remove it again, and I will go to the administrator notice board, because I am tired of having this argument. --Tarage (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Considering that two days have passed without response, and another anonymous editor has removed what you insisted on re-adding, I'm going to call this matter settled. Unless you can give a clear and valid reason for reintroducing this text, and can show consensus that others aside from yourself believe it should be included, it will remain excluded. Again, push me and I will take this up with administrators. --Tarage (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Just because several days has passed does not mean an issue has been settled. I do have a life. 2 users is certainly not a majority when you consider that Wikipedia has many users and millions of viewers. Furthermore I will not allow you to threaten me by saying you will take this issue up with administrators. I am glad you wrote what you did because now I have proof of you harassment over the past week. With people like you around it makes no one want to edit articles. Whether or not my edit belongs in the article is irrelevant. I have the right to not be harassed and attacked by you. Furthermore, you have accused me of using multiple identities. Unless you have proof of that you better stop making those claim or I will consider your claims libelous. That is not the way to resolve any dispute.

In regard to the content of the article I feel that it is completely relevant. First of all the article for the 2013 Southern California shootings has a link to this article. That is what made me choose to add this section in the first place. No one has claimed that what the suspect in these shootings did is in fact asymmetric warfare. If you use such a narrow definition as you are using, I could make an argument to delete several other sections as well. This article isn't just about people/nations who have been involved in asymmetric warfare. It also is about putting meaning behind the phrase and providing context for it. Anyhow the suspect in these shooting did execute asymmetric warfare. The fact that he randomly attacked cops who were not expecting or ready for it gave him a huge power advantage over them. How else could he have killed several before his death? Susanknowledgeguru (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, I ask, should we include everyone who has ever said they are going to preform Asymmetrical Warfare and then do not? Lots of people randomly attack cops. Gangs, mafias. Should they be added? As for the article in question, general style is not to then link back to the sub-article linking to the main article. There is no need to create a loop. But none of this matters. You have not shown consensus for it's inclusion. I have shown consensus for it's exclusion. If you have a problem with that, change the consensus. Until then, it is excluded, and I will not allow it to be re-added. --Tarage (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Who has said that they intend to perform Assymmetric Warfare. To my knowledge this is not a common term people you. Your argument has little basis because you intend to make a sweeping generalization about people who kill cops. I have indeed showed consenus for the inclusion of this section in the article. That being said I am not going to play games with you anymore. You do not have the sole authority to determine what stays and what goes in an article. I will be reverting this article to include this section. I will also be reporting your harassement. If you think that you can bully me around and use threats to keep be from adding a relevant section to an article, think again. I have not heard you make a good case to why this section should go. Most of your talk has been threating me and harrassing me. I am sure that those who can settle this dispute will agree with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanknowledgeguru (talk • contribs) 20:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

You reinserted the section that has been deleted by three separate people, claimed to have consensus when only you feel it should be included, and are implying that I am harassing you. I'm starting to believe you don't even know what consensus means. It doesn't matter, you've made me play my hand. I'm reporting you for edit warring. --Tarage (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

People other than I feel that it should be included. I don't see me as the only one who has undid deletions to that section. The page history clearly attests to that. I doubt that you are actually reporting me because number one that means nothing, if you have used wikipedia for any length of time you would know that. Your threats do not phase me. This isn't a school playground. You need to act like an adult and learn to resolve issues in a mature manner without the name-calling and threats. You claim that I haven't provided a good reason for the inclusion of the section that was added, yet the biggest reason that you give for it's deletion is because other people don't like it there. If you are willing to stop acting like a 2 year old, I can work with you, but if you continue to fight the way you have been, I will make sure this section says in this article. You keep deleting it, yet you don't consider that edit warring, yet as soon as I put it back all the sudden that is edit warring. Makes no sense and I am sure Wikipedia staff will agree with me on that. Again, stop acting immature and I will work with you. Keep acting as you have been acting and nothing will be resolved as has been the case. Susanknowledgeguru (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I did just reported you. Feel free to write up your side of the story. --Tarage (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is absurd to include Dorner's fulmination in this article on asymetric warfare. The "2013 Southern California Shootings" section should be deleted.--Other Choices (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

There's number four. Susan, you have admitted that you were the one who initially put this section in. You also registered an account shortly after reverting it again on a different IP. Every 'person' who has reverted it's removal has been you. Please stop playing games. --Tarage (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Tarage, would you stop with your character assassination of me? I never have attempted to hide anything. I initially added the section to the article with an anonymous IP. Nothing wrong with that. I do not attempt to hide that. After seeing that people were deleting this section for no reason, I registered my current user name so that I could address these issue as a real person rather than an anonymous user. Again, nothing wrong with that. You know what my anonymous IP was, and you know what my username is so you can see exactly what edits that I have made, DO NOT claim that I have been making other edits, when that clearly is not true. If you keep on insisting that other anonymous users who have edited this article are also me, then I will take prompt and swift action to make sure that you are fully accountable for your libelous speech. It has been well documented over the past week and you are fully accountable for anything you say. Was it not I who added the section to the talk page? You accuse me of playing games, yet it is I who took action by registering an account and setting up a section in the talk page to resolve the ongoing issue. That is a lot more that you have done. It is absurd that you continue to harass me. Instead of engaging in a reasonable discussion about the content of the article, I am forced to defend myself against your groundless accusations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanknowledgeguru (talk • contribs) 17:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

To anyone reading concerned about the section "2013 Southern California Shootings", my apologies for letting things escalate out of control. I should not have undid deletions that several users made, without going to the talk page right way. I will not engage in any more name calling or any such behavior, and I expect other users to extend the same courtesy. I should have stated my case clearly from the beginning for the inclusion of this section. I want to now make my case for the inclusion of this section in the article. I have done so previously, but probably not as well as I should have.

The term "Asymmetric Warfare" is defined on the page as "war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly". Belligerent is defined as an "individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat". These definitions are taken from the respective Wikipedia pages. No doubt, Christopher Dorner and the LAPD were engaged in combat with each other. A key point about Asymmetric Warfare is that the two parties involved either have unequal military power or have significantly different strategies and tactics. Christopher Dorner was an ex-LAPD officer, so he was well aware of their strategies and tactics. Also, before anything happened, I am sure that he was aware that the ensuing combat would be him against thousands of other officers.

I believe that what happened with Dorner was in fact Asymmetrical Warfare, because 1) The was a great power imbalance between him and the LAPD (as well as other law enforcement agencies involved), and 2) He used vastly different tactics than the LAPD(and law enforcement in general), mainly through surprise attacks. I think that is a pretty strong case for why Christopher Dorner's actions were Asymmetric Warfare, but nonetheless, if the majority feels that what he did does not satisfy the criteria, it might be good to still have this section and at least state Dorner claimed that he would execute Asymmetric Warfare. The term I think is unfamiliar to many people, so it is good to provide examples of how a term is used, not just historically but in the modern day as well. I think that while it's debatable whether or not Dorner's actions were Asymmetric Warfare, it certainly satisfies enough criteria to deserve serious consideration. Hope this explanation help clarify my thoughts behind why I added this section. Susanknowledgeguru (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Once again I disagree because there is absolutely nothing special about what Mr. Dorner actually did than any other armed nut who shoots a cop. There was no Asymmetric Warfare because as soon as the manhunt started, he was perpetually on the run. He got found, caught in a cabin, and he died. His 'combat' with the police was no different than any other fugitive. After his opening actions he didn't preform one act of Asymmetric Warfare he claimed he wished to do. If you wish to use the strict definition of "unequal military power or significantly different strategies and tactics", then every single person who ever shoots a cop should be included, which clearly is wrong. Not a single person has supported inclusion for this section. The only people who have modified it were to try to conform it to Wikipedia standards, which does not count as support. If his actions weren't Asymmetric Warfare, then he shouldn't be mentioned at all, lest we mention every single maniac who claims to want to carry out Asymmetric Warfare, which is again wrong.

In summary, if his actions weren't Asymmetric Warfare, then he should not and will not be included. --Tarage (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I am looking forward to engaging in a meaningful conversation now. Hopefully other users can join in to provide some different perspectives. I do want to make an effort and try to look at this from different perspectives. I understand where you are coming from when you say that the definition I used could include many people who shoot a cop. I think that if my argument were to be wrong, then maybe the definition of Asymmetric Warfare as it is defined on Wikipedia is too inclusive. I used that definition so that everyone could be using the same working definitions. I mainly understand the term as something similar to guerrilla warfare, with the entities involved in the conflict having noticeable power imbalances. I realize that the people who started this article could have an understanding of the term with regards to a historical military context.

Could we at least agree that extent of Dorner's planning would have an effect on whether his actions were indeed "Asymmetric Warfare"? We now have a clear idea about the sequence of events that occurred and I do admit whether or not those events occurred randomly or as planned is debatable. I maintain my original premise that the sequence of events that occurred do bear many characteristics of Asymmetric Warfare. Perhaps if we wait for investigations to conclude we would have a better idea about the particulars. I do plan now to sit back and wait for others to have their input, so please don't expect any response from me unless you directly request it.Susanknowledgeguru (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No. Anyone can make up plans to kill a cop. The act of making plans does not make an action Asymmetric Warfare. Only the actual act of carrying out Asymmetric Warfare is Asymmetric Warfare. I'm sounding like a broken record at this point. Nothing he did could even remotely be considered Asymmetric Warfare. I sincerely doubt investigators are going to take the time to verify his claim that he would instigate Asymmetric Warfare. Whatever his intentions, his actions were nothing of the sort. --Tarage (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Tarage, would you mind explaining your view on what Asymmetric Warfare actually is? I based my argument on the definition of Asymmetric Warfare as Wikipedia defines it, so when you say none of his actions were Asymmetric Warfare, upon what definition are you making that claim? His surprise attacks on cops were certainly unconventional tactics, between parties whose power differ greatly. I am not aware of many criminals who have gone killing multiple cops. I hear about people who kill a cop and go to jail, but I haven't hear of many people like Dorner before. You make it sound like it is a common occurrence. Do you know of people similar to Dorner that would be a counterexample to my argument?Susanknowledgeguru (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Believe it or not I share your definition of Asymmetric Warfare. His surprise attack on cops WAS unconventional, but not Asymmetric Warfare. Many people who attack cops do so unconventionally. The thing is, warfare implies more than one action, more than one attack. He attacked one set of cops and then was on the run the entire time. Many criminals kill multiple cops in shootouts if they are 'lucky'. Dorner's motive may be unusual, and his plans may have been intricate, but his execution was run of the mill. Managing to ambush one set of police does not Asymmetric Warfare make. Like I have said before, many nefarious groups have ambushed cops in the past, yet none of them are listed on this page. I want you to take a look at every other section on the article. Do you notice that they all involve wars or campaigns that last more than a scant few days? I'm running out of ways to tell you that you are wrong. Please just let it go. --Tarage (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not about me being right or wrong. If you do not share my view of Asymmetric Warfare, then perhaps the way it has been written on Wikipedia is not accurate. Why not suggest that editors of this article revise that? I did not come up with that definition, but I certainly used it. You do not need to prove me wrong unless you really are intent on bringing me down. FYI, I will no longer be contributing to the talk page. I am done with you. If I really am wrong, that's not for you to decide, it will be a consensus of more than several users. It is ridiculous that I can't address anything with you in a reasonable way. Anyways, it not my problem any more. I will let other deal with you who have the patience to address your childish and immature conduct. It's sad that things have come to this, but you have left me with no choice. You thought that buy bullying me and accusing me of an edit war that would silence any opinion other than yours. That's not the case at all. I'm sure there will be much more positive contributions to this article that offer views vastly different than your own.Susanknowledgeguru (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

1. I said I agreed with your definition. I said you were applying it wrong. 2. I am trying to discuss this with you, but you seem stuck on the idea that my attacking your arguments is attacking you. I'm not, nor have I ever attacked you. Meanwhile, you continue to attack me by calling me childish, claim that I am bullying you, and the like. You're a new editor and I am trying to cut you some slack but you are continuing to push this towards an outcome you won't like. That is not a threat, it's an observation. Please take some time to consider what you want to get out of editing Wikipedia and if you can handle criticism of your arguments without taking them personally. I hope you find have a better experience than you are currently having. --Tarage (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

My bad, I realized that I didn't read your response correctly. I think I was frustrated when I was reading it, so I should have waited to respond until after I cooled off a bit. Anyhow, I posted a responses at the end of this section, mainly in response to Antandrus, but I think it addresses some of the points that you made as well. Sorry about the misunderstanding, I will try to read your posts more thoroughly before responding from now on.Susanknowledgeguru (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

While well-intended, this section does not belong. Some criminal somewhere in the world announces that he's committing "asymmetric warfare" -- and we put a whole section on it in this article -- that's as gross a violation of WP:UNDUE as I can imagine. In the article on the criminal, that's the place to mention asymmetric warfare -- not mention of the criminal on the article on the topic. Antandrus (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Although I do not feel like contributing much at this point, I will do so anyways, because I created this section of the talk page and as such it probably would not be right for me to walk away from a debate I started until both sides can reach some middle ground.

Antandrus, I do understand the point you are trying to make. I do not doubt the possibility of it being a valid argument. The issue that I take with it and similar arguments that I have heard is that a big generalization is being made "Some criminal somewhere in the world announces he's committing asymmetric warfare". While I do not doubt the possibility of others making that declaration I have never heard anyone besides Dorner make that proclamation before. Can you present a list of people who have done that to show that it is common and thus insignificant? It seems to me that it is quite notable that an individual made such a proclamation, because in a traditional context, I think asymmetric warfare has mostly involved nations involved in conflict. I don't believe that WP:UNDUE would apply because this event made national headlines, and I am sure I remember reading somewhere that some law enforcement officers said it was the biggest manhunt in their careers(I can look that up if you wish).

I still believe that his actions did constitute asymmetric warfare. I will attempt to explain my reasoning a little further with hopes that it will make more sense. The couple he shot initially was a planned and direct attack, I believe. The next incident when he ambushed and shot 2 cops (killing 1), I don't think he targeted them specifically, I just think he ambushed them because they are cops as part of his plan to execute asymmetric warfare. I do admit that after it was clear he was on the run, none of those event were likely part of his plan. The point that I want to bring up is that asymmetric warfare is going to look different when done by an individual, as opposed to nation vs nation. You cannot say that just because his campaign was short lived it didn't constitute asymmetric warfare.

Lastly, I would really like to discuss these points in more detail rather people coming here and immediately dismissing my ideas by telling me "I'm running out of ways to tell you that you are wrong." Please afford me some courtesy and I will be happy to engage in a meaningful conversation from now on. Thanks, and I will do my best from now on to engage more appropriately. I had to step away for a day to cool off.Susanknowledgeguru (talk) 03:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't going to comment because I felt that if perhaps others explained why this section doesn't belong, that perhaps you would listen to them. However I must correct your understanding of WP:UNDUE. Undue weight means giving something article space that grossly outweighs it's actual relevance. In this case, the actions of one man, over the course of a few days, cannot possibly equal the weight of wars between countries. I'll ask you again, do you see any single person on this article that matches the weight of the one you are attempting to add? Does something like the American Revolutionary War have the same scale and importance as one cop killer? There is absolutely no possible way to rationalize that these two things are even remotely the same scale of importance. There is no middle ground to be had here, because it should not be included at all. A link from the article page to this one suffices because it follows the standards of Wikipedia that we have abided by for years. Given that it breaks WP:UNDUE, it must be removed. You can debate and discuss it all you like, but it doesn't change that fact. Please try to understand. --Tarage (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Tarage, thank you for responding. Basically what I was saying is that the actions of one individual can't be judged on the same scale by which a nation or larger entity is judged collectively. By that kind of scale the actions of any one individual, even someone quite famous could be considered relatively insignificant. To make an analogy, I just went and looked at the Wikipedia page for the United States. It mostly talks about the country and it also mentions the names of a number of people. Every single one of those people is famous, yet just a drop in the bucket when you view the U.S. as a whole. Who is to judge the significance of those famous people?

To keep using my analogy, my understanding of WP:UNDUE is such that if someone were to go to the Wikipedia page for the U.S. and add and mention Thomas Jefferson, that would not violate WP:UNDUE. However, if someone were to mention "Samuel L Jackson" then that would violate WP:UNDUE, because obviously he is not that significant in comparison to other public figures. Anyways as I have said before, I am not aware of any individual who has declared asymmetric warfare and then taken steps to follow through with it. Dorner certainly was in the national spotlight, and he did act individually so obviously whatever he did is not going to match what nation vs nation could do.Susanknowledgeguru (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You are almost at an understanding of WP:UNDUE, but you're just missing it. Let me put it this way: In 50 years, will Dorner's name be in any history books? Will the Vietnam War? Will the American Civil War? That's the difference. Dorner will be forgotten quite quickly. These events will not. THAT is why adding him is undue weight. Do you understand? --Tarage (talk) 05:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I do understand the point you are making, however, I don't agree with it. The Vietnam War for example, is in the history books because it was a major historically event, not because it had an attribute of asymmetric warfare. The title of this article is not "Major Historical Events Involving Asymmetric Warfare". If that was the title of this article, I would completely agree with you. Again, Dorner is notable because he is an individual, perhaps the only widely known individual who(debate) has performed asymmetric warfare. Do you know of another? When articles such as this list events as examples of a given topic, not all the events will carry the same weight. The fact that all events mentioned do not carry the same weight, do not mean that an event that carries less weight than others is an automatic violation of WP:UNDUE. If you really feel Dorner is being given undue weight, please quantify that by comparing him to another individual who has done something similar, but carries much more weight. It seems absurd to compare his actions to things like wars between countries, it is not a good comparison.Susanknowledgeguru (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Lawrence of Arabia. It's right in the article. Dorner and Lawrence of Arabia are not even remotely close to being the same weight. --Tarage (talk) 06:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

True they don't carry the same weight. The Lawrence of Arabia does provide some sort of scale with which others can be measured against. I think the real question is what the minimum value on that scale would be for inclusion in this article. Anyways, I will let others discuss that, I was really hoping that many other people would join in, but that didn't really happen too much. I am pretty much exhausted from this subject so don't expect to hear from me any time soo. At least we were able to have a reasonable debate today.Susanknowledgeguru (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the minimum is, Dorner falls well short of it. --Tarage (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, since no one has yet to agree with my position, I think it would be best if someone were to delete the section on Christopher Dorner when the article is unlocked. That seems to be the general consensus here and while I do not agree with the reasoning, think it would be best to just let it go for now. Until I see more people who agree with my position on the talk page, I will assume in good faith that the article is best as-is(without Christopher Dorner section), and I will refrain from editing it in any way. I would also recommend that maybe all the back and forth on the talk page for this section be removed(I don't want to be the one to do it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanknowledgeguru (talk • contribs) 01:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Vietnam War

I think that the Vitnam war deserves a significant mention on the page,specifically in the Examples section. It is a perhaps the most significant example of a small country fighting a more powerful country to a standstill,mostly using asymmetrical tactics.I see this is mentioned above,but without any significant objections.Rwenonah (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Asymmetric warfare was used significantly by the Vietcong during the Vietnam War. Vietcong forces used guerrilla tactics against superior American forces to considerable effect,enabling them to launch hit-and-run attacks,then disappear into the South Vietnamese countryside. The text added could go like that,and be headed "Vietnam War"(duh). Rwenonah (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

There is already a short mention of the action in Vietnam, very similar to what you suggested, under the "Asymmetric warfare#After World War II" section. It says, "In Southeast Asia, specifically Vietnam, the Viet Cong and other communist insurgencies engaged in asymmetrical guerilla warfare with the United States during the period of the Vietnam War." Although the fighting is known as the Vietnam War in the US, other countries tend to have different names for it, as it wasn't just Vietnam, there was quite a bit of fighting in Laos and Cambodia as well. One person responded to a question like this already and said that the Vietnam People's Army was more of a conventional army and that, "some of the battles were much more stand up fights (Ia Drang Valley, Hue, Khe Sanh etc) than guerilla warfare". One of the tenets of Wikipedia is that new material should be verifiable. Perhaps you could list some books, magazines, etc., which describe the asymmetrical tactics employed during the Vietnam War? Banaticus (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

That mention is insignificant, a small subsection of another small subsection. And also:

a) When Southern California Shootings has an entire section,there is precedent to give every tiny military encounter containing even a mention of asymmetric warfare a section on the page,let alone a conflict as major as the Vietnam war. It seems to deserve a subsection to itself. b)About three-quarters of the examples section has no citations. c)I never referred to the Vietnam People's Army,and it made a smaller contribution to the war than the Viet Cong anyway. I'll try to find some citations. Rwenonah (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Do not use the Southern California Shootings section as precedent. It will be removed as soon as the lock is. --Tarage (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Adding references

Hi there. I have been adding references to topics my supervisor (T.V. Paul) has written extensively on. Asymmetric warfare is one of them. I will not add any of his argument here or try to sell what he is doing. I just want to provide the reference for further reading. Is that ok? I received a warning about that (I am very new to the editing business here) and I want to do things right in the future. Thank you! Coercive Diplomacy (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

See below. Mysterious Whisper 14:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Making sure I am doing this right

Hi, I added one reference to the further reading section this morning (Complex Deterrence). I am the student of one of the author, T.V. Paul. I will not add summaries anymore as it was mentioned to me it may be a conflict of interest. Simply adding books or articles (in this case one) that are of relevance to the topic. Is that ok? Thank you! Coercive Diplomacy (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that may be considered a form of spam. Rather than add books or articles to the page directly, it is preferred that you post them on the relevant talkpage (with a brief explanation) so that uninvolved editors may add them if they deem them appropriate. Mysterious Whisper 14:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

American rebels, not partisans?

By the definition of partisan (in the article of that namej, the word is used incorrectly in the section about the American Revolution:“The return of the British force to Boston … was subject to constant skirmishing, using partisan forces…” The definition is given as: “A partisan is a member of an irregular military force formed to oppose control of an area by a foreign power or by an army of occupation …” Despite the propagandists efforts to portray the British as a foreign power or an occupying army, they were not, at least until the treaty creating the United States and certainly before the Declaration of Independence. They were the legitimate authority in the colonies. Consequently those who opposed them were rebels rather than partisans. Nevertheless, I anticipate some resistance to calling them rebels. Moreover, the definition of partisan is debatable. (See the talk page of the article Partisan, under the topics “terminology” and “etymology”.) Therefore I have changed it to the accepted “Patriots.” Humphrey Tribble (talk) 05:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine

The Russia-Ukraine war is certainly not a 'classical asymmetrical warfare scenario'. Rather, it seems dubious to label it as assymetric at all. The section makes mention of Russia's larger economy, which is immaterial, at least for the time being, while Ukraine is bankrolled by several other nations. Russia's nuclear arsenal is also mentioned, and while there's a valid argument to be made that it changes the dynamics of the war, this would seem to be a rather facile way to define asymmetrical warfare.

Ukraine has hundreds of fighter jets, ballistic missiles, modern tanks and state of the art anti tank weaponry. Perhaps the conflict belongs here, but not as a 'classical scenario' - a term clearly more applicable to the IRA, Hamas/PIJ etc. NingNonger (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I changed the wording to say 'in some respects' instead, and also reworded parts of it. Terrainman (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)