September 10, 2008


Yours Truly

I wonder if the experience of the Vietnamese count? They drove out the French, withstood American might, & tackled the chinese. Lessons to be gleaned from 'em in relation to "hybrid war" or 4GW? Poison pill indeed.

I've heard rumors of "Vietnam Rose" as well, bio war? Anyway to clarify?


I wouldn't necessarily count the Vietnamese example--it took them about twenty years to get both the French and Americans out. A better example would be the Chechens in 1995. Pick up Robert Bunker's "Non-State Threats and Future Wars" and flip to Dave Dillege (of SWJ's) interview with the Chechens at the back.

I'm not sure what you're referring to re: bio war.

Yours Truly

"Vietnam Rose" : I've no idea how much truth there is to this. Rumored that Viet prostitutes under the charge of the Viet Cong would transmit some sort of disease (decomposing of phallic parts)to the soldiers of the South along with the US troops.

Thanks for the suggested book, I've seen it but have yet to pick it up.


The advantage of that Bunker book (vs. the others in the collection) is that it's the cheapest and has some very interesting theoretical stuff. His other book "Criminal-States and Criminal Soldiers" has a lot of interesting stuff on gangs and black globalization.

If the brothel bio-warfare example is true, it seems like more of a psyop, as it had limited effectiveness in downgrading combat operations. It certainly sounds like it would scare the shit out of people deployed over there, though.

Yours Truly

Yeah, mosquitoes & other jungle pests + VietCong + ambuscades + lack of clear strategy from top brass - young nubile Vietnamese girls = Hell on Earth Tour of Duty

Sven Ortmann

Those people who consider guerrilla warfare as an acceptable form of national defense seem t ignore too much of the damage that such warfare does t the society.

Proposals to apply the Guerrilla concept to national defense in the Baltic states are outright nonsense.


Austria had (and a German general proposed in the 70's) a defense concept that called for many infantry units that operated behind enemy lines (if the WP had invaded) to tie down enemy land forces and disrupt communications - a strategy that aimed at making Austria a very disadvantageous route for WW3 operations.
That was reasonable. It was not like today's Guerrilla war proposals about self-sacrificing conflicts. The deportation of Baltic people and the end of their Guerrilla efforts by about '52 shows that it's a poor strategy for them.

The fate of Chechnya shows that it's a poor strategy for Georgia.

The first component of every national security strategy needs to be to ensure that you've got no overly aggressive idiot as head of government/state.
That's the real national security problem for several nations today.


Another variation is the Swiss model. They have survived a long time by appearing to be a small threat and very hard to conquer.


I honestly agree with Ortmann--it won't work as a deterrent and it will only devastate the country that employs it.

Yours Truly

The Swiss, in my mind they seem to have adopted a sort of 'porcupine' like form of defense.


Adam, off topic but Congratulations on the John Boyd Roundtable book! Very much looking forward to reading it.

The comments to this entry are closed.