And invisible war carried out underground will not constitute a "Fallujah-style" fight in an American city. Whether such things happen or don't happen is irrelevant to the wager.
What is your response to 1 and 2?
1) is fine. 2) is probably the best I can hope for, although I would prefer clearer terms than that.
It won't be entirely invisible, although that's what the President says USA is in a war against.
A battle sphere consists of both the "space" above as well as the ground below, and the tunnels below the ground below.
Because there are tunnels and underground cities beneath American cities like New York and Seattle, are you then saying your bet only covers a surface level conflict like Fallujah? That doesn't take into account the entire battle "sphere". It makes no sense to divide operations between space, air, ground, and underground. If it is one city's area of operations, then it should include all layers.
As for your response about 2, since it is your bet that you forwarded to me, the vagueness is up to you to define. If you are trading or betting a specific restriction or outcome for me, then you should put it down in writing. I specifically wrote down what I would be writing about after all. What if I wanted to write something that you didn't want me to write about? See, this is why if you want specifics, then be specific.
As you can see, Grim, the area of operations may be a city, but American cities are a little bit more complicated than Iraqi cities. And certainly the level of fortification and defense layering has been feasible for decades, not just the limited amount of time the insurgents had in Iraq.
That does not even include Norad or Cheyenne Mountain. If there is a fight on that mountain, does it not count unless it is on the surface?
The United States has a significant number of underground military assets, plus civilian assets. That these would become hotly contested, is not unwarranted from a tactical perspective.
But there's no city on top of NORAD... well not a civilian city at least, so we can discount that.
But it brings up an important tactical point that there may be bunker situations and trench type warfare. Fallujah II style refers to the number of units and assets as well as insurgency vs COIN methods employed. But I explicitly said such a conflict in an American city. And many American cities, still have underground areas.
Back when he was blogging more often, Lawdog had a great little piece that started, "Someone call Homicide. The Body's missing!" and then went on to describe the thoughts of the poor Roman NCO on duty that morning and his reaction to the news. Something about "No, Corporal, the tomb was closed when you got there and the guards were awake. Right Corporal?" And so on. :) Not unlike the transcript of the Soviet radar operator and commander when Matias Rust flew into the USSR and landed in Red Square.
Fallujah II style refers to the number of units and assets as well as insurgency vs COIN methods employed. But I explicitly said such a conflict in an American city. And many American cities, still have underground areas.
Specifically, you mentioned armored units. Fallujah II was characterized by the deployment of heavy armor with infantry screens, as well as house-to-house fighting. If this happens, it will be visible -- not underground, at least not wholly so. Tanks will be moving through the streets, conducting fires on buildings in American cities.
7 comments:
Love it.
Back to the wager game negotiation, Grim.
And invisible war carried out underground will not constitute a "Fallujah-style" fight in an American city. Whether such things happen or don't happen is irrelevant to the wager.
What is your response to 1 and 2?
1) is fine. 2) is probably the best I can hope for, although I would prefer clearer terms than that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Fallujah
It won't be entirely invisible, although that's what the President says USA is in a war against.
A battle sphere consists of both the "space" above as well as the ground below, and the tunnels below the ground below.
Because there are tunnels and underground cities beneath American cities like New York and Seattle, are you then saying your bet only covers a surface level conflict like Fallujah? That doesn't take into account the entire battle "sphere". It makes no sense to divide operations between space, air, ground, and underground. If it is one city's area of operations, then it should include all layers.
As for your response about 2, since it is your bet that you forwarded to me, the vagueness is up to you to define. If you are trading or betting a specific restriction or outcome for me, then you should put it down in writing. I specifically wrote down what I would be writing about after all. What if I wanted to write something that you didn't want me to write about? See, this is why if you want specifics, then be specific.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Underground
https://ny.curbed.com/maps/nyc-subway-secret-tunnels
As you can see, Grim, the area of operations may be a city, but American cities are a little bit more complicated than Iraqi cities. And certainly the level of fortification and defense layering has been feasible for decades, not just the limited amount of time the insurgents had in Iraq.
That does not even include Norad or Cheyenne Mountain. If there is a fight on that mountain, does it not count unless it is on the surface?
The United States has a significant number of underground military assets, plus civilian assets. That these would become hotly contested, is not unwarranted from a tactical perspective.
But there's no city on top of NORAD... well not a civilian city at least, so we can discount that.
But it brings up an important tactical point that there may be bunker situations and trench type warfare. Fallujah II style refers to the number of units and assets as well as insurgency vs COIN methods employed. But I explicitly said such a conflict in an American city. And many American cities, still have underground areas.
Back when he was blogging more often, Lawdog had a great little piece that started, "Someone call Homicide. The Body's missing!" and then went on to describe the thoughts of the poor Roman NCO on duty that morning and his reaction to the news. Something about "No, Corporal, the tomb was closed when you got there and the guards were awake. Right Corporal?" And so on. :) Not unlike the transcript of the Soviet radar operator and commander when Matias Rust flew into the USSR and landed in Red Square.
LittleRed1
Fallujah II style refers to the number of units and assets as well as insurgency vs COIN methods employed. But I explicitly said such a conflict in an American city. And many American cities, still have underground areas.
Specifically, you mentioned armored units. Fallujah II was characterized by the deployment of heavy armor with infantry screens, as well as house-to-house fighting. If this happens, it will be visible -- not underground, at least not wholly so. Tanks will be moving through the streets, conducting fires on buildings in American cities.
Post a Comment