Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
293,832
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 5:
Line 5: − + + Line 15:
Line 16: + Line 20:
Line 22: + + +
no edit summary
In a war of attrition, countries ramp up their production of arms. In addition, countries often bomb the opposition's war production facilities in order to stop the enemy from resupplying (Unless it's a nuclear power.). In some cases, such as WWII, key components of a country's war machine capabilities such as oil production are restricted. Furthermore, various means are used to harm an enemy's economy such as economic sanctions.
In a war of attrition, countries ramp up their production of arms. In addition, countries often bomb the opposition's war production facilities in order to stop the enemy from resupplying (Unless it's a nuclear power.). In some cases, such as WWII, key components of a country's war machine capabilities such as oil production are restricted. Furthermore, various means are used to harm an enemy's economy such as economic sanctions.
Alex Vershinin of [[UK]]'s Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a [[globalist]] and [[military industrial complex]] [[think tank]], says of attritional wars: "Attritional wars require their own 'Art of War' and are fought with a 'force-centric' approach, unlike [[wars of manoeuvre]] which are 'terrain-focused'. They are rooted in massive [[industrial]] capacity to enable the replacement of losses, [[geography|geographical depth]] to absorb a series of defeats, and [[technological]] conditions that prevent rapid ground movement. In attritional wars, [[military]] operations are shaped by a [[state]]'s ability to replace losses and generate new formations, not tactical and operational manoeuvres. The side that accepts the attritional nature of war and focuses on destroying enemy forces rather than gaining terrain is most likely to win." Vershinin adds,
==21st century wars of attrition==
Alex Vershinin of [[UK]]'s Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a [[globalist]] and [[military industrial complex]] [[think tank]], says of attritional wars: "Attritional wars require their own 'Art of War' and are fought with a 'force-centric' approach, unlike [[wars of manoeuvre]] which are 'terrain-focused'. They are rooted in massive [[industry|industrial]] capacity to enable the replacement of losses, [[geography|geographical depth]] to absorb a series of defeats, and [[technology|technological]] conditions that prevent rapid ground movement. In attritional wars, [[military]] operations are shaped by a [[state]]'s ability to replace losses and generate new formations, not tactical and operational manoeuvres. The side that accepts the attritional nature of war and focuses on destroying enemy forces rather than gaining terrain is most likely to win." Vershinin adds,
"[[The West]] is not prepared for this kind of war."
"[[The West]] is not prepared for this kind of war."
"What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations." - [[Sun Tzu]]
"What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations." - [[Sun Tzu]]
==See also==
==See also==
* [[Fourth generation warfare]]
* [[Fourth generation warfare]]
* [[Irreligion/religion and war]]
* [[Irreligion/religion and war]]
==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Wars]]
[[Category:Wars]]