• Of course as far as casualties to yourself the high tech. Guerilla is old tactics which will fade out like the tactic of lining up and marching straight at the enemy not firing until told.
  • It would depend a lot on the particulars of the war. If you are heavily out numbered or out powered then guerrilla is the best way to fight. If you have the technology and don't want to indiscriminately destroy things then high tech is for you.
  • That would be Were-Squatch warfare.
  • I prefer peace without either ... High Tech has much more effective results with speed ... but a much higher rate of innocent casualties ...
  • Interestingly, as we have seen in the Vietnam War for the U.S., Guerrilla warfare somehow managed to change the sentiment of the public at home, and it looks like the same thing is happening in Iraq, although not as prevalent.
  • look at Iraq... insurgents AK47: about $30-70 200 rounds of ammo: $5 US army M16 or derivatives:$500+ Armor:$1400 One F22 raptor: 35 million And then look who is winning...
  • Guerrilla. High-tech warfare may be able to kill large numbers of people quicker, but that includes your own troops and civilians. Additionally, the logistics are a nightmare, financial costs spiral out of control almost instantly, and the troops get so used to their toys that when technology fails them (ran out of batteries) they are helpless. By contrast guerrilla warfare is slow and ugly, but far more precise in terms of avoiding civilian casualties (if that is a concern) and the logistics are phenomonal. Anybody who wishes to dispute this viewpoint shuld consider three historical examples 1) Revolutionary War - We were Guerrillas and the British were (relatively) High-tech. We won. 2) Vietnam - If I need to explain this, you don't belong in this debate. 3) Iraq - Ditto.
  • Outwitting the enemy...I guess I would coose Guerrilla Warfare then along with trashing their hi-tech weapons.
  • Outwitting the enemy...I guess I would coose Guerrilla Warfare then along with trashing their hi-tech weapons.
  • Well, none of them are good as warfare brings the downfall of mankind, or at least mass slaughter of mankind. Overall high tech warfare is massively more lethal, whether to enemies or civilians.
  • No amount of high-tech weaponry can defeat a brave foe fighting for their own country. History provides many, many examples of this. In fact I don't think I can think of a single exception.

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy