tedrick@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (03/13/91)
From: tedrick@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick)
(I've been trying to analyze the problem of attacking
underground fortifications. I'd appreciate comments and
criticism of the following article.)
************************************
I've been thinking about the next war. Historically the pattern has
been, that the victors tend to rest on their laurels, while the losers
learn some things from their mistakes, and prepare counter-measures for
the weapons and tactics used against them in the previous conflict.
Next time around the former victors tend to get caught by surprise in
the opening phase of the fighting, by these new weapons and tactics.
The interval between wars can be thought of as the preparatory
phase for the next war. A large part of the credit for the victory
in the Iraqi theatre can be attributed to the buildup of American
forces during the 1980s, and the development of new weapons and
tactics. Therefore it seems logical to me that in order to prepare
for victory in the next war, we ought to think about what new
weapons and tactics we can develop in the interval, so that we
will have some new tricks up our sleeves, to surprise our enemies.
In particular what interests me currently is the problem of
attacking underground fortifications. Various former enemies
went to great lengths to develop underground fortifications,
costing us many lives in the Japanese theatre during WW2, and
during the Vietnam conflict, for example. Saddam Hussein seems to
have remained more or less invulnerable during the recent battles,
hiding out underground. The Soviets and some of their client states
have exhibited great mastery in exploiting underground facilities.
Part of the idea seems to be to neutralize our air superiority,
and force us to use land forces, if we want to root out the dug
in enemy. The enemy strategy seems to be that this may lead to a
politically unacceptable cost in American lives, thus leading to
termination of our attack.
The first method of attack that occurs to me, is using missile
weapons with powerful explosives (or gas), which can penetrate
deep underground. I believe this is an area in which serious work
is being done currently, but which involves great technical
difficulties outside my area of knowledge.
The next thing that occurs to me, is to attack the connections
between the underground area and the surface. These connections
might consist of entrances which allow physical access to the
underground areas, openings which allow air into the underground
area, communications links between the underground and outside,
and possibly pipes bringing in water. If these connections can
be destroyed, the underground facilities would be effectively
neutralized, even if not destroyed. Since command facilities
are often located underground, neutralizing communications links
with the outside world could effectively decapitate the enemy
leadership.
Then the problem seems to be, obtaining information on where these
connections are, and using precision weapons (and other means) to
destroy or otherwise neutralize them. (Shallow field fortifications
can be destroyed by a direct hit with precision weapons if they can
be detected, of course. Hence it might be useful to develop cheap
precision weapons which can be manufactured and used in large
quantities, for attacking fieldworks.)
So further development and refinement of precision weapons, and
means of attacking connections to the underground, seems to be
indicated.
The problem of obtaining information about the location of these
connections seems difficult. One possibility might be to build up
a database now, of underground facilities, and communications links,
in existence or under construction, in areas of potential conflict,
continually updating it over time. Satellite surveillance, information
obtained from construction companies, and various other forms of spying
would seem to be indicated. My guess is that a substantial increase in
the number of satellites in orbit would be required, perhaps enough
to allow continuous observation of certain areas. Also techniques
for quickly discovering entrances to the underground, and other
information about the locations of the various types of underground
fortifications, in times of crisis, might be worked out.
Finally, a strategy for attempting to obtain maximum benefits from
new means of attacking underground facilities might be worked out.
Perhaps accumulation of a large number of the appropriate weapons,
infiltration of special forces, and simultaneously attacking the
largest possible number of underground facilities at a critical
moment, in combination with other offensive measures, could lead to
effective decapitation of enemy command and control, and create
conditions of maximum confusion in the enemy camp, leading to
mass panics and retreats, and hence the opportunity for aerial
attacks on the retreating forces ("turkey shoots"), and/or mass
surrenders of enemy forces.