Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

Which is why the nazis never had any opposition in the territory they controlled. Oh wait.
But frankly, I don't see the issue with letting enough food through that everyone in the besieged area can eat. It's not like the rebels are regaining HPs when they eat a sandwhich or anything.

Starving Spartans couldn't resist well-fed Athenians, despite training their whole lives for war. There is a very intrinsic difference between an enemy that cannot eat and an enemy that has eaten

[Zangi]

Problem appears when your enemy is so deranged that your aid is a sign of weakness for them.
It should be noted that the only way an COIN operation is going to be 100% succesful is literally worse-than-Hitler military police and executions for slightest sign of breaking the law, to the point of literal genocide.

Which is why the nazis never had any opposition in the territory they controlled. Oh wait.

But frankly, I don't see the issue with letting enough food through that everyone in the besieged area can eat. It's not like the rebels are regaining HPs when they eat a sandwhich or anything.

It sends a weird message. 
1: Start an armed revolt
2: Take control of a population area
3: Manage to entrench yourself
4: Get a lifetime guaranteed free food shipments from the gov't you are rebelling against or some international organization
4a: Maybe eventually have weapons/ammo/stuff smuggled in with the food
5: ?
6: .... ?  Declare city-state independence or something?

I guess we could send food to Best Korea.

[Rolepgeek]

You can entrench yourself, but that doesn't mean you have endless supplies of ammunition. The rebels require ammunition, food, water, and medical supplies. The civilians require food, water and medical supplies. You don't let arm shipments in there, and eventually they run out of bullets, and there's a minimum of civilian suffering. Considering these are ideological groups, not giving them food is a very good way of giving them rhetorical ammunition. 'See, the West/gov't doesn't care about you! They hate any notion of resistance to their domination, and care not who may suffer as a result; why else would they refuse even such basics as food for the city?'

Plus, you know who starves first in a siege? Not the people with guns. So the effectiveness is much reduced.

But yes, that is the typical way rebellions work, though on a larger scale. 4a is doing a lot of work on a flimsy proposition in your scenario. Not that you can't smuggle shit, just that I don't think it's that simple or common as to justify starving out the civilian populace as well.

[Sheb]

Problem appears when your enemy is so deranged that your aid is a sign of weakness for them.
It should be noted that the only way an COIN operation is going to be 100% succesful is literally worse-than-Hitler military police and executions for slightest sign of breaking the law, to the point of literal genocide.

Which is why the nazis never had any opposition in the territory they controlled. Oh wait.

But frankly, I don't see the issue with letting enough food through that everyone in the besieged area can eat. It's not like the rebels are regaining HPs when they eat a sandwhich or anything.

It sends a weird message. 
1: Start an armed revolt
2: Take control of a population area
3: Manage to entrench yourself
4: Get a lifetime guaranteed free food shipments from the gov't you are rebelling against or some international organization
4a: Maybe eventually have weapons/ammo/stuff smuggled in with the food
5: ?
6: .... ?  Declare city-state independence or something?

I guess we could send food to Best Korea.

You know Best Korea does get food, right?

[Zangi]

I don't believe my stance really changes.  (I had forgotten that Best Korea gets aid...)

[Loud Whispers]

Considering these are ideological groups, not giving them food is a very good way of giving them rhetorical ammunition. 'See, the West/gov't doesn't care about you! They hate any notion of resistance to their domination, and care not who may suffer as a result; why else would they refuse even such basics as food for the city?'

The likelihood of Christians or Shiites joining the jihadists to whom their first introduction was "jizya, wives and death" is very small

Plus, you know who starves first in a siege? Not the people with guns. So the effectiveness is much reduced.

Conversely the people who are fed first by aid? The people with the guns, so the effectiveness is much reduced while the combat effectiveness of the enemy is maintained

But yes, that is the typical way rebellions work, though on a larger scale. 4a is doing a lot of work on a flimsy proposition in your scenario. Not that you can't smuggle shit, just that I don't think it's that simple or common as to justify starving out the civilian populace as well.

Seems simple when you are fighting an enemy unbound by laws to end them as quickly as possible

[Rolepgeek]

The relative effectiveness of 'saturate the area with food so everyone can manage to eat' versus 'starve them out so the civilian populace starves first in the hope that this will make a difference in the fighting ability of terrorists with rocket launchers'.

People will do crazy shit when they're hungry. Though, wasn't really talking about either of those groups, was more talking about the folks who support the same stuff the terrorists do, but aren't actually radicalized. Win the battle but not the war if you always forego public image.

Seems simple, yes. Sadly, little is; for one thing I think it may be a war crime to starve a civilian population, though I'm not certain. I mean, hell, if you really wanted to end them as quickly as possible and don't care about civilian life or public opinion, we do have access to tactical nuclear weapons.

[Loud Whispers]

The relative effectiveness of 'saturate the area with food so everyone can manage to eat' versus 'starve them out so the civilian populace starves first in the hope that this will make a difference in the fighting ability of terrorists with rocket launchers'.

Saturating the area with food puts your own people at risk, reduces your supplies whilst increasing your enemies for certain. This is compared to a strategy of starving your enemy to death, actively reducing their fighting capabilities. How will it not make a difference? Simple thermodynamics, poorly-fed soldiers do less.

People will do crazy shit when they're hungry. Though, wasn't really talking about either of those groups, was more talking about the folks who support the same stuff the terrorists do, but aren't actually radicalized. Win the battle but not the war if you always forego public image.

The ones who live in the countryside? Most of the Sunnis who support the same stuff the terrorists do are as much a problem as the terrorists, there isn't much difference between someone who wants to cleanse Syria of Shiites and Christians versus someone who is actively cleansing Syria. At any rate, those groups live in the countryside, not the city

Seems simple, yes. Sadly, little is; for one thing I think it may be a war crime to starve a civilian population, though I'm not certain.

Nah, it's not unless it's a deliberate act of genocide or something. In the context of besieging a city, it's a very common occurrence - cities are some of the greatest military targets and objectives in war, and for a military force there are only three options for taking one occupied by enemy forces. The first is street to street fighting that will cost your forces much in lives, the second is besiege it until the defenders are demoralized and incapable/less capable of mounting resistance and the third is do some WWII strategic bombing (freedom the city off the map).

I mean, hell, if you really wanted to end them as quickly as possible and don't care about civilian life or public opinion, we do have access to tactical nuclear weapons.

Yeah and we'd also start WWIII by using them, so we can't do much. We're also not the ones besieging these cities, it's the Russian-Syrian-Iranian coalition that is besieging them. The Syrian army is bled dry of soldiers, the Iranians probably could afford it, the Russians certainly can't (especially after their Afghanistan experience), so besieging and utilization of their air superiority is the method that guaranteed highest chance of victory (certainly looking at how they recaptured Aleppo - did work as intended). Moreover a tactical nuclear weapon would kill all of your civilians, if they were populated with your enemy and aiding their war effort such as in Germany, in such a case where total survival was in question yeah that'd be arguable. Simply cutting off supplies to your enemy would be the far more precise tool though, and would guarantee more of your own people surviving, whereas sure a tactical nuclear weapon would kill your enemy but it'd also kill all of your people too. Usage of a nuclear weapon against your own people would guarantee that your public opinion is destroyed; it is also wrong to say there is no care for civilian life or public opinion, merely no care for the public opinion of people who want to exterminate you and are unlikely to change their mind in addition to how civilian life will not be protected under the occupation of an enemy force that wants them exterminated. Starvation will kill many of them, but most will survive - liberation does more for PR than letting your enemy fight

[Parsely]

Usually the enemy surrenders before they actually start dying of starvation. That's the desired goal and what's been proven to happen over the course of human history when a force runs out of food.

[Rolepgeek]

It's what happens with forces not driven by religious fervor, typically. Though a slow martyrdom is often far less appealing than a fast one.

But Loud Whispers has a point, as much as I dislike the idea of the collateral damage. If the city's people don't support the terrorists, they're as likely or more to be killed by them as they are by starvation, and the threat of such may drive them to fight back to try and be liberated faster (or at least that would be the hope).

I think I was under a different impression as to the population of the city than is the reality; I was thinking they were people neither actively supporting nor being oppressed by the occupiers. Essentially with no stake either way; this is obviously inaccurate, and my fault for not actually thinking through the specifics of this situation. Apologies.

[Loud Whispers]

But Loud Whispers has a point, as much as I dislike the idea of the collateral damage. If the city's people don't support the terrorists, they're as likely or more to be killed by them as they are by starvation, and the threat of such may drive them to fight back to try and be liberated faster (or at least that would be the hope).

They're more likely to keep to themselves, try and hide from the fighting and conserve their energy
It's not a desirable thing to do without regard, as in all likelihood it's the children who will starve to death first, but it is the method most likely to end a siege
*EDIT
Huh, surprisingly few child deaths, overwhelming majority of deaths are adult men. I guess they give their supplies to their kids before themselves
Interestingly there is 1 recorded death for siege in Aleppo. Most deaths appear to be from airstrikes, shelling, shooting, field executions and executions. I suppose the lethality of cutting a cities' supplies off would increase over time though

I think I was under a different impression as to the population of the city than is the reality; I was thinking they were people neither actively supporting nor being oppressed by the occupiers. Essentially with no stake either way; this is obviously inaccurate, and my fault for not actually thinking through the specifics of this situation. Apologies.

It's a complicated situation, for example there are many Sunnis in Aleppo who are family members of the FSA, while the FSA itself starting off as army defectors ended up dominated by jihadists. Within that branch were groups that "only" wanted supremacy of Sunni Islam whilst others actively wanted to purify Syria
Then there's ones like the Army of Conquest which is supported by Saudi Arabia that are very blatant in their cleansing of minorities or taking of hostages. Given that Al-Qaeda and ISIS led the forefront of the government opposition it's safe to say that the minority populations were forced to support the Syrian regime, take up arms themselves like the Kurds or else just try and keep their heads down and pray. Given how outnumbered the Syrian army was and how close it was to extermination before the Iranian and Russian intervention (indeed, one could argue, still is), its besieging of Aleppo has done it more good in the PR department than damage - most people will side with the victor, and by winning the economic capital of Syria, the regime is proving to undecided citizens that it still can win. Shit's pretty fucked

I think in a battle between two forces that weren't fighting wars of survival, one would really think twice about completely cutting off supplies to a town or city they intended to administer in future. I guess it's situational?

[Rolepgeek]

But Loud Whispers has a point, as much as I dislike the idea of the collateral damage. If the city's people don't support the terrorists, they're as likely or more to be killed by them as they are by starvation, and the threat of such may drive them to fight back to try and be liberated faster (or at least that would be the hope).

They're more likely to keep to themselves, try and hide from the fighting and conserve their energy
It's not a desirable thing to do without regard, as in all likelihood it's the children who will starve to death first, but it is the method most likely to end a siege
*EDIT
Huh, surprisingly few child deaths, overwhelming majority of deaths are adult men. I guess they give their supplies to their kids before themselves
Interestingly there is 1 recorded death for siege in Aleppo. Most deaths appear to be from airstrikes, shelling, shooting, field executions and executions. I suppose the lethality of cutting a cities' supplies off would increase over time though

Well, don't forget that most deaths would not be directly due to starvation; disease and infection are much more likely to kill if they don't have access to medical supplies and/or personnel and their immune systems are weakened by hunger.

I think in a battle between two forces that weren't fighting wars of survival, one would really think twice about completely cutting off supplies to a town or city they intended to administer in future. I guess it's situational?

Aye, that's probably about what I was thinking of. Sieges work, certainly, but if you're fighting people who can return to guerilla operations and could use the siege as a recruitment device, it seems risky. If you're in existential crisis mode, where you need to beat them right fucking now or very likely die, the long-term consequences seem more acceptable, somehow.

I definitely agree that shit's pretty fucked, tho

[misko27]

Usually the enemy surrenders before they actually start dying of starvation. That's the desired goal and what's been proven to happen over the course of human history when a force runs out of food.

It's what happens with forces not driven by religious fervor, typically.

Not always. Maybe typical, but certainly not the only possible outcome. The risk of running a siege is that sometimes your enemy is willing to call your bluff.

[Loud Whispers]

Well, don't forget that most deaths would not be directly due to starvation; disease and infection are much more likely to kill if they don't have access to medical supplies and/or personnel and their immune systems are weakened by hunger.

I had a flashback to the ME thread and recalled actually there were towns where the same siege tactics had an immense effect on the militants and civilian populace
Mass starvation kills surprisingly few, but the emaciated survivors surviving on grass and aid are not exactly what I'd refer to as "healthy." Or for that matter, long for life. Looking at them I'd say starvation would probably kill them before disease; it very much is a case of the length of the siege or in more serious cases, the starving not counting as the dead. It would be useful to describe them as casualties, as though they are not yet dead, they are pretty incapable of doing anything.
Sadly for them, the strategy works in forcing enemies into surrender. Only so much fighting you can do when your capability to fight has ceased to exist. Interestingly in the telegraph article they show the backlash against the rebels for surrendering, with one guy defending their surrender with this: “Those who didn't live under siege can't judge how it looks like.” I'm intrigued why the rebels are expected to fight to the death, and the backlash isn't wholly directed against the Assad regime.

Aye, that's probably about what I was thinking of. Sieges work, certainly, but if you're fighting people who can return to guerilla operations and could use the siege as a recruitment device, it seems risky. If you're in existential crisis mode, where you need to beat them right fucking now or very likely die, the long-term consequences seem more acceptable, somehow.
I definitely agree that shit's pretty fucked, tho

It doesn't seem risky if the city is occupied, as at that point what matters is not what their trending social media narrative is, but neutralizing/destroying the enemy
I recall one instance where a BBC reporter in Afghanistan witnessed Al-Qaeda launch a mortar attack that ended up tearing off this kid's leg, his father was absolutely distraught - convinced that the Americans had bombed him, because Al-Qaeda said so. On a very practical level though any state will want to minimize the damage to itself, as it will have to stop fighting some day, and that won't be possible if everyone's in no state to work and their cities are irreparably ruined

Not always. Maybe typical, but certainly not the only possible outcome. The risk of running a siege is that sometimes your enemy is willing to call your bluff.

Who would run a siege as a bluff? Moreover Leningrad the Germans failed to completely cut off all supplies to Leningrad, whose citizens were already fighting to the death. Without Finnish aid and with their forces spread between Leningrad, Moscow, Sevastopol etc. they were not able to capitulate on any advances or weaknesses, fighting a war of attrition they could ill afford to fight. One of the greatest benefits of this strategy is that it forces the enemy to surrender, however this incentive is completely erased when your side is offering two options:

• Fight to the death against us until you starve to death
• Surrender and be fed, until you die of exhaustion in a work camp/get executed

Moreover Stalin's ruthlessness ensured that what meagre supplies the Leningrad forces had was put to good use. Food, water, fuel and medicine was prioritized to soldiers, civilians were left to fend for themselves. Deserters were to be executed on the spot and Soviet "anti-retreat detachments" would complete the encirclement of trapped soldiers and citizens, by killing anyone who tried to flee the siege. This left all Soviet soldiers with no option for retreat, no option for surrender, no option for survival - only the chance to fight viciously with backs to the wall or die slowly in the cold. Stalin was pretty lucky the Nazis didn't show mercy to his soldiers, defection would have been a very real threat otherwise

[Egan_BW]

Every other country in the world simultaneously gets tired of our shit and declares war on the United States of America. What is the result of this?
Assume that nobody wants to use nukes, every other nation forms a coalition of some sort, so they don't fight amongst themselves, and that Trump is currently the president.

This is an attempted discussion transplant from Ameripol, feel free to ignore me.