What do you think is the most effective tactic, conventional or unconventional warfare?

Question

In this age i.e. Iraq and Afganistan, various contries have deployed different types of forces. America and Britain went with the conventional forces where Australia and New Zealand went with unconventional, as there main force.

Which do you thing works best?

Answer 1

You need both. Unconventional forces simply do not have the mass required for shock and rout. In Afghanistan, unconventional forces figured prominently for all major combatant nations in the early days of the conflict before units such as the 101st Airborne were mobilized and committed. Those unconventional forces used Northern Alliance troops to rout the Taliban.

There are times when you need numbers just as much as firepower.

Answer 2

Unconventional. Don't be fooled, the CIA are masters at Unconventional tactics. The CIA is the President's private army. The CIA are constantly being sent on secret missions that you and I will usually never hear about. The only time we hear about some of their secret Unconventional tactics is when there is BLOW BACK. Blow Back is the CIA phrase that simply means, retaliation.
If you recall, that back in the 1970's there was a major event in the Middle East involving Iran. The Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew the Shaw of Iran. As it turns out, The Shaw of Iran was placed into office by the CIA. The CIA went into Action and put Sadam Husien into office in Iraq. The Ayatollah and Sadam were enemies. THE CIA gave Sadam his weapons of mass destruction. So Bush wasn't lying, because the USA gave him those weapons. Sadam later turned on the Kuwait and tried to take over the region. --- BLOW BACK--- at it best. EVEN 9/11 was due to Blow Back.
You and I get to enjoy freedom such as playing on Yahoo and the internet, because the CIA is out and about doing some secret and UNCONVENTIONAL stuff. Stuff that would be better if you and I didn't know about!!!

Answer 3

Pre-emptive unconventional attacks against the command & control apparatus probably is the most effective. But who will deal with the radioactive fallout and what happens if the enemy gets off a few nukes before they're knocked out? Pretty high stakes in the modern age....

Answer 4

before, the outcome of war could be almost accurately predicted based on their relative strength in terms of weapons and personnel. now, almost everything is unpredictable in assymetric warfare.

unconventional warfare, taken in its broadest sense, is the most preferrable -- regardless whether you have the advantage of strength or not. unconventional warfare is not limited to the use of WMDs like nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. in fact, the side that does not have those weapons can benefit well from unconventional warfare through guerilla tactics and psywar.

Answer 5

It all depends on what you mean by unconventional. That can mean many things. Unconventional tactics can mean the use of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons while conventional is any other type of weapon.

Answer 6

Well although it will always depend on the enemy and the terrain, unconventional is more difficult to defend, becauser that is its nature. Sometimes though it is unethical

Answer 7

Conventional if you have the might. If you don't then your only choice is unconventional.

Answer 8

the least acceptable. during the crusades, christian knights were told that there were to every one to the sword. when told that some of the town folks were christian, the reply was"kill them all for God will know his own". ergo, total annihilation is the most effective and least accepted tactic known to man