Syrian Campaign «Stepsons of Jihad» (1st RED VS BLUE campaign)

[agusto]

The thing with modern warfare (unless it's red vs red) is that the main victory goal is to have minimal blue casualties, while it's expected that red will suffer and endure massive casualties.

The main goal of modern warfare is still nothing else but to succeed in acomplishing the mission while suffering minimum casualtis, the same as it was in ancient times, where hoplites tried to stab eachother in the face. The only reason why David vs Goliath scenarios (like US vs Syria/Iraq) appear to be so disporportional casualty wise is because they are what they are: a superpower with state of the art post year 2000 equipment and training vs a state with an at least 1000 times smaller military budget and 1970s Soviet equipment. Suffering 1:1 casualaties in such a conflict would be nothing but an example of extremely bad leadership and organisation and thus impossible to sell politically. But if, for example, the US were to wage war versus an equally developed foe, casualties would be of course much higher on the Blue side than in Iraq or Afgahnistan.

[Erwin]

Agreed Agusto. I should have explained that your reasons are why I am confident we will never have a conventional conflict between "equals" (in the foreseeable future).

The future wars will be cyberwar and economic and arguably have been going on already for many years. We just don't get told about a fraction of the cyberwar attacks on our systems - power outages, airline systems going down, bank errors, corporate espionage etc etc...