چرا قدرتهای بزرگ در جنگهای کوچک شکست می‌خورند؟

In recent years, it has been seen many times that world powers have been defeated and grounded by small armies. But how is this possible? In this video, we are going to discuss why superpowers sometimes lose to armies that are much stronger than them Follow us on social media: Instagram:   / deep.podcast   Telegram Channel: Https://www.telegram.me/deeppodcast There are many examples in history in which a superpower goes to war with a small country but is ultimately forced to retreat with a major defeat. From the defeat of the Achaemenid army at Marathon and Salamis to the defeat of the United States in Vietnam. But how is it possible for a small group to win against a large empire when they are not at all comparable in terms of power. In the 1970s, the Americans realized after 20 years of war that they could not handle the North Vietnamese forces. They accepted defeat in Vietnam, but they were always looking for an answer to the question of why they could not win this clearly unequal war. In 1975, an English professor named Andrew J. R. Mack published an article titled "Why Do Big Countries Lose Small Wars?" An article in which he tried to completely change the concept of "power" in our minds Asymmetric warfare is a war that has completely different rules, weapons, and tactics from conventional warfare. In conventional warfare, two armies fight on the same front. One wins and the other loses, and in the end, either they sign a treaty or the victorious force takes over all the territory of the opponent. This is something that has always been etched in our minds throughout the history of warfare. But not all wars are like this. Take the war between the Israelis and the Palestinians, for example. There is no such thing as a war front. Wherever a Palestinian and an Israeli are, there can be a war. Such wars are called asymmetric warfare. Asymmetric warfare usually occurs when an army occupies a country and a group of people from that country decide to confront the invading army. In such cases, nothing is like the wars we have in mind. All the rules change. A clear example is the war that the Taliban had with American forces in Afghanistan. Or the war that the Americans had in Vietnam. But these wars that we mentioned, that is, the wars whose fronts are not clear, are just one model of asymmetric warfare. In some wars, the fronts are clear, but the method of fighting is different. For example, consider the wars fought between Hezbollah in Lebanon and Israel. These wars are also called asymmetric warfare, while in these wars the front is completely clear. So why is this war called asymmetric warfare? Because Israel is much stronger than Hezbollah in terms of facilities, weapons, war technologies, and intelligence. The power of the Israeli army is not comparable to that of Lebanon's Hezbollah. But Israel has repeatedly attacked Hezbollah directly and with all its might, but it has never been able to destroy Hezbollah or even make any significant progress in Lebanese territory. But how is it possible that Hezbollah, with a power that is much weaker than the Israeli army, has been able to defend itself against Israel and push them back? This is where another concept of asymmetric warfare comes into play, namely a different method and philosophy of war. That is, if you change your fighting style, you can defeat a superpower enemy with a much weaker army. Now, with this introduction, which has become a bit long, let's see what exactly asymmetric warfare is and where it comes from? Military scholars have divided wars into 5 generations. The first generation of wars is the longest of the 5 generations of wars. Throughout history, wars were fought in a linear and face-to-face manner For example, imagine ancient wars. In these wars, everything came down to the number of soldiers and hand-to-hand combat. The means of warfare had little effect on the course of the wars. In most of these battles, the army with the most soldiers won the war. First-generation wars were fought face-to-face and person-to-person. In the mid-16th and 17th centuries, a revolution in the history of wars occurred with the invention of the first portable rifles. The early models were not very effective, so wars were still fought hand-to-hand. But by the mid-19th century, the range and accuracy of these rifles had increased. Now hand-to-hand combat practically had no meaning. Soldiers knew how to harm each other from a distance. Apart from individual rifles, heavy artillery could completely destroy a battalion with a single shot. Any army that had better weapons and more artillery could easily destroy the opposing army from a distance The number of men was no longer important, but the power of the artillery was the first thing on the battlefield. The second generation of war had begun. A generation in which weapons were the first thing and the number of men was not important. This was where the Europeans were able to c...