“Amateurs talk strategy and professionals talk logistics”In the long run this is likely to be the most controversial report as it deals with issues of conflict. While the
ASRG does not want conflict, and frankly would prefer to achieve our aims peacefully, we are not so naïve as to believe that things are likely to turn out that way. This report summarizes issues surrounding keeping the settlement safe from attack and, ultimately, removal. Location, Location, Location Before we even get to talking about conflict we should acknowledge that a large part of successful security involves avoiding conflict altogether. Not through negotiation but instead through making the prospect of conflict undesirable. You might call this the 'porcupine strategy'. Locations that are naturally inaccessible, hidden, or defencible greatly increase the logistical problems associated with removing the settlement. That is why the quote at the head of this report is even there; there are a great number of strategies for defence but they all start from an understanding of logistics - your own and, especially, your opponent's. Let us start with a hopefully uncontroversial statement; it is easier to set up a settlement than it is to remove it. Setting up a settlement involves moving people and materials to a location and have the people use those materials to build a settlement. Removing the settlement involves removing the (unwilling) residents of the settlement and, at the very least, making the structures unlivable. The first scenario is man vs. nature. The second scenario is man vs. nature + man. Their is both a floor to how difficult the settlement is to construct and the difficulty in removal added on top. There is also a gap between settlement and removal difficulty. Consider the following. A settlement builds a wind break to deal with katabatic winds off the continent but these also surround the settlement denying entry to those who wish to remove the settlers. Building the wall had a level of difficulty. Removing the wall has the original difficulty cost and then some. In some instances the difficulty cost may make removal highly challenging. The removal team, exposed and vulnerable, has a much tougher job ahead of them than the settlers who are sheltered (and in the case of the wall scenario, the high ground). A settlement in Antarctica situated on raised ground, and with a defencive wall, is at the bare minimum not fun to try and remove. I suppose I should address the mention of 'raised ground'. While building a settlement up any sort of elevation raises the difficulty of construction, it also limits what tools can be used in the dismantling of a settlement. A bulldozer is great for leveling all sorts of walls but if you can't get it to the intended location it is useless and this is an absolute win for the settlers as it raises removal difficulty. Greater elevation also ensures that any removal team starts out having already expended some energy before they have even started. Finally, there is the aspect of time. Antarctic sea ice melts from December to February after which it begins to reform. This leaves a very limited window for removal efforts as over-wintering is pointless (especially if the settlement has any capacity to rebuild). A removal team that has over-wintered (presumably on their ship) only to find they are back at square one would be highly demoralized. This is especially true if they don't have the food supplies to stay another season. Now, the December to February timeframe is just a guideline. Some areas of Antarctica have sea ice for longer periods and some have it for shorter periods. If a settlement site is picked with a shorter timeframe of clear seas it makes setting up a settlement difficult but may also shorten removal timeframes beyond what can be achieved. If such a thing happens the settlement can be considered secure. This would be a victory of breaking an enemy's logistics and is the best case scenario. Obviously, you don't want an Antarctic settlement being too remote. There is a sweet spot between these two factors that can exist; accessible enough while also being secure enough. What Can Men Do Against Such Reckless Hate? The above scenario assumes parties to the Antarctic Treaty are not willing to escalate things beyond civilian means. That is to say, that they use restraint in the use of force. It might be that this does, in fact, occur for a number of years until they feel they must take greater action. This is where I start discussing active defences and I have divided it into two parts; non-lethal methods of defence and lethal methods of defence. Any settlement effort should proceed in the belief that this escalation is not only possible but likely and plan accordingly. At the same time the settlement's leaders should take great pains to ensure they are not the cause of the escalation (ie. don't shoot the first person who starts wailing on a wall with a hatchet). One form of highly effective non-lethal methods in Antarctica is water. The climate of Antarctica doesn't get much above freezing at the best of times. In short the humble water hose has a part to play. If removal teams are being drenched every time they approach the settlement they are unlikely to be able to sustain their efforts for long. Water as a defence measure does provide a challenge for the settlement as keeping a large supply of water for defence purposes in a non-frozen form is an outlay of energy that is likely to be somewhat prohibitive. As such, the water would likely need to come from a source kept in liquid form anyways; ie. drinking water. This obviously limits how often it could be employed. Its viability also greatly depends on the access to fresh water which in Antarctica means ice. If collected ice (preferably without being harassed by removal teams) is relatively easy then this strategy can be kept up for a while which would slow removal. Slowing the removal effort being the ultimate goal of all these strategies. Water is also useful if removal teams decide to set fire to the walls (or scale them) so it performs both offensive and defencive functions. But lets assume the parties to the Antarctic Treaty have had just about enough of the settlement effort and they send a ship with armaments and permission to use them. This scenario is where I loop back around to discussing location. A settlement with a rise facing the water, or inland enough that ship weapons can't hit it, are good things to consider. This doesn't provide protection from missiles or attack helicopters. In short, you need to sink that ship. One thing that has been demonstrated by Russia's invasion of Ukraine is the levelling effect of asymmetric warfare, specifically, drones. Naval drones would be a menace in Antarctic waters as, even with sea ice clear, its still around and glaciers are also prevalent. All of which is to say, naval drones are not likely to have a hard time sneaking up on larger targets. A word of caution, sinking a ship is the kind of thing that invites a response. Unless, the settlement is severely threatened it should not even be on the table. The defence of the settlement is of great importance and should be given careful thought.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Published ResearchAs the project develops and gaps in understanding are filled finalized plans will be posted here. The end goal being a comprehensive plan for settling Antarctica. All plans subject to update as new information is learned. Archives
April 2024
Categories
All
|