Shock and Awe, do you know what it is?

When I first heard this I thought it was just some term the news people had come up with and are using but no I looked it up, it is much more than that. What I find scary is how our media has adopted this term so rapidly without much talk or information about what the term truly means. Am I the only one who did not know this, c'mon fess up.

en.wikipedia.org...

Shock and Awe is a controversial military doctrine which advocates attempting to destroy an adversary's will to fight through spectacular displays of power. Its authors label it a subset of Rapid Dominance, a concept of defeating an adversary by swift action against all aspects of their ability to resist, rather than strictly military forces. It is a product of the National Defense University of the United States, and has been notably applied in the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.

When I first heard the term a couple years ago, I, too, assumed it was simply a buzz word associated with the burgeoning new conflict. However, I quickly discovered it was a military tactic which basically equates to scaring everyone with big, loud explosions The term was also purchased for use in video game titles by Sony and Midway, because, after all, who doesn't enjoy a game with big loud explosions.

They used the same tatic on 9/11.
Shock & Awe is exactly what 9/11 was, people are still in awe of the shocking scenes they witnessed that day and have trouble connecting the dots which show an obvious deception hidden behind some hollywood style display.

Worked like a charm in the US but just managed to piss everyone off in Iraq.

Shock and Awe = A military giant pummelling a mostly defenceless "enemy" for the tv cameras

Still, clears away the older stock of cruise missiles and smart bombs to make way for the nice shiny new ones

Shock & Awe strategem saves lives of combatants and civilians alike by negating the need for full conventional warfare.

The downside is many enemy units are left standing not having "fought the good fight"

If these standing units are not properly processed in the aftermath to weed out the more fanatical in their ranks then insurgency will be the likely result.

Making proper follow on (militarily viable) steps would have required the formation of extensive POW camps and a political vetting process which from a practical standpoint would not have been allowed to occur due to internal US politics.

The most effective military/political follow-up in modern times but not one I advocate in its extremes was the Vietmanese re-education system put into place after 1975.

Opposition in Vietnam was completely crushed to the point of non-existance.


A more humane but still in this day and age politically unpalatable follow-on was the processing of the German Army in the aftermath of WW II. It was mostly successful although German resistance groups operated into 1949 and underground groups such as Odessa may exist to this day.

It took years for the return of all POW's, many from Russia never returned.

IMHO opinion it is morally better to allow a proper follow-on policy by not fettering the military with civilian PC policy. A policy such as this will in the long run save lives.

The result of not doing a proper follow-on can be viewed on TV everyday.

An unsuccessful (initially) shock and awe campaign is still viable in its attacks on command,control and communications by laying the required groundwork for a full conventional attack.

Either way it is a good military strategy.

Its the politically difficult follow-up that has made S&A appear ineffective.

S&A and the follow-up really are issues to be dealt with seperately, one is purely military strategy, the other is political in nature.

Seems to me that Shock & Awe had its Roots in the Hitler's Blitzkrieg - attack the opponent with Overwhelming Force and Shock him so that they loose morale and begin to capitulate. Nothing new, just an old tactic modernized and used again.

Ullman and Wade identified a number of previous events or lines of military thought which they claim relied upon inflicting shock and awe. Most cited by Ullman during the Iraq War is the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Ullman and Wade hold it as a case in which "nearly incomprehensible levels of massive destruction" caused complete shock and capitulation.[6] Rapid Dominance should seek to impose a similar though non-nuclear effect upon an adversary's psychology, they write. Concepts which they term "Overwhelming Force" and "Massive Bombardment" are noted as apparently similar to Rapid Dominance; however, they argue such approaches are not time-sensitive or suitable to small forces. Ullman and Wade write that Blitzkrieg employed their concepts of brilliance, rapidity, and dominance.

"The 'shock and awe' operation, a massive barrage of bombardment launched at the beginning of the war on Iraq, is said to have been derived from Sun Tzu's military strategy," states the commentary, titled "The misapplication of Sun Tzu's strategy".

"This strategy is meant to achieve submission by causing the enemy psychological shock and awe before battle is even joined," it adds. But despite the "massive barrage of bombardments", the US plan "seems to have fallen far short of a successful application of what Sun Tzu recommended as the best war strategy".

www.sonshi.com...

i remember reading about it in a history book on the middle ages..it was why they would line all the army up in front of the enemy..just to show how big and hard they were..the hope was that the enemy would run away at the sight of them.

"Shock and Awe, do you know what it is?"



Its what I see every morning before my wife makes herself up?

Not Just A Town In Wisconsin

I think the name of the doctrine speaks for itself.

As for “controversy”, I'm not sure about what would be so controversial about demoralizing one's enemy as soon as possible.

If anyone is questioning the wisdom of bringing overwhelming force to the battlefield. I would recommend they study the track record for that strategy, which is quite impressive.

As for it being “scary”, I pray that a day never comes when we do not find war “scary”.

It's war. It's not supposed to be relaxing.

Originally posted by Souljah
Seems to me that Shock & Awe had its Roots in the Hitler's Blitzkrieg - attack the opponent with Overwhelming Force and Shock him so that they loose morale and begin to capitulate. Nothing new, just an old tactic modernized and used again.

You obviously have no idea what the Blitzkreig was

Actually Rogue if you read Len Deightons work on Blitzkreig you'll find that the moral effect of the attack was the main part of the blow. Without totally overaweing the defenders the attack would stumble.

For instance in 1940 the German invasion of France led to such panic and chaos in the French army that panicked orders from high command did more damage than the German attack.

Similarly, when the Russians knew what sort of assault they would face in 1942 they were able to deal with it simply by retreating.

Blitzkreig was the adaptation of highly-mechanized infantry, coupled with the relatively new concept of ground-attack aircraft, to be used against mostly stationary land forces.

Prior to Blitzkreig, large and lumbering lard forces aligned themselves in a field of battle and battered each other in a slow, methodical manner. Blitzkreig involved moving around and behind these ponderous formations and fortification, attacking supply lines and cutting off communications in the process. Highly mobile tanks (new technology in 1939), mechanized troops (not walking or in horse drawn carts), and dedicated ground attack aircaft all served to implement Blitzkreig against an array of unprepared nations, which allow Germany tremendous success in the beginning of WWII.

Shock and Awe is a different concept, and is more closely associated with pre-invation psychological warfare and softening up of military support infrastruction. S&A is not a new concept; one could argue that the use of the A-bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki are early examples of this doctrine.

I thought the phrase 'Shock and Awe' was derived from the Hebrew word 'Shekinah' which "is the English spelling of the Hebrew language word that means the glory or radiance of God" atleast, according to wikipedia!

It sounds to me just like more doctrine dreamed up in the pentagon by planners with zero war experience. Shock and Awe doctrine clearly was not applied in Iraq this time around. It seemed somewhat restrained to me although D.R. applied the term (prematurely as ever) and it sure helped make for weapon sales across the globe on the Iraq proving grounds.

Shroud of Mephis is right that 911 was more akin to the spirit of the doctrine.

As for "near total or absolute knowledge and understanding of self, adversary, and environment; rapidity and timeliness in application; operational brilliance in execution; and (near) total control and signature management of the entire operational environment." I don't think so, not even close. God knows what the commaders on the ground make of sentences like that one!

It would be simpler and more effective to leave the planning and execution to the generals but that hasn't happened in a long time now

Corrrect Pyros, couldn't have said it better myself

It is an excuse for bored servicemen to drop daisycutters out of big planes.

Originally posted by nexus6
It sounds to me just like more doctrine dreamed up in the pentagon by planners with zero war experience. Shock and Awe doctrine clearly was not applied in Iraq this time around. It seemed somewhat restrained to me although D.R. applied the term (prematurely as ever) and it sure helped make for weapon sales across the globe on the Iraq proving grounds.

It was restrained, the original plan called for 3000 guided weapons to be used in the 1st hour. The numbers never approached this and it seems it was just another bit of maskirovka ( deception ), on the US's part to make Saddam piss his pants.

Originally posted by daedenfach
I thought the phrase 'Shock and Awe' was derived from the Hebrew word 'Shekinah' which "is the English spelling of the Hebrew language word that means the glory or radiance of God" atleast, according to wikipedia!

thanks,
i really think this is the underlying reason for the catchy slogan.
after all the neocons and the PNAC cabal & the born-again GW Bush,
are of the mind that they are ordained to bring about their shared
vision of a 'Millennial' Peace (aka a NewWorldOrder) to the planet...

if this (NWO) Millennial kingdom necessitates an 'Armageddon' conflict,
...so-be-it ! is their rational.
what could be a better fit, than a linkage of the present Shock-&-Awe
with the scriptual Shock-&-Awe which proceded from the Ark which the
ancient Hebrews took into battle before them.

The Nazis, which were consciously the antithesis of Biblical/Torah thought,
employed their own form of Shock-&-Awe, the Blitzkrieg, as noted in some earlier responses in this thread. It remains to be seen in history, if the present revival of this meme is to be associated with the darker Nazi
revival or the promised deliverence Christians' are expecting
(at the end of the age)

Originally posted by skippytjc
"Shock and Awe, do you know what it is?"



Its what I see every morning before my wife makes herself up?

and vice versa

Fact Versus Myth

Originally posted by daedenfach
I thought the phrase 'Shock and Awe' was derived from the Hebrew word 'Shekinah' which "is the English spelling of the Hebrew language word that means the glory or radiance of God" atleast, according to wikipedia!

Here is the link for "Shock and Awe" on Wikipedia: Shock and Awe.

The word "Shekinah" does not appear there. Nor does the word "Hebrew". Nothing on that page even remotely suggests a Hebrew origin for the term "Shock and Awe".

Likewise, on the page for Shekhinah, no reference to either shock or awe is made.

Which leaves me to wonder what your source is, since it is apparently not Wikipedia, like you claimed.

You already apparently have one believer in this, St Udio. It would be tragic to mislead a fellow ATSer with bogus claims, don't you agree?

You made this claim, and you gave your source. I checked the source and it doesn't support your claim. So what's the game here?

Please reassure me that you have not deliberately posted false information to ATS. Perhaps I'm missing something here, and I ask for your help in clearing it up.

I recommend providing a link, and I don't recommend trying to pull my leg twice.