Editing Asymmetric warfare (section)

==Tactical basis==
{{more citations needed section|date=March 2022}}
[[File:Home-made explosives packed in oil drums being dealt with by EOD Operator. MOD 45159058.jpg|thumb|[[Drum (container)|Oil-drum]] roadside [[Improvised explosive device|IED]] in [[Northern Ireland]] removed from culvert in 1984]]
The tactical success of asymmetric warfare is dependent on at least some of the following assumptions:
*One side can have a technological advantage that outweighs the numerical advantage of the enemy; the [[English longbow]] at the [[Battle of Crécy]] is an example.<ref>{{cite journal|first=Clifford J.|last=Rogers|date=April 1998|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/26004334|title=The Efficacy of the English Longbow: A Reply to Kelly DeVries|journal=War in History|volume=5|issue=2|pages=233–242|doi=10.1177/096834459800500205 |jstor=26004334 |s2cid=161286935 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book|first=Jonathan|last=Sumption|year=1990|title=The Hundred Years War 1: Trial by Battle|location=London|publisher=Faber & Faber}}</ref>
*Technological superiority usually is cancelled by the more vulnerable infrastructure, which can be targeted with devastating results. Destruction of multiple electric lines, roads, or water supply systems in highly populated areas could devastate the economy and morale. In contrast, the weaker side may not have these structures at all.
*Training, tactics, and technology can prove decisive and allow a smaller force to overcome a much larger one. For example, for several centuries, the Greek [[hoplite]]'s (heavy infantry) use of [[phalanx formation|phalanx]] made them far superior to their enemies. The [[Battle of Thermopylae]], which also involved good [[#Use of terrain|use of terrain]], is a well-known example.<ref>{{cite book|first=Tom|last=Holland|author-link=Tom Holland (author)|title=[[Persian Fire|Persian Fire: The First World Empire and the Battle for the West]]|pages=285–287|publisher=Little, Brown Book Group|year=2005|isbn=978-0-349-11717-1}}</ref>
*If the inferior power is in a position of self-defense, i.e., under attack or [[Military occupation|occupation]], it ''may'' be possible to use unconventional tactics, such as [[Hit-and-run tactics|hit-and-run]] and selective battles in which the superior power is weaker, as an effective means of harassment without violating the [[laws of war]]. Perhaps the classic historical examples of this doctrine may be found in the [[American Revolutionary War]] and movements in [[World War II]], such as the [[French Resistance]] and [[USSR|Soviet]] and [[Yugoslavia|Yugoslav]] [[Partisan (military)|partisan]]s. Against democratic aggressor nations, this strategy can be used to play on the electorate's patience with the conflict (as in the [[Vietnam War]], and others since), provoking [[protest]]s, and consequent disputes among elected legislators.
*However, if the weaker power is in an aggressive position or turns to tactics prohibited by the laws of war (''[[jus in bello]]''), its success depends on the superior power's refraining from like tactics. For example, the [[law of land warfare]] prohibits the use of a [[flag of truce]] or marked medical vehicles as cover for an attack or [[ambush]]. Still, an asymmetric combatant using this prohibited tactic to its advantage depends on the superior power's obedience to the corresponding law. Similarly, warfare laws prohibit combatants from using civilian [[Human settlement|settlements]], populations or facilities as [[military base]]s, but when an inferior force uses this tactic, it depends on the premise that the superior one will respect the law that the other is violating, and will not attack that civilian target, or if they do the propaganda advantage will outweigh the material loss.

===Terrorism===
There are two opposing viewpoints on the relationship between asymmetric warfare and [[terrorism]]. In the modern context, asymmetric warfare is increasingly considered a component of [[fourth generation warfare]]. When practiced outside the [[laws of war]], it is often defined as [[terrorism]], though rarely by its practitioners or their supporters.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/asymmetric.cfm|title=Reshaping the military for asymmetric warfare|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040221200111/http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/asymmetric.cfm|website=Center for Defense Information|archive-date=2004-02-21}}</ref> The other view is that asymmetric warfare does not coincide with terrorism.