STAGES OF ESCALATION IN A CAMPAIGN: How to Increase Pressure and Achieve Your Goals

Another metaphor as useful as the escalation ladder would be that of an elevator stopping at various floors. We can think of a typical escalation situation between the United States and the Soviet Union in terms of a department store with seven floors, each offering a number of options of varying intensity, but still appropriate to that floor, from which the decision-makers on one side or the other may choose.

We are interested here not in day-today maneuvers that do not raise the possibility of escalation, but only in the ones that manipulate, either deliberately or otherwise, the fear of escalation or eruption. It will be one of my theses that remote as the middle and upper rungs of the escalation ladder may seem, they often cast a long shadow before them and can greatly influence events well below the violence threshold, or even below that point in a conflict when the explicit threat of violence is voiced.

STAGES OF ESCALATION IN A CAMPAIGN.

DOWNLOAD: https://turbusstelbo.blogspot.com/?file=2vBuCN

At this stage, the language of crisis is used, but with some degree of pretense. Either one or both sides assert, more or less openly and explicitly but not quite believably, that unless the dispute is quickly resolved, rungs of the escalation ladder will be climbed.

These are purely verbal but explicitly solemn and formal actions intended to demonstrate resolve and committal. They may be in the form of legislative resolutions, formal executive announcements, diplomatic notes, or other very explicit and obviously serious declarations. Such a resolution or proclamation may be a simple notice to other nations of one's policy in a certain geographical or other area, or it may address a conflict or dispute more directly. It may often be thought of as a pre-emptive or preventive escalation that tries to forestall escalation by the opponent.

A "ready" status may be partial or total. The present handling of SAC is an instance of partialready status. It may be regarded as a routine precaution rather than as the highest point that escalation has reached between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. However, Soviet-American tension is a necessary political background for partial-ready status, and the status has come about by accumulation. Ten years or so ago, a great deal of criticism would have been leveled against the idea of maintaining strategic forces with ready triggers, but now there is hardly any, at least in the United States.

One way to achieve a high over-all level of escalation and still keep each separate act as an act relatively low on the ladder is to retaliate or escalate in a completely different theater from the one in which the primary conflict is being waged, and at a time when the primary crisis is at a fairly intense level. This may be especially escalatory if the second theater is sensitive or potentially vital.

This attack differs from a constrained disarming attack in that it is less scrupulous about avoiding collateral damage to cities and does not deliberately spare much, if any, of the enemy's second-strike forces. This counterforce attack targets everything that does not involve major collateral damage to civilians. In the case of a Soviet strike against the United States, such an attack probably would include hitting Tucson (a city of 250,000 population, completely ringed with Titans), but probably would avoid the San Diego Naval Base, the Norfolk Navy Yard, and the Pentagon in Washington. If it did hit these targets, or the SAC bases near very large cities, 20-kiloton rather than 20megaton weapons might be used in order to limit the collateral destruction. After such an attack, one must assume a counterattack, but one may still try to use counter-counterthreats of further escalation into countervalue war to limit the defender's response.

Create a protected humanitarian zone: Following the establishment of the buffer zone, if there is an escalation in Russian bombing campaigns anywhere in the country, NATO should expand the military buffer zone into a humanitarian protection zone covering the three westernmost regions of Volyn, Lviv, and Zakarpattia. NATO and the EU would then establish humanitarian-aid camps there and conduct humanitarian airlifts into Lviv and surrounding airfields to rescue Ukrainians aiming to flee into Europe. The zone will be protected by NATO aircraft and air-defense units. Rules of engagement will prevent NATO from taking military action outside of it and will only engage Russian (or Belarusian) forces or weapons that attack the zone.

Raiding Aces: A Raiding Escalation Campaign in the Sahara, 1941-43The Saharan Campaign, 1941-43.The war in the deep desert was fought in three essential stages. The first was a struggle to secure the precious few oases in the deep southern desert. From these bases the raiders could then establish forward bases in the second phase of the war closer to the coastline. In the third and final stage of the campaign, the special forces in the desert fought a brilliant series of raids that paralysed supply and communication lines along the Mediterranean coast.In Raiding Aces, you will dive straight into this war. Not only will you have to confront the enemy, but face the Sahara itself as you fight from watering hole to watering hole in order to launch your campaign of havoc upon the supply lines.Remember, in the desert the motto is, who dares wins!Battlefront TV Visit the Battlefront TV channel on YouTube here...RaidingMike takes a quick look at what you can expect to see in the Raiding lists covered by the new Early War book Burning Empires.Learn more about Burning Empires here... Raider's Campaign Pack UnboxedSean takes a quick look at what you can expect to see in the Raiding Aces Raiders Campaign Pack for use with the Raiding forces from the Early War book Burning Empires. Learn more about the Raider's Campaign Pack here... Below: Examples of the pages from the Raiding Aces Campaign Rules booklet.The 40-page Raiding Aces booklet covers the follow topics:- Raiding Aces- What Mission Should We Play?- Part I: The Campaign- Tracks in the Sand- Playing the Campaign- The Will of the Sahara- Campaign Result Table- Smash & Grab - Part II: Your Raiding Ace- Setting Up and Running the Mission- Selecting Abilities - Mission Special Rules- Turn 1 Abilities- Key Buildings- Turn 2 Abilities- Demolition & Time Of Day Special Rules- Turn 3 Abilities- Smash & Grab Mission- Ace of Aces- Organising the Campaign- Part III: Your Force- Abilities Quick Reference Sheet- Your Force in Turn 1- Raiding Aces Results Sheets- Your Force in Turn 2- Raiding Aces Company Chart- Your Force in Turn 3- Key Buildings MarkersBelow: More examples of the pages from the Raiding Aces Campaign Rules booklet.Free DownloadDownload a PDF version of the Raiding Aces booklet here... This is a supplement for Flames Of War, the World War II miniatures game. A copy of the rulebook for Flames Of War is necessary to fully use the contents of this book.We've also provided printable PDF versions of the Raiding Aces Result sheets and Command Chart for you to download. As a bonus we've also created a PDF version of the Key Building Markers to use during your campaign.Download PDF versions of the Raiding Aces Results Sheet, Command Chart and Key Building Markers here...

The Tet Offensive[12] was a major escalation and one of the largest military campaigns of the Vietnam War. It was launched on January 30, 1968 by forces of the Viet Cong (VC) and North Vietnamese People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) against the forces of the South Vietnamese Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN), the United States Armed Forces and their allies. It was a campaign of surprise attacks against military and civilian command and control centers throughout South Vietnam.[13] The name is the truncated version of the Lunar New Year festival name in Vietnamese, Tết Nguyên Đán, with the offense chosen during a holiday period as most ARVN personnel were on leave.[14] The purpose of the wide-scale offensive by the Hanoi Politburo was to trigger political instability, in a belief that mass armed assault on urban centers would trigger defections and rebellions.

On 27 February, Johnson and McNamara discussed the proposed troop increase. To fulfill it would require an increase in overall military strength of about 400,000 men and the expenditure of an additional $10 billion during fiscal 1969 and another $15 billion in 1970.[221] These monetary concerns were pressing. Throughout the fall of 1967 and the spring of 1968, the U.S. was struggling with "one of the most severe monetary crises" of the period. Without a new tax bill and budgetary cuts, the nation would face even higher inflation "and the possible collapse of the monetary system".[222] Johnson's friend Clifford was concerned about what the American public would think of the escalation: "How do we avoid creating the feeling that we are pounding troops down a rathole?"[223]

The President was to make a televised address to the nation on Vietnam policy on 31 March and was deliberating on both the troop request and his response to the military situation. By 28 March Clifford was working hard to convince him to tone down his hard-line speech, maintaining force levels at their present size, and instituting Rusk's bombing/negotiating proposal. To Clifford's surprise, both Rusk and Rostow (both of whom had previously been opposed to any form of deescalation) offered no opposition to Clifford's suggestions.[244] On 31 March, President Johnson announced the unilateral (although still partial) bombing halt during his television address. He then stunned the nation by declining to run for a second term in office. To Washington's surprise, on 3 April Hanoi announced that it would conduct negotiations, which were scheduled to begin on 13 May in Paris. 2ff7e9595c