SUMMARY / RELATED TOPICS

Asymmetric warfare

Asymmetric warfare is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly. This is a war between a standing, professional army and an insurgency or resistance movement militias who have status of unlawful combatants. Asymmetric warfare can describe a conflict in which the resources of two belligerents differ in essence and, in the struggle and attempt to exploit each other's characteristic weaknesses; such struggles involve strategies and tactics of unconventional warfare, the weaker combatants attempting to use strategy to offset deficiencies in quantity or quality of their forces and equipment. Such strategies may not be militarized; this is in contrast to symmetric warfare, where two powers have comparable military power and resources and rely on tactics that are similar overall, differing only in details and execution. The term is frequently used to describe what is called "guerrilla warfare", "insurgency", "counterinsurgency", "rebellion", "terrorism", "counterterrorism" violent conflict between a formal military and an informal, less equipped and supported, undermanned but resilient and motivated opponent.

Asymmetric warfare is a form of irregular warfare. The popularity of the term dates from Andrew J. R. Mack's 1975 article "Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars" in World Politics, in which "asymmetric" referred to a significant disparity in power between opposing actors in a conflict. "Power", in this sense, is broadly understood to mean material power, such as a large army, sophisticated weapons, an advanced economy, so on. Mack's analysis was ignored in its day, but the end of the Cold War sparked renewed interest among academics. By the late 1990s, new research building on Mack's insights was beginning to mature, after 2004, the U. S. military began once again to consider the problems associated with asymmetric warfare. Discussion since 2004 has been complicated by the tendency of academic and military communities to use the term in different ways, by its close association with guerrilla warfare, terrorism, counterinsurgency, counterterrorism. Military authors tend to use the term "asymmetric" to refer to the indirect nature of the strategies many weak actors adopt, or to the nature of the adversary itself rather than to the correlation of forces.

Academic authors tend to focus on explaining two puzzles in asymmetric conflict. First, if "power" determines victory in conflict why would weaker actors decide to fight stronger actors? Key explanations include: Weaker actors may have secret weapons. Second, if "power", as conventionally understood, conduces to victory in war how is the victory of the "weak" over the "strong" explained? Key explanations include: Strategic interaction. Asymmetric conflicts include both interstate and civil wars, over the past two hundred years have been won by strong actors. Since 1950, weak actors have won a majority of all asymmetric conflicts. In most conventional warfare, the belligerents deploy forces of a similar type and the outcome can be predicted by the quantity of the opposing forces or by their quality, for example better command and control of their forces. There are times where this is not true because the composition or strategy of the forces makes it impossible for either side to close in battle with the other.

An example of this is the standoff between the continental land forces of the French Army and the maritime forces of the United Kingdom's Royal Navy during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. In the words of Admiral Jervis during the campaigns of 1801, "I do not say, my Lords, that the French will not come. I say only they will not come by sea", a confrontation that Napoleon Bonaparte described as that between the elephant and the whale; the tactical success of asymmetric warfare is dependent on at least some of the following assumptions: One side can have a technological advantage which outweighs the numerical advantage of the enemy. Technological superiority is cancelled by more vulnerable infrastructure which can be targeted with devastating results. Destruction of multiple electric lines, roads or water supply systems in populated areas could have devastating effects on economy and morale, while the weaker side may not have these structures at all. Training and tactics as well as technology can prove decisive and allow a smaller force to overcome a much larger one.

For example, for several centuries the Greek hoplite's use of phalanx made them far superior to their enemies. The Battle of Thermopylae, which involved good use of terrain, is a well-known example. If the inferior power is in a position of self-defense; the classical historical examples of this doctrine may be found in the American Revolutionary War, movements in World War II, such as the French R

War of Qi's succession

The war of Qi's succession was a civil war in the State of Qi from 643 to 642 BCE, as the sons of Duke Huan of Qi fought against each other for the throne. Their struggle led to chaos in Qi and the intervention of several outside powers, until Duke Huan's intended heir, Prince Zhao, emerged victorious. Four of Prince Zhao's rival brothers remained at large and continued to conspire for the throne, leading to a succession crisis that plagued Qi for decades; as result, the succession war and its consequences weakened Qi, which lost its status as China's predominant state. The state of Qi was a regionally powerful polity during the Western Zhou period, as the Zhou dynasty's authority collapsed at the Spring and Autumn period's beginning, Qi grew into the dominating power of eastern China; as result, Qi was in an ideal position to expand its influence when Zheng's short-lived dominance over China declined. Qi's development into China's predominant state was not just because of this favorable situation, but due to the efforts of two capable individuals: Duke Huan and his chancellor and advisor Guan Zhong.

Under their leadership, Qi was reformed and became primus inter pares among the Chinese states, with Duke Huan rising to Hegemon of China. Toward the end of Huan's long reign, however, Qi's dominance began to crumble. A military alliance led by Qi failed to stop the growth of the expansionist state of Chu, suffered defeat against it during the Battle of Loulin. Duke Huan's authority over the other states declined, a development accelerated by Guan Zhong's death in 645 BC. Having grown ill, the elderly duke proved to be no longer able to keep the various political factions in his own realm under control; these factions were led by six of his sons: Zhao, Pan, Shangren and Yong. Since all of them were the children of different concubines instead of Duke Huan's three main wives, each of these six considered himself entitled to the throne; the designated heir was Prince Zhao, Duke Huan and Guan Zhong charged the ruler of neighboring Song, Duke Xiang to ensure his succession. With Guan Zhong's death and the old duke of Qi's health worsening, Wukui, Shangren and Yong voiced their opposition to Zhao's position as designated heir.

Their pleas to make one of them the next ruler failed to sway Duke Huan, but he could not prevent them from plotting against each other. In consequence, the brothers gathered followers and prepared for the inevitable showdown between them. Duke Huan died in late 643 BC. According to the Guanzi and some other texts from the Warring States period, he was starved to death by four conspiring officials. Other notable sources for these events, such as the Zuo Zhuan and the Records of the Grand Historian, do not mention this. With the duke dead, the situation at the court escalated; the factions of crown prince Zhao and his rival brothers all took up arms against each other, the capital city of Linzi descended into violent chaos. Wukui, had two powerful allies at the court: Diao, chief of the eunuchs, Wu, the chief cook; the Guanzi claims. A party led by Diao and Wu managed to take control of the palace and murdered all rival officials they could capture. On 11 November 643 BC, Wukui was crowned the new duke of Qi.

Only was the late Duke Huan encoffined. Despite his coronation, Wukui's rule proved far from secure. While Pan, Shangren and Yong all remained at large, it was Zhao who presented the greatest threat as he had fled to Duke Xiang of Song and asked for assistance; the ruler of Song promptly assembled an alliance against Wukui, consisting of Song, Cao and Zou. The armies of these states, led by Duke Xiang and Prince Zhao, proceeded to invade Qi in March 642 BC. Wukui, on the other side, had won the support of the state of Lu, which sent an expeditionary army in order to aid him against the invaders. In the end, Wukui was murdered before the conflict could be decided on the battlefield. Growing fearful upon hearing about the Song-led invasion, the people of Qi revolted and put the usurper to death so that they could to welcome Prince Zhao as new duke; as the news about Wukui's death spread, it was assumed that Zhao's ascendancy to throne had become inevitable, whereupon Cao, Wey and Lu withdrew their armies from Qi.

In truth, the crown prince's position was not yet secured: As he was about to be enthroned by the people in the capital, Shangren and Yong returned with their adherents and attacked his party. Thus, Zhao was again forced to escape from Linzi as his rival brothers took control of the government and formed an alliance against him; the crown prince fled to Duke Xiang of Song who still remained in Qi with his army, requested his help. Meanwhile, the united army of the four brothers sallied forth from Linzi in order to drive the troops of Song from Qi; the two forces met on the battlefield at Yan. The four brothers fled from Qi. With the succession war concluded, the army of Song returned home. Pan, Shangren and Yong were still active and continued to conspire against the newly crowned duke. Soon after their defeat at Yan, the Beidi invaded and ravaged Qi in order to

Nothin Personal

Nothin Personal is the debut mixtape by American rapper Cozz and was released on January 4, 2016 by Dreamville Records and Tha Committee Records. The mixtape includes features from label-mate Bas, as well as Boogie, Correy C, Free Akrite; the production of this mixtape is handled by Meez, but includes guest producers from D2, T. Lew, Mike Almighty. On December 8, 2015, Cozz announced the mixtape while releasing two new songs which appeared on the Dreamville compilation album, Revenge of the Dreamers II, "Tabs" and "Grow". On December 31, Cozz announced the release date of the mixtape along with releasing "My Side" on the same day. A day before the mixtape's release, Cozz shared another single, titled "Who Said", on January 3, 2016. On February 25, he released the official music video for "Tabs" featuring Bas. On May 27, the single "My Side" was made available to Spotify with the official music video being released on May 31. Upon its release, Nothin Personal received positive reviews from critics.

Scott Glaysher of HipHopDX rated the mixtape 3 out 5 saying, " pretty clear that Cozz considers himself underrated amongst his rap peers, as he mentions that idea frequently" and " a year removed from that solo debut, Cozz still has a lot of time to show and prove. Nothin Personal isn’t perfection or an obvious contender for “2016 project of the year,” but it’s good enough to keep us from writing Cozz off, for now." Paul A. Thompson of Pitchfork Media gave the mixtape a 6.9 out of 10 saying "His new offering, Nothin Personal, is a low-concept stroll through the Crip-controlled blocks of Cozz’s youth."