Talk:Area denial weapon/Archives/2022

Article seems mis-focused or obsolete on A2/AD

I've seen A2/AD mentioned a lot lately, but the Wikipedia article has left me more confused. People describe the "A2/AD" bubble, formed by anti-ship, anti-aircraft, and other missiles. But the Wikipedia article focuses on land mines and chemical weapons, so it's unhelpful.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said:

To some, A2AD is a code-word, suggesting an impenetrable “keep-out zone” that forces can enter only at extreme peril to themselves. To others, A2AD refers to a family of technologies. To still others, a strategy. In sum, A2AD is a term bandied about freely, with no precise definition, that sends a variety of vague or conflicting signals, depending on the context in which it is either transmitted or received.

So maybe the problem is that A2/AD is too vague to define. But the article should reflect this vagueness rather than give a confident but misleading definition?

KenShirriff (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Article seems mis-focused or obsolete on A2/AD

I've seen A2/AD mentioned a lot lately, but the Wikipedia article has left me more confused. People describe the "A2/AD" bubble, formed by anti-ship, anti-aircraft, and other missiles. But the Wikipedia article focuses on land mines and chemical weapons, so it's unhelpful.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said:

To some, A2AD is a code-word, suggesting an impenetrable “keep-out zone” that forces can enter only at extreme peril to themselves. To others, A2AD refers to a family of technologies. To still others, a strategy. In sum, A2AD is a term bandied about freely, with no precise definition, that sends a variety of vague or conflicting signals, depending on the context in which it is either transmitted or received.

So maybe the problem is that A2/AD is too vague to define. But the article should reflect this vagueness rather than give a confident but misleading definition?

KenShirriff (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@KenShirriff I see what you mean. In response to "This article describes only one highly specialized aspect of its associated subject" technically no, it is a fairly comprehensive article on area denial weapons. I think the problem is that A2/AD and area denial weapons are closely related but fairly distinct concepts. Possibly should have separate pages. I wouldn't say that A2/AD is too vague to define: it all fundamentally relates to denying your adversary something. My interpretation of the above quote is that it's not so much vagueness and more about misuse. Having briefly skimmed the article content it doesn't seem to be that the content is technically wrong, rather that the existing content exclusively discusses AD weapons and doesn't adequately cover modern usage of A2/AD. Basically the only part of the article that actually covers A2/AD is the "Targeted" subheading.

Note my attempted explanation below is only in the modern sense and refers to the most common (but by no means widely accepted) usage, and it does generalise and possibly oversimplify at points!

Area denial weapons generally refer to a persistent weapon deployed in advance to prevent access to everyone (friendly, enemy, civilian) by making it unsafe to enter that area a given period of time. Historically this would mostly refer to landmines and CBRN weapons (before that caltrops and other spiky things). Once in place it is essentially a passive system and is indiscriminate.

A2/AD (in the modern sense) mostly refers to active systems in place that are deployed should the enemy try to enter said area. Should that enemy try enter they will be attacked, generally with high-tech precision weapons such as anti-ship, anti-aircraft, and other missiles: the weapons in A2/AD are generally not persistent, generally making it much more discriminate. In other words, an A2/AD system can selectively deny access to the enemy and is deployed in response to an enemy incursion rather than in advance of one.

Essentially A2/AD is like high tech traditional guarding, whereas area denial weapons are basically leaving hazards to deter access. Also, whereas area denial weapons are simply technologies, A2/AD can also refer to the broader strategy of controlling or preventing enemy acces to something or somewhere. More recently it has become a bit of a buzzword to describe the various systems and strategies used by states, especially china and russia, to keep enemies out. This has made it a much more broad concept as the use of precision guided weapons mean that every sensor at the military's disposal now forms part of that system.

Where it can get confusing as area denial weapons can be used within an A2/AD system or strategy. This is relatively uncommon due to issues with international law but theoretically there is no reason why they cannot be included. You can quickly get into grey areas when you consider tech such as remote detonated (as opposed victim detonated) mines.

Definitely needs something done to alleviate the confusion, any ideas? John wiki: If you have a problem, don't mess with my puppy... 16:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response! Your idea of splitting A2/AD into a separate page might be a good solution. KenShirriff (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a page for Anti-access/area denial; take a look and let me know what you think. KenShirriff (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)