A modern country extensively uses suicide bomber units?

[MrNumbahOne]

Is it possible for a country fueled by nationalistic or religious fervor to end up developing a substansial number of suicide bomber units?

Suicide bombers are often used in insurgencies and terrorism but could it actually be used in open warfare in a role similar to kamikazes? The main tactic could be having regular troops provide suppressing fire on targets while the tickers move or drive their asses towards them. I think it would be much easier to take out enemy strongholds in this method. Obviously you would need a pretty big population to be able to keep draft people into these positions. And if it wouldn't be used by a country than why not.

I appreciate any input.

 

[Tom Colton]

You'd need a nation backed into a corner with effectively zero industrial capacity and lots of leftover explosives for that happen. Literally every single hero who blows themselves up to clear a bunker / trench is one less person who can mine resources, produce munitions, or sustain assaults.

 

[MrNumbahOne]

You'd need a nation backed into a corner with effectively zero industrial capacity and lots of leftover explosives for that happen. Literally every single hero who blows themselves up to clear a bunker / trench is one less person who can mine resources, produce munitions, or sustain assaults.

But, theoretically, wouldn't it in fact save more lives of the country by kiling much more enemy and only him dying?

 

[Archibald]

Iran did it during the war with Iraq. Some pasdaran units actually ran into minefields to clear path for the "regular" Iranian army. Now excuse me, I need to vomit...

 

[Albidoom]

But, theoretically, wouldn't it in fact save more lives of the country by kiling much more enemy and only him dying?

Yes, but if he hurls/throws the explosives through a window/around the corner/etc. the culprit could escape to do it again and again instead of just once.

 

[Lalli]

It is too cultural thing too. Suicide attacks haven't been generally part of warfare usually, not speciality in Christian countries.

 

[aktarian]

Yes, but if he hurls/throws the explosives through a window/around the corner/etc. the culprit could escape to do it again and again instead of just once.

Suicide bomber provides that crucial last moment guidiance. Plus in oder to survive and escape explosion you need time and that time allows other side to disarm the bomb or at least get in cover.

And sometimes you need somebody to bring bomb to defended place from which there is no escape and you can't jsut leave it lying around while you make the escape.

 

[Lateknight]

Is palestine not a modern country/

 

[MrNumbahOne]

Is palestine not a modern country/

Yes, but I meant in open warfare, not terrorism or insurgency.

 

[Mookie]

It is too cultural thing too. Suicide attacks haven't been generally part of warfare usually, not speciality in Christian countries.

Suicide attacks have been glorified in many countries.
Leonidas and 300 being the latest example of glorification of such a person in the west.

 

[wietze]

a modern country uses remote controlled drones instead of suicide bombers

 

[Rammer]

This is the preferred military strategy of Pakistan

 

[CthulhuFhtagn]

Suicide attacks have been glorified in many countries.
Leonidas and 300 being the latest example of glorification of such a person in the west.

You know that's just a movie, right? No modern western nation seriously considers 300 as a model for warfare.

This is the preferred military strategy of Pakistan

I've never read about the Pakistani military using suicide tactics before. Could you provide some examples?

 

[Seleucus]

Related is the way the Soviets extensively used aerial collision/ramming tactics in WW2. Could a modern country adopt something similar for its air force?

 

[Mike Stearns]

Suicide attacks have been glorified in many countries.
Leonidas and 300 being the latest example of glorification of such a person in the west.

You know that's just a movie, right? No modern western nation seriously considers 300 as a model for warfare.

That was really more like a holding action anyway. In any case the only industrialized countries that seriously consider suicide as a viable weapon are the ones that are absolutely desperate and already buy into a pretty crazy ideology any way.

 

[Sub Lord Hawk]

Suicide attacks have been glorified in many countries.
Leonidas and 300 being the latest example of glorification of such a person in the west.

1: That was a film.

2: It was an action aimed at trying to prevent or at least hold up the invading army. They didn't go there with the explicit view to kill themselves, but they understood they were likely to die fighting.

 

[Mike D]

But, theoretically, wouldn't it in fact save more lives of the country by kiling much more enemy and only him dying?

In open warfare where you're theoretically allowed to brass anything that moves up they'd be shot before they'd finished strapping their vests on.

Suicide bombers work in COIN environments because their targets are (generally) only allowed to fire when they're 100% certain of their targets and are usually operating in theatres with a civilian population for the suicide bombers to hide in.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

But, theoretically, wouldn't it in fact save more lives of the country by killing much more enemy and only him dying?

Only if the enemy has no capability for retaliation while still being vulnerable to attack, in which case you might as well use normal attacks.

Iran did it during the war with Iraq. Some pasdaran units actually ran into minefields to clear path for the "regular" Iranian army. Now excuse me, I need to vomit...

This was hardly a new invention. The "trampler" detachments in Soviet penal battalions during World War II involved taking the most hated men in the battalion, getting them drunk, and then marching them through minefields.

 

[Mookie]

You know that's just a movie, right? No modern western nation seriously considers 300 as a model for warfare.



I've never read about the Pakistani military using suicide tactics before. Could you provide some examples?

That was really more like a holding action anyway. In any case the only industrialized countries that seriously consider suicide as a viable weapon are the ones that are absolutely desperate and already buy into a pretty crazy ideology any way.

1: That was a film.

2: It was an action aimed at trying to prevent or at least hold up the invading army. They didn't go there with the explicit view to kill themselves, but they understood they were likely to die fighting.

Yes its a movie. Yes Xerxes wasnt a giant with tons of piercings.
But, the base movie, the battle did happen. And those men did go there knowing they will die.
Many actions like that where death was chosen before defeat, or last stand etc are glorified in many cultures. While it isnt blowing yourself up, it is still a decision to sacrifice yourself for honor, or country, or king, or religion etc etc etc..

 

[Sharunaku]

You jumped from forlorn hope to suicide bombers? They are entirely different concepts mind you.