| Thursday,
December 6, 2001
SHORT SHRIFT TIME
On the War, from Trent Telenko:
It looks like the US military has tricked out it's
B-52s with both GPS and laser guided bombs to loiter and provide
battlefield fire support to special forces teams with special weapon
guidance gear.
This is Thoth in all but name and over the horizon
weapons launch.
Now if they could only get the digital datalink and
bandwidth problems corrected....
------------------- Wall Street Journal December 6,
2001
Accidental Bombing Of Friendly Forces May Be
Avoidable With Minor Fixes
By Greg Jaffe, Chip Cummins and Anne Marie Squeo,
Staff Reporters of The Wall Street Journal
The U.S. bombing campaign in Afghanistan has been so
impressive that some think it presages a revolution in the way wars will
be fought.
But two recent "friendly fire" incidents
in which bombs have gone astray and hit U.S. soldiers -- including one
misfire Wednesday -- show some problems remain in the high-tech approach,
particularly with the wireless network that ties the bombing operations
together. The incidents actually suggest that by making some relatively
small changes, such as improving communications gear and adding more
sensors to the battlefield, the U.S. campaign could become far more
precise and effective.
But Thoth didn't contemplate really big weapons,
and had a more positive guidance. Me, I don't want to do laser designation
for 2000 pound bombs...
Nice to see overseas reporters stating the obvious.
I particularly like the quotes attributed to the
'senior US officials.'
The French foreign minister's comments about NATO
reinforcing multilateralism are unintentionally funny in context.
It seems the French are finally embracing the
military side of NATO as a tool to restrict American power, just in time
to see America defacto abandon it.
----------------------
International Herald Tribune December 6, 2001 Pg. 1
News Analysis
Is NATO 'Relevant' In Era Of U.S. Power?
By John Vinocur
PARIS--A few mornings ago, George Robertson, NATO's
secretary-general, was asked on television in Britain how the alliance was
holding up through the Afghanistan campaign. The North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, he replied, was still relevant. Relevant, he said, using the
word a second time. Not vital, irreplaceable, or the cornerstone of world
peace.
This was a curiously circumscribed, subdued
description coming from a man usually unafraid of enthusiasm. Perhaps
sensing he sounded too downbeat, Lord Robertson added that NATO was just
as meaningful now as it was "in 1949, when it was created to protect
the Western world."
In fact, there is almost no argument anywhere these
days with the idea that NATO has lost the cosmic importance it knew when
it was holding off the Soviet threat. Indeed, in the aftermath of the
Sept. 11 raids, and the almost single-handed American management of the
Afghan war, analysis of NATO has sharpened and harshened to focus on what
is left of it, and what NATO can provide in the future.
Indeed.
I am picking my jaw up off the ground.
Putan has sealed our new alliance in blood.
Jerry Pournelle's Co-Dominium has been given birth.
Now we know the reason that we have been keeping the
British and other NATO ally troops out of Afghanistan and why they are so
antsy to get in.
It wasn't just that we wanted to fight the war
first, before peace keeping. It was to keep the Western Europeans from
stepping on the Russian's toes while they did the bloody work of
'developing sources.'
------------------- Russian raids provide U.S.
intelligence Source: UPI Published: December 4, 2001 Author: RICHARD SALE,
UPI Terrorism Correspondent
Russian troops serving with the Northern Alliance
have conducted raids on Taliban compounds in order to collect documents
and other intelligence that have helped narrow the search for accused
terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden, U.S. intelligence officials told
United Press International. "The Russians have given the United
States the best intelligence we've had on the Taliban and bin Laden since
military operations began on Oct. 7," an administration official
said. "They have provided the most comprehensive intelligence
picture."
Another result of the Russian raids has been
improvements in targeting Taliban strongholds by the U.S. air strikes,
this source said.
In conjunction with the air strikes, the secret
insertion of Russian troops and military experts into the tank and other
ground forces of the Northern Alliance played a major role in the swift
pace of its victories over the Tailban last month, administration
officials said.
Other targets of Russian raids have been Chechen
groups with links to bin Laden, U.S. officials said. Bin Laden-trained
Chechen fighters have been part of a surge of Islamic militancy in Central
Asia and the Caucasus which has alarmed Russia, they said.
And more on that theme:
"The challenge is how to create consulting
mechanisms capable of dealing jointly with the new common realities
without giving Europe the sense that it is facing a Russo-American
condominium".
Excerpted from:
Henry Kissinger; SHAPING A NEW WORLD ORDER; The San
Diego Union - Tribune; San Diego, Calif.; Dec 2, 2001
Link to full text:
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sandiego/main/doc/000000093333608.html?
William Healy
I have cut all those stories: they're all worth
reading, but I don't want to be part of intellectual piracy.
And finally, from Telenko again
This ought to be of interest.
LTC Peters hammers the 'apostles of stability' in
the foreign policy establishment.
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/parameters/01winter/peters.htm
After you are through with that, read this article
by Kaplan profiling the career of foreign policy maven Samuel Phillips
Huntington as a counter point, at this link:
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/12/kaplan.htm
Thanks for all of those.
From Robert Racansky:
Your tax dollars at work?
At a conference on "Boy Talk" (whatever
the hell that is) sponsored by the Department of Health and Human
Services, Christina Hoff Sommers -- a longtime critic of the feminist
movement -- was told to "shut the f*ck up, bitch" by Jay Wade.
Professor Wade is an expert on "listening skills."
At the time, Sommers had been ordered to end her
speech (which she was invited to give), and was being heckled by the
crowd.
Sommers' crime? Arguing that evidence was needed to
evaluate the effectiveness of a government program known as "Girl
Power" (whatever the hell that is), which was started during the
Clinton administration.
source: Stanley Kurtz. National Review Online. 05
Dec. 2001. http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/kurtz120501.shtml
Why am I not surprised?
Glenn Reynolds observes that the attack listed below
have all been "cheered by the Palestinians in large numbers....if the
Arabs can't get this under control, the U.S. should just take a hands-off
policy to Israeli self-defense. What's funny is, so many people in that
part of the world blame the United States for Israel's actions, when
really the main role of the United States has been to hold the Israelis
back. Maybe we should stop, and let them appreciate the difference" [
http://instapundit.com
12/5/2001 09:39:50 AM ]"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,39896,00.html
"Major Bomb Attacks Since 1993 Peace
Accord"
Sunday, December 02, 2001 Associated Press
April 6, 1994 Palestinian parks car rigged with
explosives next to bus in Afula, in northern Israel. Nine Israelis killed.
Militant Muslim group Hamas claims responsibility.
Oct. 19, 1994 Palestinian suicide bomber kills 22
Israelis in bus explosion in Tel Aviv. Hamas claims responsibility.
Jan. 22, 1995 Two Palestinians blow themselves up at
the Beit Lid junction in central Israel, killing 21 Israelis. Islamic
Jihad claims responsibility.
April 9, 1995 Two Palestinians blow themselves up
outside two Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip, killing seven Israeli
soldiers and an American. Hamas and Islamic Jihad claim responsibility.
Feb. 25, 1996 Palestinian suicide bombers blow up
bus in Jerusalem and soldiers' hitchhiking post in coastal city of
Ashkelon, killing 24 Israelis, two Americans and a Palestinian. Hamas
claims responsibility.
March 3, 1996 Bus bomb in Jerusalem kills at least
18 people, including six Romanians and two Palestinians. Hamas claimed
responsibility.
March 4, 1996 Suicide bomber blows himself up
outside a Tel Aviv shopping center, killing at least 14 people.
July 30, 1997 Two bombers kill themselves and 15
others in an outdoor Jerusalem market. Leaflet signed by Hamas' military
wing claims responsibility.
June 1, 2001 Suicide bomber blows himself up outside
Tel Aviv nightclub, killing himself and 21 others.
Aug. 9, 2001 A suicide bomber kills 15 people in
Jerusalem pizza restaurant.
Sept. 9, 2001 The first Israeli-Arab suicide bomber
blows himself up at a railroad station in northern Israel, killing three
others.
Nov. 29, 2001 A suicide bomber blows himself up on
board a bus on a main highway in Israel's north, killing three passengers.
Islamic Jihad claims responsibility for the attack.
Dec. 1, 2001 Two suicide bombers blow themselves up
in back-to-back explosions at a downtown Jerusalem pedestrian mall,
killing at least eight bystanders.
The incident list leaves out the booby trap bomb
Israelis -- whether private wickedness or government action I don't know
-- planted near an Israeli settlement but on the path used by Palestinian
school children. The booby trap got 5 kids. For some reason this
infuriated the Palestinians.
I have not yet seen the Israeli investigation of
that incident, but I sure hope there will be one and someone will be
prosecuted. I gather from the NYT that at least one of the above was in
retaliation for the Israeli booby trap.
I would say that planting booby traps near school
yards is neither a civilized nor an effective means of waging civil
war.
Jim Chapin tells me:
I think the soldiers who planted the trap weren't
thinking about the schoolkids but about the snipers who were shooting at
them from that location. I rather doubt that it was a decision of
"the government."
But all kinds of societies commit atrocities in war.
The difference is in how they react to them. In Israel, there was a
firestorm of controversy, and the start of an investigation. Just as there
would be in America.
I had not heard of that firestorm and
investigation: I would be pleased to hear more. I completely agree, no
society is perfect: it's what it condones and approves that is the measure
of a civilization.
I have since been sent this:
Link to the article: http://www.sunspot.net/bal-te.gaza24nov24.story
(Copyright Baltimore Sun)
And now a number of items from Roland Dobbins:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/23195.html
You can also see more on this on the SFWA web
site. This ebook division had very bad contracts, but the main reason it
went under was no sales.
On "permissive parenting"
http://www.msnbc.com/news/666792.asp
On the Windowless Office (a subject I have to do
more on)
http://www.crn.com/Sections/CoverStory/CoverStory.asp?ArticleID=31793
Subject: Fools Mate
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20011202-17065528.htm
How Roland manages to read everything to cull out
this much I do not know. Thanks!
On finding Bastiat:
http://bastiat.org/
http://www.econlib.org/library/classics.html#bastiat
Bastiat is always very readable, and makes a
great deal of sense. I used to use a couple of his thin works as required
reading texts when I taught political theory.
With the subject: Blombos:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/02/science/social/
02BONE.html?ex=1007874000&en=
daa105c2472d00a3&ei=5001&partner=YAHOO
And Joe Zeff tells us
See the Cosmic Finger of Friendliness at http://www.improbable.com/news/2001/nov/friendship-finger.html
It is not to be missed...
From Jim Warren:
"[I]t is the leaders of the country who
determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a
parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.
All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
--Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering
(And ... if you don't know who Goering was ... well
... that's a big part of our nation's current danger!)
Indeed. Of course sometimes the people ARE being
attacked.
The Following will eventually
be consolidated into its own page.
Regarding friendly fire and USAF policies:
> I have put this as strongly as I can: I wait for counter
arguments.
I don't see how there can be any counter-argument.
In my admittedly lay opinion, we have (or had) the ideal platform for
close air support in the A-10 Warthog, which we should have in inventory
by the thousands. How many do we have now? Any? If so, they're probably
scheduled for decommissioning in the real near future. My guess is that
any we have left are being flown by National Guard pilots, because I doubt
any career AF guy is going to be caught flying one unless he really
tripped over his own equipment.
You can't really blame the tactical guys for not
wanting to put a $50+ million unarmored fast mover down in the mud where
it might easily be lost to a golden BB. But I never cease to be amazed
that people who freely admit that the Sturmovik was the best tactical
close-support aircraft of WWII turn around and spit on the Warthog, which
amounts to a modern version of the Sturmovik flying tank. I suppose they'd
argue that different times call for different weapons, but it seems to me
that what hasn't changed is that guys on the ground need flying tanks
supporting them, and the Warthog is the only flying tank we have or are
likely to have.
-- Robert Bruce Thompson mailto:thompson@ttgnet.com
http://www.ttgnet.com/rbt/thisweek.html
I can't fault USAF for not wanting the close air
support mission, but I think the generals who refused to allow the Army to
develop aircraft for that mission ought to be broken to the ranks and sent
in as ground pounders. As you say, what the Army needs is flying tanks.
The Air Force doesn't want the Army to have them, but won't develop any
themselves. The consequences of that could be and were foreseen at the
time: I made a friendly fire argument against USAF keeping the close
support mission myself; I was speaking to the Air Council at the
time. That was long ago, though...
Yes, we need a mix. "Model airplane", with
10 pounds bang, in formed wood pulp "Hush-a-Bomb" casing, its
own TV camera, and SatNav ability. Use SatNav re-transmitter, in control
console (rebuilt Game-Boy), for better accuracy, in close quarters. Squad
carries one. Platoon gets 25 pound model. Company gets a mule, and 4X50
pound model. Regiment gets 4 Harriers, and four hovercraft, to keep up
supplies, of Harrier bangs, and shootings, plus 10, 25, 50 pound models,
and mule food, and mule treats. Doubt mule will be happy with MRE's. Oh,
yes, might as well keep Game-Boy's game-playing ability, handy for
training (Game-Boy designers get to be politically incorrect) and
relaxation (everybody carries an extra battery, no whining).
New subject: It is possible to send bogus SatNav
signals, from a ground transmitter, which do not have to be very strong,
to seduce a SatNav navigating bomb, away from your position. I wonder . .
.
It is an annoying thought, I bet the radio guys are
checking their intercepts now. A new antenna, and a new set of chips, to
Home on Signal from below?
And for Division, 20 or 40 modern versions of
the 20mm equipped, round-engined classic from Douglas? That's it, the USAF
can stick to it's knitting, while the close support pilots rotate through
front-line close support direction, and have to re-new their rifleman's
eye every quarter. It works for the Marines, it will work for the Army.
And, the law of unexpected consequences, will work for us, because there
are many ways of doing close support, you get two sets of motivated people
on a problem, you will get at least two sets of methods, that work.
I am aged 62, a retired seismic surveyor, and I had
ex-Vietnam helicopter pilots flying me above the High Artic ice, surveying
for seismic exploration.
bigfiitneil@shaw.ca
Neil
Good Points all. Thanks!
I think that most people who are aware of the
Sturmovik think of it as a dedicated anti-tank platform, and indeed that's
the way the History Channel and others portray it. I thought the same,
based on published accounts, until I got to college back in the early
1970's, when I struck up an acquaintance with a guy who'd been in the
Waffen SS on the Eastern Front during the long retreat back to Germany.
We got talking one day about the Sturmovik and I
mentioned something about how it'd been death on Panzers. He said that had
been the least of it, because the Soviets had so many of the damned things
that when tanks got to be thin on the ground they turned the Sturmoviks
loose on the German infantry. He said everyone was terrified of the
Sturmovik because it appeared to be invulnerable. They'd spot one coming
in on an attack run and start hosing it down with MG42's (at 20 rounds a
second of 7.92mm AP). He said they'd see sparkles coming off the plane
where the bullets were hitting it, but nothing appeared to happen. When
they infrequently did shoot one down, they considered it more a matter of
luck than anything else. Even the hard cases, he said, would freely admit
that Sturmoviks scared the hell out of them.
It seems to me that this demoralizing effect applies
equally to something like a Warthog, rolling in on an attack pass with
that big 30mm rotary cannon chewing up the landscape and bombs dropping
from it (or, better still, napalm). We both know that neither the
Sturmovik nor the Warthog is really invulnerable, but I can see how it
might seem that way to guys on the ground who were getting pounded by one
(or several). And I can see where having scads of Warthogs over a modern
battlefield would tend to make enemy soldiers seriously consider running
rather than fighting. So you'd get a double benefit from deploying the
A-10 in large numbers. A lot of the enemy would run or cower in their
holes. Those that didn't, the A-10 would kill.
-- Robert Bruce Thompson mailto:thompson@ttgnet.com
http://www.ttgnet.com/rbt/thisweek.html
The purpose of an army is mostly to take and hold
territory. The Army needs an Air Corps to help it do that. USAF doesn't
want to, but it doesn't want the Army to have it either.
TOP
|
CLICK HERE for
a Special Request. 
