Anon

Oh please, stop whining, i didn't even call you a name in my last post, i merely observed that you were "shooting from the hip and babbling about things you didn't know."

Well cuz, here is your original statement: Your observation is simply false. You can kill in droves right in front of the UN and the media, and no one even gives a damn....as long as you're not one of the "Good Guys".

It created a MASSIVE groundswell of support for that Marine(who was not charged btw).

Agreed, but your statement DID NOT SAY, "The time of the US winning via mass genocide is over". You said "The era of mass killing, genocides and ethnic cleansing as a way of winning wars is over senor.".

Which is an obvious falsehood.

Russia Razed Grozny to the ground.

Who was talking about the US? You made a BLANKET STATEMENT(an erroneous one), you did not restrict your comments to the West.

So Darfur, where 400k are dead at the hand of Muslims is not a "Blip on the radar" to you?

Interesting...

Archer

Oh please enough BS already. You jumped to a conclusion without even asking what I meant. Fine, stick at it if thats so bloody important to you. All your comments are automatically the word of God (pat. pending) & everyone else babbles from the hip, whatever bro.

Thats exactly what I said. And given past UN actions, thats exactly what has happened.

If the media /or someone with a stake in the conflict plays the media and escalates it into outrage, then theres some chance of international intervention...otherwise, theres less than none.

Here let me repeat it:

A bunch of the usual tribal wars in Africa or thousands of rebels slaughtering other rebels in Myanmar or ethnic cleansing in Bangladesh, dont count as any sort of blip on the world radar. Its just regarded as more of the usual.

It was cited as an example of western brutality in the very countries your folks were trying to conduct a hearts and minds campaign. It was a PR debacle. The US publics sympathy for that jarhead is beside the point.

Dude, look into the context. Whats being discussed here? Some random massacres or some actual relevant stuff, which would imply that we are discussing the relevance to the US / west. You could have simply asked!


Again, read what I said cuz. The Russian army can no longer get away with such stuff in Russia today.

"Even Russia cant drop the hammer on Chechnya beyond a point nowadays."

Did you ask what I meant before yelling yippie and jumping? Secondly, not just the west, any country which is a democracy or has rule of law and an extensive fourth estate which tries to wage a COIN campaign is slammed for being even moderately tough.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/12/kashmir/

And are you in Darfur right now protecting the poor ? If not, why? Should I assume thats because you dont care? is that in anyway a valid assumption or just jumping to a conclusion as you are doing?

__________________
Karmani Vyapurutham Dhanuhu

My bow is stretched for its task

Anon

You said that the days of winning wars by genocide were over. You were clearly wrong.

I am sorry if that stings a bit, but the truth is the truth.

If you meant to be more specific, you should have been more specific. I was merely responding to your written words.

LOVE the comments in bold though, very witty.

Why the hell would i be in Darfur?

I don't give a flying damn about those people. I don't give a flying damn about the Iranians either, for that matter.

If "Victory" meant killing every Iranian in Iran, i doubt i'd lose much sleep over it at all. Wouldn't be the first time we wiped out an entire people. I doubt it'd be the last either.

Let's face it, mankind has an enduring fondness for mass-murder.

Gun Grape

The Warsaw getto involved conventional warfare, was not an insurgency in the same vein as say the Frence Resistance movement,the IRA or the Weather Underground.

But yes they were crushed. I disagree with Czechoslovakia and or any of the other cold war "Revolts" as being an insurgency. Most were nothing but Labor walkouts and demonstrations. The Hungary revolt came closest but didn't involve many unconventional troops.

I did say revolts though when I should have said insurgencies. My Bad.

Anon

No biggie.

Archer

The days of winning wars by genocide for the civilized world are over. They have set up a system of checks and balances that prevents them from going all the way unless they face total war which they can sell to their public and alllies as necessary. COIN does not come under the bit. Thats what I was getting at. [For the 3rd time]

You were just yellin' for the heck of it, but never mind.




You said it was "interesting" that I "didnt care about 400 K people being killed in Darfur" because I mentioned that the world doesnt give a damn to whats happening unless its covered in vivid prose in the media. My question was flipping the same back..but never mind..


I do give a flying damn about the people in Darfur, its just that I cant do anything about it in practical terms as an individual. My country can do something, but it wont till the UN decides to. And the UN wont, till the scale of the tragedy becomes so much that it cant ignore it.

And then the UN will send my countrys troops in, under restrictive ROE, then they will leave and the SOBs will start the slaughter again.

The janjawid militia has had extensive support from the Islamic bloc- I doubt whether they'll allow those SOBs to be neutered.

Sure, but you'll need a causus belli to do it and you wont be able to just go off the bat either. Thats the way the system works and thats what I was getting at. For instance, immediately after 9/11 everyone was behind the States and ponied up for their bit in the then announced WOT. Five years on, everyone is sitting and looking after their interests first.

Whats funny is that everyones war is "just", but the other guys war is not.

I was watching the BBC and they went on and on and on, about how their good lads were fighting the Islamist Taliban. Zzzzip. Change to Israel and Hezbollah, and suddenly its Israels "aggression" against "local Hezbollah".

And these idiots shape public opinion.

Of that theres no doubt. And at times, I definitely think there are a heck of a lot of people whom this planet would be better off without.

Archer

All occured under police states (Nazi Germany/ Soviet Union), total war (WW2) and complete control (Iron Curtain, Cold war). So might not be relevant to todays times and todays modern industrialized west.

I think in todays world, only one big power can get away with almost complete genocide within its borders (the PRC) and only the US has the sum total of economic, military and diplomatic power to conduct an unfettered campaign abroad for a brief period of time. But even it wont be able to hold everyone in line throughout.

Maxor

Quite honestly so much depends on the political build-up to the war. If immediately the invasion of Iraq the US would have imprisoned or not allowed the surrender of the iraqi army there would have been very little politcal fallout. If the US stops going out of its way to provide protection details and embed reporters with its units a suprizingly large portion of the US press would no bother to go into a hostile area. You'd see alot of reports from hotels in bagdad based almost entirely on military press releases. Only as the country became pacified would most reporters venture out into new cowed populace and its very tough to incriminate a nations military in the media in the past tense especially after you were just writting nice things about it.

As for reports of jurnalists being killed venturing out to get the news when they aren't instide of their little protection details.... those stories will get alot of shruggs and "well he was in a warzone covering a war."

I also don't understand where the news media is getting these reports of massive ammerican casualties, there are still far few than was lost in a single day in various battles throughout this countries history; especially when you consider the loss compared to percentage of the whole.

Garry

I recently talked to a pal - he gave me a Russian language link.... ATACM is does not have maneuvring warhead... IT IS BEING SHOT BY S-300v....

Iskander E has maneuvring warhead.... it CAN NOT be intercepted by exsting western SAMs. Not EVEN SM-3....

Garry

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...kets/index.php

UAE Orders $752M Worth of HIMARS Launchers & Rockets
Posted 26-Sep-2006 10:03
Related stories: Americas - USA, Contracts - Intent, Lockheed Martin, Middle East - Other, Missiles - Precision Attack, Other Corporation, Rockets, Trucks & Transport
Also on this day: 26-Sep-2006 »

M142 HIMARS
(click to view full)The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress on Sept. 21, 2006 of a possible sale to the United Arab Emirates of High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $752 million.

The principal contractors will be Lockheed Martin Missile and Fire Control at Dallas, TX (rockets) and Stewart & Stevenson at Sealy, TX (truck platform). The purchaser has requested offsets, and agreements will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and contractor. Items requested include both the weapons platform and a variety of rockets and missiles, including:

20 HIMARS Launchers, mounted on
20 M1084A1 Family of Medium Truck Vehicles (FMTV);
3 "M108A1 Wreckers"; DID believes they mean the M1089, an FMTV truck variant with towing and winching capability that can get a HIMARS vehicle out of trouble in case of treacherous sand, mud, making close friends with the local roadside ditch, etc.
104 M26 MLRS Rocket Pods; the Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions (DPICM) bomblets inside gave the MLRS its nickname of "steel rain" in Iraq. Each 6-rocket pod carries 227mm rockets with a range of about 30 km.
130 M30 Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (GMLRS) pods, whose rockets add GPS guidance. The DSCA release notes that these will contain DPICM warheads; each rocket can hold 404 of them. See DID article re: the M30/M31 GPS-guided rockets. Each 6-rocket pod carries 227mm rockets with a range of about 60-70 km.
130 M31 Unitary High Explosive GMLRS Pods - these have been used in the current Iraq war, where their sudden strike and GPS-guided ability to hit buildings and other hardened structures with their 196 pound single warhead have proven very useful. Each 6-rocket pod carries 227mm rockets with a range of about 60-70 km.
101 M39A1 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) Block 1A Anti-Personnel-Anti-Material Rocket Pods. These missiles have a 300 km range, and pack 300 M74 submunitions that explode to cover a wide area with fragmentation and armor-piercing bomblets. Each pod carries 1 missile.
101 M39A1 ATACMS Block 1A Unitary Rocket Pods; this variant packs a single 500 pound explosive warhead; if you want to take down a building in a few minutes from 150 miles away, this is the weapon you want. Each pod carries 1 missile.
60 Multiple Launcher Rocket Systems (MLRS) Practice Rocket Pods.
Implementation of this sale will require the assignment of a U.S. Government Quality Assurance Team of up to 5 contractor representatives to the UAE for two weeks to assist in the delivery and deployment of the HIRMARS and sequential deliveries. There will be a 3-person Technical Assistance Fielding Team in the UAE for training mission support for up to two years. A U.S. Government representative will remain in country for a minimum of two years in order to assist in the security assistance aspects of the mission.

canoe

By maneuvring warhead are you referring to the missile guiding itself to a target or the warhead seperating and guiding itself to a target?

joey2

How is this compared to Smerch?

Garry

Hi Canoe,

maneuvring warhead is the second which you stated. It has its own engine and hence may change direction of flight => because it does not attack on a predictable ballistic trajectory it is harder to intercept... at present it is deemed as IMPOSSIBLE.

There are two versions of Iskander - E the export version will never have maneuvring warhead and domestic. The domestic also does not have a maneuvring warhead AT PRESENT. However it was designed by same principles as Topol and there is work on creation of a maneuvring warhead for Iskander which is a modification of middle range missile SS-23 Spider.

Smerch has limit to its range and is used when you need a MASSIVE attack on columns, fortifications, infantry, tanks. The major issue here is COST. The salvo of self guided antitank missiles costs many times less than one Iskanker missile.

Hence Iskander is used for strategic targets in deep enemy rears. For such targets the cost is not an issue - the precision and effectivennes are important.

Deboshire

Here is a 1,5 minute Smerch video from Youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6suKiXqPNfE

Undoubtedly to the delight of non-russian speakers, audio-wise there are no vocals, only the music.

Archer

Damn, does the Smerch have thrusters near the nosecone?