War: What Can Technology Do For Us? 787
Both the first Bush and the Clinton administrations, from Desert Storm to Kosovo, advanced the idea of conflict with little civilian loss and few casualties of our own. But thousands of American civilians are already dead in this conflict, greater civilian losses than in any war in U.S. history. Still, the military analysts, network pundits and Pentagon officials are going to great lengths to point out that Taliban and fundamentalist fighters are skilled and determined, that this conflict will be long and difficult, that our expectations should be kept realistic. And bin Laden is a surprisingly agile enemy. He not only grasps America's most vulnerable points, he understands "spinning," using video-imagery and satellite transmission to get his side of the story out. This is something Saddam never began to grasp.
But are our expectations realistic? Are we once again overrating our own technology, and underestimating less sophisticated cultures and populations? Most Americans have been prepared for years to place enormous faith in a range of new technologies that are supposed to make us the most powerful military force in world history. Sophisticated technologies devastated the Iraqi military in Desert Storm. While their results were more controversial in the Kosovo action, there remained little American loss of life. The bloody action in Somolia showed us yet again that technology is not effective if it can't be used for political or military reasons. And Panama and Grenada resembled police actions more than military conflicts.
In this new war, though, it seems clear that American forces will be involved in some sort of ground fighting on Afghanistan's murderous terrain, and that would mean a battle more reminiscent of Vietnam than Kuwait.
What can technology do for us? Can GPS targeting systems really place bombs that accurately? Can intelligence analysts in the U.S. instantly track raw data without leaving their offices? Can civilian populations really be protected? Can thermal imaging and satellite surveillance see into caves or track small units in mountainous terrains? Can government computers follow money around the world? Will our soldiers' tech-equipped vehicles, equipment and weapons give them an edge over the the Russians, who were chewed to bits in their conflict with Afghanistan guerrillas, but whose equipment was comparatively primitive? Have we actually developed a new mix of tech-supported human and machine warfare that is deadly, flexible and effective?
From reading the papers and watching the generals on TV, we see confidence from the military that the answers to most of these questions is yes. But the people reading this have a much better than average grasp of these tech issues. Do you agree? What can tech do for us -- or not do -- in this supposedly new era?
Tech should NOT give the other side an advantage (Score:2, Insightful)
War machines (Score:3, Insightful)
I think a lot of people miss that point when you watch it on television or a computer screen.
I don't think there is much to worry about.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The war in Afganistan isn't our big concern. Our greatest threat comes from within and is directed at our fundamental freedoms.
Killing Machines (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, this idea applies even to non-war machines and technology that is not directly tied to war. For example, with the World Trade Center and Pentagon terrorist attacks, the killing was made possible using a regular old plane. However, the plane is a technology exemplar. The plane, in many ways, defines so much technology. The commercial planes were not meant for war or killing, yet they did kill many people.
As technology increases, we will see more death. However, the death will come from humans using and abusing technology. That is always the way it has been. Humans kill other humans. Technology just helps.
Re:For $600,000 a pop... (Score:2, Insightful)
//rdj
What this brings us? (Score:1, Insightful)
The Western World should instead of retalliating the consquences do something about its origins. And those origins are not the terrorist fractions, but rather the way we treat them.
Violence creates more violence. Remember that.
It's up to the Poor Bloody Infantry (Score:5, Insightful)
What are laser-guided bombs, satellite guided missiles, penetrating sensor systems, stealth planes, etc?
Force Multipliers.
But anything times zero is still zero.
The core of this, and every other conflict, is the soldier. The core of any operation involving taking ground and holding it, or in denying that ground to an enemy, is the infantry. Poor, thankless, cold, and tired infantry. Some poor shmuck (possibly quite well educated nowadays) a long way from home, in a nasty situation, with some people out to kill him and maybe some friends he's trying to keep alive. And hoping he'll get out in one piece and hoping he'll have dry socks.
This isn't a _new_ kind of war. It's a very _old_ kind of war - what is going on in Afghanistan today is a conventional war - suppression of air defenses prior to ground action. This war (like many others back many millenia) will be fought by conventional and unconventional means.
Will technology make a difference? It'll help. Being able to see at night is a big plus. Having comms and fire support and airborne mobility are pretty big assets. But ultimately, it'll be skirmishers, light infantry and special operations forces that will go toe to toe with the terrorists in the hilly backcountry of Afghanistan. All the technology in the world won't change that reality.
And will the allied forces get their asses kicked? Maybe they'll take some hits (probably some boys will be dying... this is always the cost of fighting an implacable enemy such as the terrorists are...). But the allied military forces have learned a lot from the Russian experiences and they've learned a lot in conflicts around the world in the last 10 years (Kosovo, Sarajevo, Bosnia, The Gulf, etc.) about how new conflicts are fought, their horrors, and their risks.
Ultimately, they will prevail against a government that does not enjoy unified support from its people because it is corrupt and because it abuses its populace. But don't ever think they have prevailed because of some wazoo technology.
They will have prevailed because some farm boy from Iowa was willing to bust his ass training to be a Green Beret and because he's willing to lay that same ass on the line for what he believes in and to do what it takes, wherever in the world that may be, to get the job done and make the world a safer place for his fellow citizens. That farm boy's guts and training and sacrifice will be what carries the day, as always.
God Bless America (and I'm not even 'Merican!)
Tomb Raider
Technology solves all given enough time... (Score:2, Insightful)
Whether or not technology is going to be the deciding factor in this particular conflict is debatable. It does seem likely, though.
Consider the weapons which we have which (as far as we know) no other nation can even touch; The highly engineered fuel-air bombs with kiloton yield, stealth fighters, 2,000 mile range cruise missiles which can follow roads, flying low, and pop through your bedroom window... literally. When they get there (and I'm talking about tomahawks here) they can deliver a nuke, EMP, high explosive, antipersonnel, et cetera. How's that to really put the cap on your bad day?
Now, this is the technology that we know about. Some of it we know about because it became inconvenient to hide, and some of it we know about because the military wants to brag about how big its stones are. But think about how long some of this stuff was around before we really knew anything about it, or in some cases, anything. Think about what the military must have that they're not even telling us about.
On the other hand, Bin Laden lives a fairly low-tech life. Many of the methods we would ordinarily employ to locate someone will not work because of this. Ultimately, however, I think the pressure we're putting on the nation will lead us to him. Whether or not he's actually the one responsible for the attacks is a seperate issue. I personally don't care; He's a known (and admitted) terrorist, responsible for the deaths of [relative] innocents, and he should be killed. While I'm against the death penalty in most situations, sometimes someone is just too dangerous to be allowed to live. Better thee than me.
On top of all this; We trained most of these people, either directly or indirectly. We know how they operate, and we know just what level of technology they posess, and in most cases exactly what kind of gear they have, because they got it from us. We have both the technological and information edges on these people. You can further bet your ass that there's a significant number of "spy" satellites hanging out over these areas right now, just checking out anything that looks interesting. It might take us a while, but it is only a matter of time. Also, as a final point, consider that the US government, or at least influential pieces of it, is/are completely ruthless. This is merely something it has in common with almost every other government. While perhaps not a Good Thing (tm), it is occasionally useful.
Like the mounties...
Not conventional combat (Score:5, Insightful)
It wasn't until 1986 when the soviets realized they needed to match their forces and began sending in Spetznatz (Special Forces) units instead of traditional forces. They were tremendously sucessful, and by some accounts pretty much had the war won. At that point Reagan stepped in and gave the Afghan forces American Technology, principally lots of Stinger missles. New weapons were enough to turn the tide of the war and the Soviets spent the next two years in a somewhat controlled retreat.
Be careful who you think your friends are, as our own Stinger missles are currently considered the biggest threat to the safety of American planes in Afghanastan.
Our targeted strikes are merely to knock out known defenses and to destabilize the infrastructure. The only way we can flush out their military will be with on the ground special forces.
The biggest thing that I fear is that the US will renig on their commitment to rebuild Afghanastan once we are done blowing it up. If we do not make the investment to rebuild Afghanastan to a stable and capable society, then we will merely be back where we began.
Remember that's how the Taliban came to power. Afghanastan was obliterated by the Soviets. It was an Anarchistic country dominated by local warlords, and ripe for a unifying force to take brutal control. Starving and desperate populations are the breeding ground for violent dictators: Witness numerous 20th Century european countries (names withheld to avoid invoking net flame degredation rules
Enjoy,
Chris
like being in "1984" (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, the beauty of the net is that I can see the analysis almost totally absent from US media by reading European and Asian web papers.
Loss of some life, not militarily significant (Score:3, Insightful)
The plain simple fact is that not only do we have vastly more and better equipment, but we also have vastly more and better trained people. Some of them will be lost, the the outcome is not in doubt.
The only thing in doubt is our will to see this through. In the past we have not had the will. After the first few body bags, we run home with our tail between our legs. And that is partly why Sept 11 occured. There is no credible belief that we'll do really very much about it. We'll drop a few bombs, and then when the first few body bags arrive, we'll run home.
After the Sept 11 outrange, we may now have the will. And this, I believe, is Osama's miscalculation.
Another one is this. He may grasp how to use PR to spin his side. But it seems to me that each PR bit he has released has stired our side to even more anger. And we may be able to counter spin his own remarks in front of the Arab world. That remains to be seen.
Re:Making assumptions (Score:2, Insightful)
Now how are we going to find THOSE terrorists? Intellegence would be nice, but American's don't look like Afgans (sp.) And forget paying them, many of them are taught that the worse life is on this planet the better it is in the after life. Now what are you going to pay them off with? We could always try, "If you tell us where the terrorists are, we'll take away everything you (don't) have.
I believe we can win this war, but finding the objective is going to be much more difficult than people reaize.
It's gonna move the war home, is what. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nearest I can figure is that this "war" on the rubble of Afghanistan is going to just create an excuse for more terrorist attacks against US civilians.
Ol' Dubya has just initiated a tit-for-tat war of attrition. This is not going to be a good time to be an American citizen.
And, finally, an interesting bit of thought from Michael Moore:
"Orwell warned us about this one. Big Brother, in order to control the population, knew that it was necessary for the people to always believe they were in a state of siege, that the enemy was getting closer and closer, and that the war would take a very long time.
That is EXACTLY what George W. Bush said in his speech to Congress, and the reason he said it is because he and his buddies want us all in such a state of fear and panic that we would gladly give up the cherished freedoms that our fathers and those before them fought and died for. Who wouldn't submit to searches, restrictions of movement, and the rounding up of anyone who looks suspicious if it would prevent another September 11?
In order to get these laws passed that will strip us of our rights, they have been telling us that we are in a LONG and PROTRACTED war that has no end in sight."
Technology in Warfare (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, so we can drop a bomb down somebody's chimney, but does that make a fanatic (whos now lost his family) impressed? Does it alter his believes enough to lift the blinkers and see the pain his government is causing? No, it just makes him more determined to murder the infidel. And besides, it isnt as if theres a lot in Afghanistan to actually bomb.
In my opinion there is no way that the allied nations can win this war against terrorism. Just as hercules faced the hydra, cut off one head and (at least) another will form in its place.
Just look at northern ireland for an example. The english have been trying for years to deal with the terrorist organisations. A ceasefire is called with the IRA and another disgruntled group who disageree with the peace process entirely springs up.
The soldiers themselves, having been exposed to the troubles are now as bitter toward the terrorists as they are to them, essentially cerating 3 sides of bitterness that will never really move forward.
Until we start to apply a doctrine of politics to these people to capture the hearts and minds of the people under the regime, then fighting is pointless. And all the talk of "Reasoning is useless" or "we want payback", is clearly a knee-jerk reaction. Yes, people are hurting now, but does that justify the eye-for-an-eye mentality?
ChAoS
Won't work (Score:3, Insightful)
The real war the world is fighting (Score:2, Insightful)
The US (and the western world, by extension) isn't fighting a opressing regime or an expanding, threatening militar force. We are fighting terror, and senseless attacks on civilians. These attacks do not come from Taliban troops. They come from organized fundamentalists, which are functioning as any american corporation. The difference is the goal: the fundamentalists do not want profit, but some kind of religious "justice".
The real war isn't on Afghanistan: it's in the minds of a big number of people who think of the US as their biggest enemy.
Bombing Taliban sites or capturing/killing Osama bin Laden will not end terror. The terrorists are well spread all over the world. To stop these people, we'll have to make them stop wanting to hurt us. The bombs or the modern tecnology will not achieve this.
Re:it will ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:War machines (Score:2, Insightful)
It's true, we're not targeting villages according to the governemnt. But we're still killing people never the less.
Technology on the ground (Score:3, Insightful)
Guerilla tactics are pretty much the only way to take out guerillas. The Soviets proved that controlling the cities and highways with a lot of heavy armor just makes you a static target.
So, don't expect this to be bloodless for the US/UK. All this government rhetoric about how this will be a hard effort means "we're gonna take casualties."
The US ground troops will have far more technological assistance than the Taliban: GPS, helicopters, night vision, personal radios, satellite imagery, powerful individual weapons, artillery and air strikes on call. But the Taliban are on their home turf, and they are ready to die for the cause.
Re:Tech should NOT give the other side an advantag (Score:2, Insightful)
Selling or leaking business secrets is unethical and rotten, but legal (short of insider trading or non-disclosure violations).
Selling/leaking MILITARY secrets is TREASON and will get you EXECUTED promptly in time of war. A little more serious than "starting trouble".
Unfortunately, morons reporting what is visible to a casual observer on the battlefield isn't considered "leaking" secrets, because the events have already happened (even though only moments ago). Pity.
Re:Please stop speaking of casualties... (Score:2, Insightful)
However, I am not speaking of casualties and I'm not speaking in the long term, I'm speaking of cost. When someone baits us by saying "Way to go America, 4 more dead.." or some such blather, I have to point out that those 4, like soldiers, sailors, airmen, firemen, policemen and so on chose to risk their lives. The people in the World Trade Center did not and should rightly be considered victims.
When a cop pulls over a guy on the side of the road, he's taking his life in his own hands. He runs a very serious risk of getting shot or killed (I know, my cousin was killed in just such an incident). When a cop goes into a training exercise to learn how to deal with those situations, he also could get killed. If a cop gets killed in training, do we include him in the list of those killed by drive by shootings? No. Why not? After all, the only reason he was there in the first place was to deal with a potential shooting situation.
One thing that does tick me off is the term "Collateral Damage." It used to mean unintentional damage to physical assets as a result of actions against intended targets. Now it means innocent people killed by accident. A person is not "Collateral," a person who is killed or injured is a victim, friend or enemy, intentional or not.
"This comment posted as LDOPA1 because when I criticize, it's generally supported by fact. Occasionally I lose Karma, but more often I gain Karma. I'm willing to risk Karma for what I believe."
Re:It's gonna move the war home, is what. (Score:4, Insightful)
Regardless of whether OBL had a valid point in his little speech, regardless of whether it makes moral sense of the US to have a presence in the Middle East, regardless of all those things
Let's say the US is doing something really stupid. In response to this, someone who disagrees with what they're doing comes along and murders 6,000 civilians. The US turns, looks at itself, and says, "Wow, maybe we're doing something really stupid. Let's stop doing that before 6,000 more civilians get murdered."
Then what? Then next time somebody out in the world with a chip on their shoulder sees the US doing something they don't like, they think, "Hey, it worked for so-and-so, let me try."
Bush's diplomacy, in this case, had nothing to do with the Taliban, and everything to do with the other nations in the region who are backing the US in this (however reluctantly it may be). "Diplomacy" with the Taliban was limited (as it absolutely should have been) to strict demands of what needed to be done.
You don't negotiate with criminals, you bring them to justice. You tell them what they need to do, and what will happen if they don't do it. If they don't do what they need to do, you follow through with your threats.
Look at this a little differently. Change the scale a bit. There's a new zoning law in your town that prohibits people from having cars on cinder blocks in front yards. Some guy in the town really likes having his car on cinder blocks, so he complains to the town. The town says, "The citizens of this town voted for this ordinance, you must follow it." What does this person do? Maybe he puts up signs, trying to change the view of the people -- ask that they change the law, try and tell his side of the story. But maybe that doesn't work. So, instead, he blows up a bomb at the local elementary school. The police, and the local citizens, are outraged. "Hey, you should have listened when I asked you to change the law. Maybe you'll change it now?"
You don't negotiate with that person. You go get him and lock him away for life. Maybe you kill him. But you certainly don't change the law beause of him! And if his landlord refuses you access to his apartment, you arrest him as well -- treating him as much a criminal as the man he's protecting.
I'm against war.
I have a healthy amount of skepticism about the US foreign and domestic policy. I question the usefulness of our sanctions against Iraq. I question a lot of things.
I am not a drone. I am not a sheep.
It makes me indescribably sad to think of the innocent men, women, and children dying right now because of this.
But I can't think of a better way of handling what needs to be done. As much as I hate Bush, these strikes, and this "war," need to take place.
Re:War machines (Score:1, Insightful)
Why should we let him live? Well, I don't know where I get this from, but I truly believe that we all have a right to live, even those who abuse it most terribly. Yes, Bin Laden has a right to live, you and I both have a right to live, and of course the people killed on the 11th of September had a right to live.
I also just don't see the point of killing him...
It's not punishment (death is final).
It's not a deterrent (would it stop another terorist from taking his place?).
Killing him wouldn't achieve anything at all, only make people feel better because they've had revenge. That's not justice.
(I only answer on religious grounds when talking to religious peiople - I certainly have no faith.)
Tom.
What is techno-war doing -to- us? (Score:3, Insightful)
airports, which were unlikely to be used in this
conflict, anyway, and which the US & UK will now
have to pay Afghanistan to rebuild, once the war
is over. See Sun Tzu's excellent paper on warfare
on why this is an incredibly stupid tactic.
The "minimal loss of life" has included UN
volunteer workers, when those carefully guided
missiles slammed into a UN-sponsored facility.
IIRC, this is not the first time "smart bombs"
have been fired by less-than-smart humans. The US
really should update its maps. I'm sure the
Chinese would help pay for some. Iraq and Libya
would probably chip in some cash, too, given the
number of civilians killed by "stray" missiles,
fired in anger by US pilots, in both countries.
The first problem is that the military are
unbelievably dumb. Giving them "smart" technology
doesn't make them any smarter. (Laptops and the
UK's MOD don't mix. Well, they do, and then they
seperate, with said laptops carrying information
MOD officials damn well aught to know better
should not be put on unsecure machines.)
The second problem is that even the "smart"
technology is far from "smart". The guidance
systems (camera-based, laser-guided, GPS, etc) are
all prone to error, and there seems to be very
little in the way of verification done. (If there
were, we wouldn't get stray missiles! The system
would be able to detect there was a problem, and
correct it.)
The third problem is that this kind of war
depersonalises it. Death and destruction at the
push of a button, with no understanding or
compassion. Reminds me a lot of Davros, from the
television series "Doctor Who", or the Cybermen.
In both cases, fictional descriptions of what
happens when you destroy the "human element", and
replace it with passionless machinary. How, then,
should we challange those things which -are- evil?
Again, the good Doctor answered this, in the story
"Evil of the Daleks" - cooperation, caring and
compassion are more powerful than brute-force and
power-plays.
Re:It's up to the Poor Bloody Infantry (Score:3, Insightful)
There's an entire group of people in a little Middle East nation called Kuwait who'd disagree. Likewise, entire swaths of Europe (who still hold a perspective of not-so-distant history) are also likely to disagree.
I do agree that, ultimately, our armed forces are focused on breaking things and killing people. That ugly fact should not be forgotten. But you're kidding yourself if you believe that's their only purpose.
Re:Technology neither the problem nor the solution (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right. We responded not by instantly switching from our centuries-old dependencies on fossil fuel to Mr. Fusion-powered cars and oh-so-good-for-the-environment NiCD-powered electric cars (1990 remember), all the while letting the Kurds and Kuwaitis and (undoubtedly in short order) the Israelis get steamrolled by Iraq. Instead we responded to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait by taking our ships and aircraft to the Gulf and floating around for a few months saying "please get out of Kuwait and go back to your own country. Respect their sovereignty and we will respect yours." From August to January, we floated around and tried diplomacy. When it didn't work, we (the Western world - I'm not American) punted the Iraqis back into their own country. We did not level Bagdhad.
Of course Bin Laden wants us out of the Middle East. How will he set up his pan-Arabic regime if the US is hanging around trying to protect smaller countries (Kuwait, Israel, et al)?
If the US leaves the Middle East, what will happen to Israel and its 6 million people? Well, just before they get completely slaughtered, they'll fire off their 100+ nuclear weapons - the so-called "Samson option". Tens of millions of Arabs who think their god is telling them to destroy Israel, and more than a hundred nuclear warheads within Israel's borders intent on proving them wrong. And having the US there as a stabilizing influence is a bad idea? You think Iraq would have stopped at Kuwait?
It's not a US thing. And its not even a US-plus-the-countries-kissing-the-US'-ass thing. There's a reason so many countries supported the actions of the Bush administration in 1990, and a similar reason so many countries support the actions of this Bush administration. And it isn't because they're all getting paid off by insert-big-corporation-here. It's because the alternative is even worse.
As for the crack about diplomacy, if you followed the past few international issues with the Taliban, such as their destroying of monuments or their imprisoning of aid workers, you'd understand that the Taliban is not interested in negotiating with the western world.
m@
Re:Differential Theory of Special Operations Force (Score:5, Insightful)
Not True. The most extreme counterexamples come from WW2, when US high command decided to start fire bombing residential neighborhoods in Tokyo and other Japanese cities. In this regard, the use of nuclear weapons was only a change in scale, not in policy. Other examples come from Germany WW2, Vietnam and Korea.
That (publicly known) US military policy doesn't involve targetting civilans doesn't mean it hasn't happened in the past, or can't happen again. I like the US, and I'm glad that technological advances allow for more accurate munitions. I just hope the people in charge can identify legitimate targets with equal accuracy.
Re:It's up to the Poor Bloody Infantry (Score:5, Insightful)
During one of the press breifings, a minor fact suddenly stood out. There was discussion over what targets were being selected. It was noted that Taliban troops had been targeted in the northern area of Afghanistan. It seems Taliban forces had massed there in responce to a push from the Northern Alliance. The speaker pointed out that this showed the importance of ground troops in the area. You need ground forces to cause enemy forces to mass and provide a suitable target for air attack.
Rewind a bit there.
Note that the ground forces being referred to were not US or British forces. It was Afghanistan rebels.
Granted - US special forces have been in the area for some time. They've been collecting intel, doing recon, and possibly interfacing with Northern Alliance representatives. But the grunt work is being done by Afghanistan nationals. The US and British forces are supplying the "force multiplyer".
This is an important point. US troops may eventually contribute to a ground war, but it will be important that Afghanistan rebel forces will be taking leading roles in unseating the Taliban government. Just as it was important that the Kuwait military be the first to roll in to Kuwait City.
Re:Differential Theory of Special Operations Force (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Killing Machines (Score:5, Insightful)
Call me a starry-eyed optimist, but I believe that technology has helped prevent the deaths of non-combatants.
Laser-guided rockets, TOW missiles, satellite intel... all things have allowed us to specifically target military establishments, rather than carpet-bombing cities full of civilians.
Is technology 100% perfect? No. Non-combatants will still be killed. That's war. But at least technology has given us the ability to target the people we're really after, rather than carpet-bombing whole cities.
Re:it will ... (Score:1, Insightful)
Dumbass, if we wanted, we could wipe out every living thing in that hell hole of a country and not break a sweat.
We are spending a lot of cash and will probably wind up spending a lot of American lives to *PREVENT* killing of civilians.
We need to bring back the draft, so wimps like you can get a taste of reality.
Precision Attacks? (Score:1, Insightful)
as someone who routinely beats up on the media for not reporting a balanced story, especially in cases such as Columbine and Digital Rights, it is ironic to see another journalist trumpeting the great american war machine without any thought to why you are in this predicament. and the civilian casualties have only just begun.
and for what it is worth, Osama is absolutely correct when he says [nzherald.co.nz] "America is full of fear from its north to its south, from its west to its east. Thank God for that. Our nation has been tasting fear, hatred and injustices for years" and that "To the United States, I say, I swear by God the Great that the United States will never taste security and safety unless we feel security and safety in our land of Palestine".
these [nzherald.co.nz] are [nzherald.co.nz] not [nzherald.co.nz] precision [nzherald.co.nz].get a life you piece of shit.