Posted on 07/18/2007 10:10:35 AM PDT by RDTF
I hope he has lots to say...
If the Demappearsers were in charge these terrorists would still be alive and well.
Pray for W and Our Troops
In the US Civil War, the Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and every conflict up to Desert Storm '93 the average number of rounds expended per enemy killed was 100,000.
$39,000 for a sure kill is very cheap.
I'm sure the NYT will be telling them exactly how we figured out where their collegue was...
My reference goes more to the point that from the time we first invaded Iraq we fought with the protection of innocents as a high priority.
Sherman was one of the first to demonstrate the theory that when civilian populations pay a price for war, they quickly decide that war is not what they want.
My point is that if the war was fought with those methods from the day we decided to attack Iraq, there would have never been an insurgency.
Haven't priced any smart bombs or missiles lately?
I'm a Sherman fan, but I think you're misreading this in a big way. Sherman took his campaign to the plantations in order to take the war to those who had imposed it on poor Southerners. I could elaborate on this, but suffice it to say that there are a number of reasons that Sherman's goals were far different from the goals we had in 2003, and applying his methods would have been pointless.
Certainly the air-heavy campaign we used would not have produced the result you're thinking if we had just increased it. Pick up a copy of "The Bomber War" by Robin Neillands and take a look at what he has to say about the population of Germany and their will to fight. Bombing and other destruction did nothing to damage their will, but only focused an unreasonable hatred on the bomber crews. Neillands records one oral account about a crewman who had bailed out over germany and was attacked by a mob of civilians that included nuns.
The key element that led to insurgency was the disbanding of the Iraqi army.
Sherman went well beyond the plantations.
And while I understand Neilland’s points about the violence against bomber crews, it certainly doesn’t explain the fact that the Western Allies were overwhelmed with the number of surrendering Germans from 44-45. Surrendering en masse is a strange way to demonstrate their will to fight.
And you keep restricting the methods to air methods. I never made that restriction. The ground tactics and rules of engagement were also quite different from prior wars.
JDAM bombs are inexpensive compared to alternatives such as cruise missiles. The original cost estimate was $40,000 each for the tail kits, but after competitive bidding, contracts were signed with McDonnell Douglas (later overtaken by Boeing) for delivery at $18,000 each.
The GBU-39 Small-Diameter Bomb (SDB) is a 250 pound (110 kg) guided bomb that is intended to provide aircraft with the ability to carry a higher number of bombs.But that again seems way too high.The SDB carries approximately 50 lb (23 kg) of high explosive, yet because of its design it has the same penetration capabilities as the 2000 lb BLU-109. During demonstrations, the SDB has successfully penetrated more than 6 ft (1.8 m) thick reinforced concrete. It also has integrated "DiamondBack" type wings which deploy after release, increasing the glide time and therefore the maximum range.
Although unit costs were somewhat uncertain as of 2006, the estimated value for the INS/GPS version was around $70,000. The cost of the second variant was more uncertain, but tentative estimates were $90,000 per unit or more.
I saw these shells on Discovery and they were quite accurate. The bombs are accurate, but you still can't control that much explosive without collateral damage. I'm sure we have smaller bombs, but you have the fuel to get them there, the cost of the "smart add on" and the risk of the pilot to consider. These shells also are neat because you can even fire them the wrong direction, and they correct in flight. Less friendly fire problems. Firing these shells has to be the best way to put small ordinance on a target. There is hardly any downside I can think of.
I do worry about all this "smartness" in war, however. Pretty soon if you injure a brother in law of the bastid you are going for, you might get charged with war crimes in the Hague. I say the brother in law should have turned him in or shot him for the reward to protect himself and his family. I don't like women and children being hurt, but war is tough. The people in Waziristan Pakistan aren't innocent. If we see Osama on satellite, I don't mind taking out the whole village. They knew better.
Somebody I used to admire said, "You are either with us or with the terrorists."
Actually, they did use an F-16 as back-up. It’s called combined forces:
...
At approximately 1:12 p.m., the house was positively identified allowing 1st Battalion, 9th Field Artillery Regiment to fire two Excalibur rounds destroying the meeting house.
An unmanned aerial vehicle observed persons leaving the house, loading injured individuals into a sedan and fleeing the scene.
An AH-64 Apache helicopter engaged the sedan destroying it.
Three people were observed running from the meeting house to a nearby house.
A U.S. Air Force F16 Fighting Falcon dropped two 500-pound GPS-guided bombs on the second house.
....
nothing like using all the weapons at our disposal to rid the world of trash like this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.