i would add consideration of the possibility that the calculus had already been made that the specific circumstances did not warrant deployment of such an expensive system. using a complex system incurs its own risks, such as risk of capture and reverse engineering, or reverse deployment, or deployment incurring civilian or friendly casualties, and/or that alternative and more cost effective, safer methods had been found and employed— such as bunkers.
most everyone at a desert military base imho needs bunkers. if bunkers can do the job, then why throw extra costly and unnecessary hardware at a problem that has already been solved?
Correct. Under no circumstances would such a system be deployed under those circumstances. Ever. The risk of Tech exposure (the primary concern) and cost, given the Risk Benefit Analysis makes this a Never Going to Happen scenario.
The author is a clueless, ignorant fool with no military knowledge or experience.
He simply had to provide some content to earn a check and he chose this topic.
One he’s totally clueless and about.
But, it satisfied his contractual agreement with the “news” source to provide a certain amount of content per month/week/day.
“if bunkers can do the job”
It looks like they did, once again.
Rocket fire against our troops in Iraq has been an ongoing threat, most of the time we have been there.
Early warning sensors, audible alarms and bunkers make casualties few and far between.