"Precision strikes" revisited.

Post by **weemadando** » 2004-10-08 10:22pm

OK, there was a great news report on BBC World Service before which talked about 2 things.

First was a "precision strike" by US attack planes on a suspected "terrorist" safe-house in Fallujah. Now, I have no doubts that accuracy on most "precision" weapons is at least passable, but the question is, can you really call it "surgical" or "precise" when you're using a 500lb HE bomb with a Laser-guidance package in a built up area? "We hit the target apartment dead on. But also took out the rest of the building and most of the block around it.

Then, there was a story where a US spokesman described a roadside bomb (out in the boonies) using an old artillery shell being remote detonated as a US convoy was passing as "indiscriminate".

The question in my mind is: which one is really more precise? And which one would you prefer to be a non-combatant around?

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-10-08 11:30pm

I suppose an argument can be that a precision-guided bomb usually blows up exactly who or what you aim it for (despite the collateral damage it can cause), while a roadside bomb simply blows up whoever stumbles upon it first...

Post by **weemadando** » 2004-10-09 12:25am

Ma Deuce wrote:I suppose an argument can be that a precision-guided bomb usually blows up exactly who or what you aim it for (despite the collateral damage it can cause), while a roadside bomb simply blows up whoever stumbles upon it first...

Note specific use of the term: "REMOTE DETONATED".

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-10-09 12:47am

weemadando wrote:Note specific use of the term: "REMOTE DETONATED".

Tired. Missed that. Anyway, with that in mind you do have a good point: it does seem hypoicritical to condemn a remote-detaonated IED as "indeicriminate" given the collateral damage that has been influcted by airstrkies on safehouses.

BTW, are you sure that particular airstrike was conducted with a precision-guided bomb? I would think a Maverick missile would be more than sufficient...

Post by **Beowulf** » 2004-10-09 01:04am

There's a reason why we began the Small Diamter Bomb project...

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2004-10-09 01:07am

"Precision" weapons are a bit of a myth. It would be a bit like giving an NFL quarterback a hand grenade...sure, it'll hit the target, and everything around it. They're only precise in that you'll take out what you aimed it with a single weapon most of the time; collateral damage does not appear to be a factor in deciding if a weapon is precise or not.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-10-09 01:20am

The precision is impeccable. The payload can be reduced, but the accuracy is beyond question.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-10-09 01:39am

The Dark wrote:"Precision" weapons are a bit of a myth. It would be a bit like giving an NFL quarterback a hand grenade...sure, it'll hit the target, and everything around it. They're only precise in that you'll take out what you aimed it with a single weapon most of the time; collateral damage does not appear to be a factor in deciding if a weapon is precise or not.

The "precision" has nothing to do with the blast radius, but rather how close the bomb will land to where you aimed for...

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2004-10-09 04:38pm

Ma Deuce wrote:
The Dark wrote:"Precision" weapons are a bit of a myth. It would be a bit like giving an NFL quarterback a hand grenade...sure, it'll hit the target, and everything around it. They're only precise in that you'll take out what you aimed it with a single weapon most of the time; collateral damage does not appear to be a factor in deciding if a weapon is precise or not.
The "precision" has nothing to do with the blast radius, but rather how close the bomb will land to where you aimed for...

That's what I was trying to get at; as usual, someone else says it much simpler than I do. I shouldn't have taken that creative writing class in high school...

Thinkmarble · Post by **Thinkmarble** » 2004-10-09 04:53pm

Riverbend wrote: As if Allawi's gloating and Bush's inane debates aren't enough, we have to listen to people like Powell and Rumsfeld talk about "precision attacks". What exactly are precision attacks?! How can you be precise in a city like Samarra or in the slums of Sadir City on the outskirts of Baghdad? Many of the areas under attack are small, heavily populated, with shabby homes several decades old. In Sadir City, many of the houses are close together and the streets are narrow. Just how precise can you be with missiles and tanks? We got a first-hand view of America's "smart weapons". They were smart enough to kill over 10,000 Iraqis in the first few months of the occupation.

Just felt reminded of it

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-10-09 04:56pm

Thinkmarble wrote:
Riverbend wrote: As if Allawi's gloating and Bush's inane debates aren't enough, we have to listen to people like Powell and Rumsfeld talk about "precision attacks". What exactly are precision attacks?! How can you be precise in a city like Samarra or in the slums of Sadir City on the outskirts of Baghdad? Many of the areas under attack are small, heavily populated, with shabby homes several decades old. In Sadir City, many of the houses are close together and the streets are narrow. Just how precise can you be with missiles and tanks? We got a first-hand view of America's "smart weapons". They were smart enough to kill over 10,000 Iraqis in the first few months of the occupation.
Just felt reminded of it

Precision attacks claim nothing about collateral damage. What they do claim is to put a missle through a specific window in a specific building in the crowded cities. That's pretty damn precise to me.