interesting military news

[kosmo]

The saving lives aspect of it is pretty important. Making new enemies by killing innocent people is a bad thing. Also crucial is the intelligence gathering aspect of catching these people alive. It makes it a lot easier for us to find the source if we can get the guy to tell us where he got it from and who built the bomb.

[Destructo6]

Deceased (I dislike these .govt filters) men tell no tales. If you can take one of these numbnuts alive, you might be able to pry some information out of him and get his compadres. Also, if you can prevent, by disabling electronics, the twit from detonating the charge, it's a good thing.

[RazorMonkey]

Stopping cars? Check this: http://www.r50rd.co.uk/research/inte.../stop_test.htm

[Army]

Quoted for Truth.

Most people killed by soldiers at MidEast checkpoints are innocents who happened to exhibit suspicious behaviour.

WRONG! I defy you to bring credible evidence of your accusation.

US troops go out of their way to insure safety to innocents, even allowing injury to themselves so as to not harm civilians.

I expect an apology.

[JoshK]

WRONG! I defy you to bring credible evidence of your accusation.

US troops go out of their way to insure safety to innocents, even allowing injury to themselves so as to not harm civilians.

I expect an apology.

Yes...I can't possibly see how you can blame stuff like that on the people who protect your freedoms.

(I was talking to the person ARMY quoted...I agree with ARMY.)

[Jonneh]

I read an article about some family who's car got shot up at a checkpoint because they thought it was a carbomb, turns out it was a family and the only survivors were 2 kids. Manipulative story, but if the devices in the OP can effectively disable suspect cars without killing the people inside, then why not?

[Tunaman]

i believe the point of these is that you dont always know whether or not is a car bomber ... there are plenty of innocent people who probably get killed because marines think they might be a car bomber, when really there is another reason they didnt stop (uhh ... they dropped their hamburger and were trying to pick it up?).

these methods would save the lives of people who make a mistake or w/e but have no hostile intentions.

Well if that is the case, would'nt /shouldn't/couldn't the Islamic/Iraqi fellow men explain to their own people that driving a car towards any checkpoint at high rates of speed will most likely get you killed? Don't you think this has been discussed amongst the Iraqi people already? So if they are coming at us hard, and don't want to stop...BLAMMO! See Ya Later Mr. Terrorist.
Isn't there anyway to detonate explosives from the air? Cant we fire up some type of chopper mounted frequency generator that will blow up anyone with explosives in their cars/houses/under their jacket/in a backpack? Maybe they wouldn't be so quick to go near them anymore. I know we have the technology so start blowing them up. See how they like it. Fight fire with fire. The US can certainly make some mean toast. Who is hungry? I know I am.

[Eagle]

Well if that is the case, would'nt /shouldn't/couldn't the Islamic/Iraqi fellow men explain to their own people that driving a car towards any checkpoint at high rates of speed will most likely get you killed? Don't you think this has been discussed amongst the Iraqi people already? So if they are coming at us hard, and don't want to stop...BLAMMO! See Ya Later Mr. Terrorist.
Isn't there anyway to detonate explosives from the air? Cant we fire up some type of chopper mounted frequency generator that will blow up anyone with explosives in their cars/houses/under their jacket/in a backpack? Maybe they wouldn't be so quick to go near them anymore. I know we have the technology so start blowing them up. See how they like it. Fight fire with fire. The US can certainly make some mean toast. Who is hungry? I know I am.

Yeah, chopper mounted weapons, they're called missiles.

[Alpha]

Quoted for Truth.

Most people killed by soldiers at MidEast checkpoints are innocents who happened to exhibit suspicious behaviour.

I'd love to know where you got that statistic. Maybe you made it up.

I can see why you would make it up. I mean with all the false information your being fed.

[PyRo]

I'd love to know where you got that statistic. Maybe you made it up.

I can see why you would make it up. I mean with all the false information your being fed.

90% of statistics are made up.

[TheTramp]

Isn't there anyway to detonate explosives from the air? Cant we fire up some type of chopper mounted frequency generator that will blow up anyone with explosives in their cars/houses/under their jacket/in a backpack?

I love the idea but I'd worry about setting off US munitions or unexploded ordinance that was near US forces.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

WRONG! I defy you to bring credible evidence of your accusation.

US troops go out of their way to insure safety to innocents, even allowing injury to themselves so as to not harm civilians.

I expect an apology.

It wasn't an accusation. I meant no offense to you, or anyone who has had to do a dangerous job in a bad place. I was trying to express my belief that non-lethal weapons might be useful in saving innocent lives. I won't apologise because I don't think I'm wrong, since I was very particular in what I said. I did not imply that soldiers randomly shoot civilians, or that most civilian deaths in the Mid East are attributable to soldiers.

My statement was based on many stories I have seen in the media over the past years, referring to events in both Iraq and Israel. Here's a few of the credible ones:

Iraq

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0307/p01s04-woiq.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28924-2005Mar12.html?nav=rss_print/sunday/outlook/inside

http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/resources_files/When_deadly_force_bumps_into_hearts_and_minds.html

Israel

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/03/06/gaza040306

http://www.icej.org/cgi-local/view.cgi?type=headline&artid=2003/07/24/306680685

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/03/24/militants.htm

http://www.washtimes.com/upi/20050718-114138-2261r.htm

I'd love to know where you got that statistic. Maybe you made it up.

I can see why you would make it up. I mean with all the false information your being fed.

For starters "most" is not a statistic. I know that because I work with statistics on a daily basis. Oh, but if only I could convince my boss that it was! I'd be done my work by 10:00am every day.

I don't make stuff up. Except, you know, when I'm joking. And I am not so big a jerk as to joke about people getting killed. I really don't appreciate the accusation.

Not being omniscient, I have to go by what I see in the media. But I read newspaper websites from four continents to filter out as much of the "false information" as I can.

But if you guys have some more credible sources, or actual statistics, I'll be happy to reconsider what I wrote. And if necesary, I will apologise to Army at that time.

[Target Practice]

I was trying to express my belief that non-lethal weapons might be useful in saving innocent lives.

The lives of the soldiers are paramount. Any compromise that may endanger their lives is unacceptable.

[SoldierzHonor]

Quoted for Truth.

Most people killed by soldiers at MidEast checkpoints are innocents who happened to exhibit suspicious behaviour.

Its not a good thing to state something like this. With that sentence right there, you are stating that soldiers fire only because someone acted suspicious. If thats the case, I'd have obliterated so many vehicles from my turret. Cars crossing the median and heading straight for our humvee? I didnt fire, I used proper rules of engagement. In one case in particular, I've had an IED go off in front of my truck. I seen sparks hitting the ground behind my truck. I scanned and seen what looked like a light blinking. I couldnt 100% be for sure it was muzzle flashes, so I did NOT shoot. EOD later found multiple IEDs at that spot after we reported the attack. This statement you have said goes against every rules of engagement briefing put out by the military. Also, look at the links...

Washington Post link... "But I've seen how checkpoints work, and the American soldiers who man them are anything but trigger-happy. They know the consequences of making a mistake. "

csmonitor link... This one starts out with the same story about the Italian Journalist. Then the reporter goes on to say how dangerous it is going through American checkpoints. This one completely goes against the Washington post reporter experience of checkpoints.

psychoanalystsopposewar link... look at the name. This site really pisses me off. It is a serious slap in the face to a soldier we lost recently. To say we "shoot anyone with mobile phones after an IED attack" is a complete load of BS. Not only did we lose a soldier and one was seriously wounded by a car bomb. The person who set the device off was chased down and captured alive . Now to say that we always shoot someone with a mobile phone after an attck is a slap to the face of any soldier who has ever caught the initiater of an IED or VBIED. This site is a blatant attempt at discrediting the American soldier.

the cbc.ca site... did you read this article? Terrorist organizations claimed responsibility for dressing up as Israeli soldiers

icej.org... even according to our rules of engagement, these Israelis did the right thing. the guy was running a checkpoint. Checkpoints arent setup to just tick off the locals. Checkpoints are used to disrupt militants activities. Now, my challenge to you is to identify the passengers. I'd have shot too, as would any other soldier doing his duty whether Arab, Israeli, American, Russian, White, Black, Pink, whatever.

usatoday... people slipping through a set border where militants slip through to kill Israelis

washingtontimes... more info would be better. Did the kid point a weapon? Did the kid shoot a weapon? was the kid just standing there?

Sometimes deadly force is neccesary. Its not a preferred thing but to stay alive, people sometimes have to kill their potential killers.

I wonder if these same people mentioned the soldier who was shot in the armor plates, then after his would be killer was captured, the soldier rendered aid? Im pretty for certain the Iraqi soldier I watched laying on the ground after a sniper shot him as we drove past would love to hear about how the man who shot him should have used "non fatal" rounds. The soldier was killed. The soldier worked an Iraqi checkpoint. If he had non fatal rounds, could he have defended himself? Sure he could have returned fire with a paintball gun and shot him in the eye or something.


Lets look at some of the "non lethal" ways to protect ourselves...

Say an instant oilslick deters a would be car bomber. What about the hazzards to drivers who drive wild after that? Do you know the driving habits of Iraqi's or even Kuwaitis? Its a me first attitude.

paintball guns to shoot windshields. Sure, lets blind the guy who travels a high rate of speed to hit a convoy. Then he veers off and plows into a school. Thats not to mention the 100m to 300m minumum drivers are supposed to stay behind convoys. Then they get within 100m when the kill radius of a 155mm round is 300m as it is.

venom fireworks? currently flare guns are working great for those who use them. Rules of Engagement already has 5 ways to ward off drivers. If the 5 (which are very noticable), arent heeded...we tried.

while these ideas would work in some instances, I dont think they would be suitable here. Thats why they are in testing

Im diggin the sled gun lol

[Jeffy-CanCon]

Its not a good thing to state something like this. With that sentence right there, you are stating that soldiers fire only because someone acted suspicious.

...

Apparently, I don't write in English as well as I'd like to think. Which is really surprising since it's my mother tongue. My statement may have been stronger than I can necessarily prove, though it was made in good faith based on the admittedly imperfect information available from the press.

NOWHERE did I say or intend to imply that civilians are shot at random.

When there is a reported shooting at a checkpoint, in Iraq or Israel, the dead are often civilians who failed to stop as ordered. I spent all of 20 minutes finding the links I provided, and I deliberately chose stories that showed both sides of the debate. The article you derided because of the "psychoanalyst" link was published in The Economist (Dec 29 2004), which is a pretty reputable publication. The unit mentioned therein was almost certainly not typical, but unlike The NY Times or CBS, The Economist does not have a recent scandal about made-up stories.

The thesis of that article actually brings me to my next point...

The lives of the soldiers are paramount. Any compromise that may endanger their lives is unacceptable.

The official goal of "winning hearts and minds" is 100% incompatible with that attitude. It makes trust and respect impossible.


All I really wanted to contribute to this thread was the thought that "Yes, it would be a good thing if there was a way to prevent suicide car-bombs without necessarily shooting to kill."

Sometimes shooting to kill is necessary. But as the logic behind the ROE indicate, most times it is not. In my country, the hard part is making people realise the first part. Our newspapers are filled with stories these days of a Member of Parliament demanding that the Minister of Defense censure our top general for calling terrorists "murderers and scumbags", and warning that we should expect more casualties from Afghanistan.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050728.wxparrish28/BNStory/National/