MIL Shocked and Awed: Defence Transformation in Iraq and Afghanistan

Discussion in 'On Topic' started by Peyomp, Jun 1, 2005.

  1. Peyomp

    Peyomp New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,017
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.22480/pub_detail.asp

    He talks about the good uses, and the bad uses, of information techology on the battlefield in these two warzones. Pros/Cons, through an excellent scenario, and a not-so-excellent scenario, that really happened.

    I'll give you the conclusion for the cliffs, but I suggest you read the short article before commenting:

     
  2. Socrates

    Socrates New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    7,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Springfield, MO
    will someone tell me if this is trolling before I read it
     
  3. Soren

    Soren OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    37,551
    Likes Received:
    5
    how is it trolling
     
  4. Socrates

    Socrates New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    7,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Springfield, MO
    was asking if it was. usually when the libs from DIACF and OnT come in here, it is to troll.

    not always, but usually.
     
  5. Soren

    Soren OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    37,551
    Likes Received:
    5
    the "libs"? oh boy

    definition of libs please
     
  6. Peyomp

    Peyomp New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,017
    Likes Received:
    0
    Stop with your ignorant (inability to even scan the article or summary), pathetic bullshit. If you won't read the article, the you can't contribute.

    This is a thread about military tactics and technological transformation, not your political bullshit. So shut the fuck up, behave like an adult, or :gtfo:, bitch.
     
  7. Peyomp

    Peyomp New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,017
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think it was just an informative analysis... showing that reliance on technology was good, but that abstracting command from the man on the ground is bad, and that no technology will replace the instincts of a good commander, in the heat of battle. We've used the new technology for better and worse so far, as documented in the cited books, so lets take note and improve, I think is the takehome. Aside from how informative it was for someone like me: a technologist with no military background aside from... tournament paintball? har har ;)
     
  8. Socrates

    Socrates New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    7,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Springfield, MO
    Usually you or Soren are here to troll, so stop trying to act innocent. Neither of you are joining the military, so all you have to bring is YOUR political bullshit.

    But keep acting like you don't, please :ugh2:. (I'm a little bigger than calling you names like "bitch")
     
  9. Peyomp

    Peyomp New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,017
    Likes Received:
    0
    You've done nothing but talk shit in this thread. Go be a little bitch child somewhere else, Mr. Moral High Ground Troll.

    :rolleyes:
     
  10. Peyomp

    Peyomp New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,017
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, I think there is a danger there. There was a revolution in spyplanes that Johnson used to pick bomb targets in Vietnam, right? Big fuckup. I think new revolutions in technology lend themselves to the same kind of abuses. Must be careful.
     
  11. Socrates

    Socrates New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    7,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Springfield, MO
    :mamoru:, are you actually calling me names?
     
  12. Peyomp

    Peyomp New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,017
    Likes Received:
    0
    Moderators? This is not allowed here. He is disrupting our conversation about the article, which he is too uneducated to read.
     
  13. Socrates

    Socrates New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    7,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Springfield, MO
    First Soren didn't understand, and now you obviously don't.

    I clearly stated I wasn't reading it because you usually troll. I asked someone else to say if it was trolling or not, because I didn't feel like getting in a bad mood if it was trolling.

    Posting normal Barracks stuff is good, and I hope you keep it up. First you need to grow up, stop calling people names on the internet, and then stop crying to the moderators whenever you get angry.

    Ranger and C5loadmaster read every thread in this forum. If they aren't happy with what I am saying, i'm sure they will send me a PM and let me know, without you crying about it.
     
  14. Peyomp

    Peyomp New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,017
    Likes Received:
    0
    First of all, I don't care if you think I usually troll. This is not the place to discuss that. Nevermind that its not true.

    I don't give a fuck what you think about me. Either contribute to the thread, or get out. Its real fucking old, is against forum rules, and is totally childish and rediculous.
     
  15. Ranger-AO

    Ranger-AO I'm here for the Taliban party. Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    34,660
    Likes Received:
    150
    Location:
    the places in between
    Consider this your first warning against trolling in this thread.

    Be the bigger man and walk away.

    Yes - I mean you.
     
  16. Ranger-AO

    Ranger-AO I'm here for the Taliban party. Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    34,660
    Likes Received:
    150
    Location:
    the places in between
    Yes.
     
  17. Socrates

    Socrates New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    7,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Springfield, MO
    I think he meant sort of an "if you have to ask, then it's you" and I think the only ones who would have to ask that is Peyomp and I. :noes:
     
  18. brackac

    brackac Fuck all of this. OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2001
    Messages:
    105,361
    Likes Received:
    152
    In regards to the article, targets are identified and designated by Air Force Combat Controllers sitting on the ground, and physically looking at the targets. This information is passed back to Combat Command instantly, and also either to the bomber pilot or the UAV pilot. The Combat Commander makes the decision on whether to engage the target. So even though the precision is guaranteed by computers and technology, the targets are still identified and selected by humans. And will continue to be.
     
  19. Peyomp

    Peyomp New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,017
    Likes Received:
    0
    And yet the article cites an instance where bad intelligence led to US forces being badly out-gunned and out-numbered, and where commanders up to 1100 miles away were calling the shots on the ground: targets for rescue choppers, air strikes, etc. were decided NOT by commanders on the ground, but by guys in offices so far away who were relying on flying-camera-things more than their officer's instincts.

    So there have been fuck-ups where the technology was misused, and probably led to increased US casualties, and a missed opportunity to capture high ranking Taliban/Al Queda fighters. But yes, what you stated is the norm.

    Not to put too fine a point on it... but O'sama might have slipped away that time... although as the article points out, that is simply open to conjecture.
     

Share This Page