MENA. Libya is NA, not ME. Be we might as well expand it to South Asia as well, so we can include Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. We’ll leave India alone, at least for the time being.
“Kinetic” refers to the employment of bombs, bullets, rockets, etc., the traditional weapons of war. Non-kinetic refers to other uses, like jammers and psychological operations and the like where nothing is being “fired” but electrons. If you’ve seen cyberwarfare described as kinetic the term was misused.
Wouldn’t it be simpler then to refer to “kinetic military actions” as, err, war, and reserve the distinctions for things that are distinct, such as electronic warfare* ?
- Yeah, I’m also against the use of the word “cyberwarfare”. This isn’t fucking Tron, it’s not even Shadowrun ! There’s no cyber component to it whatsoever outside of retarded 90s marketroid lingo ! Cut that shit.
As a military professional, is there some real distinction about calling something a kinetic action, other than the legal one of avoiding the use of the word war?
As a non-military amateur, the difference to me is that non-kinetic apparently means no firing weapons that kill people. Of course, using ECM means the opposition is easier to kill, but I do find the difference to be significant.
And once we get to the point where we are using laser weapons, the distinction will need to be reconsidered.
No. It’s just a buzzword, right up there with “police action”.
Is my interpretation of the word wrong, are are you saying it doesn’t really matter whether our participation in an international effort includes killing people or not?
On edit: Oops, I see where I went astray. Somehow I mentally added “Non-” to “kinetic” thinking that the claim was we weren’t at war because we weren’t using kinetic energy weapons. I don’t now how I came up with that.
So the troops on the ground in Afghanistan are conducting a kinetic action? Because I got the impression from the uses of the term I’ve read that they wouldn’t be considered “kinetic”.
If they are using a weapon, any weapon, that fires a projectile or explodes, it is “kinetic”. It’s that simple. It really is.
Yeah, Obama was just reassuring us he hasn’t sent in the laser cannons…
That’s a relief! I have a number of friends who are working as contractors on the Death Star II.
“Kinetic military action” sounds like something you’d read on the side of a G.I. Joe box.
Back in March, Ben Rhodes said: “I think what we are doing is enforcing a resolution that has a very clear set of goals, which is protecting the Libyan people, averting a humanitarian crisis, and setting up a no-fly zone. Obviously that involves kinetic military action, particularly on the front end. But again, the nature of our commitment is that we are not getting into an open-ended war, a land invasion in Libya. What we are doing is offering a unique set of capabilities over a period of days that can shape the environment for a no-fly zone.”
The implication I got was that Rhodes was saying a land invasion in Libya wouldn’t be kinetic. Kinetic was something like setting up a no-fly zone.
So it appears the Obama administration’s attempts to confuse me succeeded. I misunderstood what was being implied. Thanks for clearing this up for me.
I remember someone called this kinetic military action a shit sandwich a few weeks ago.
I mentioned to a friend that should be a “carbohydrate-based fiber and feces containing food item”.
I kinda like the idea of a military policy based on a Calder mobile! 