Yeah, but it seemed that way in '91 too.
Here’s something I heard today. In WWII, if they wanted to hit a target they used 800 bombs. In Vietnam if the wanted to hit a target they used 300 bombs. Today, we use one bomb per target. 
[sup]Well, okay, maybe 1.2 bombs.[/sup]
AZCowboy: There’s a difference. In the Gulf war, the Patriots were designed to do ‘proximity kills’. They get near the missile and detonate, and the shrapnel destroys the guidance and structure. Unfortunately, the warhead usually stayed relatively intact, and the missiles hit the ground somewhere anyway.
The problem was that the SCUD is so inaccurate in the first place that you don’t gain much from shooting them down that way. The Patriots worked, but for that particular application ‘working’ just meant knocking the missile down over one missed area rather than the area the missile was going to miss in the first place.
The new Patriot is much advanced, both in targeting and guidance. But more importantly, it’s designed to kill the missile through a direct hit, usually detonating the warhead and obliterating it.
Also, we have a much better idea of how the Patriots are working this time. Before, the Patriots were located in Israel in outlying areas, under control of the Israelis. A few were also in Saudi Arabia. This time around, the missiles are situated right in the area where all the coalition ships are, which means that whole area is electronically blanketed with sensors. I’m sure those guys can see that Patriot going all the way to the target, hitting the missile, and they can probably even count the number of pieces that come down.
Sure, there’s a chance that these successes are disinformation, to make the Iraqis think that firing more missiles is a waste of time. But I’ll bet the reports we are getting are accurate.
Now doubt about being able to kill targets with less ammo. But there is still a ways to go in making a little more sure that it is the right target.
That’s the real problem, alright. GIGO - garbage in, garbage out.
I remember in the Gulf war an inexperienced soldier radioed in for an airstrike. He was supposed to give the GPS coordinates of the target, but he made a mistake and read off his OWN GPS coordinates. And the bomb went where it was programmed to go.
Sam, I have heard reports about the improvements of the Patriots. I am willing to believe they are much more effective than in '91.
The point I was making is that the US Military has not set the best precedent for building trust in the reports of their success.
I suspect there are two British families that will attest to the effectiveness of the Patriots this time around.
The other thought is that unless Iraq has banned missiles, Kuwait City (and Tel Aviv) appear to be safe from missle attacks, as the US (apparently) controls the region from allowed missles could be fired. While the Patriots were important to have in place, I’m not sure they continue to play a role.
The wacked-out sergant recently converted to Islam.
Before that, he was a “regular” black dude.
So who are you going to profile? Black people? Well, there are thousands of them serving very bravely and loyally, some of them among the reported causalities. I don’t think these people would take kindly being “profiled”.
Muslims? This isn’t a war against Islam, or least that’s what they tell us.
They should profile the crazy people. There was evidence that this guy was nutcase way before this happened.
Doh!
Sorry that was to put the fires out not rebuild the iol fields.
My readings about Patriots from fas.org lead me to believe they are very general purpose missles designed to be able to outmaneuver all aircraft and missles. They are pretty devestating suckers. Not something to be taken lightly, they’re like a dog trained to kill… unless you’re 100% certain it won’t attack you you’d better be on guard, and even then…
Still, I do wonder about “Friend or Foe” technology that the military has had for some time now. I wonder if it has anything to do with foreign military vehicles…? I know little about how FoF signatures work.
As to the OP:
Four accidents in four days is unbelievable? It isn’t like we’re taking grandma to the store. I don’t see any reason to be shocked about this figure, to tell you the truth. I’d be interested in knowing if you can back up your intuition here based on previous war statistics, or at the very least urban accident reports (assuming that they are even analogous).
erislover, I posted stats showing the Gulf War, Afghanistan, and this war have much higher accident and FF rates than previous wars earlier in this thread.
Also, four accidents in four days isn’t unbelievable. But, four fatal accidents in the first four days of a conflict is.
Yes, you did, but you seem to miss the thrust of what you posted:
Which is not to say they’ve really increased per se. There’s two parts to a fraction, increase the numerator or decrease the denominator and in both cases the value increases.
I see no reason to think that four fatal accidents in four days is outside the realm of belief. Perhaps I am credulous.
My god dudes, get some sense of perspective. We lost more Americans in ONE MINUTE during D-Day than we have lost in the whole damn war so far. You also should all know that sometimes when we have rigorous training exercises, we have also lost aircraft & their crew, in fact I heard that if this whole thing had just been a giant training exercise, the losses would be only slightly out of the norm.
Of course, it would be nice to not see a single Allied life lost- and no Iraqi civilians, either. But we all knew that wasn’t going to happen.
“Not smoothly”? Hell, it is going far more “smoothly” that I, or any reasonable person, could have expected.
Three helicopters dropped out of the sky without a single round fired at them within 72 hours of invading Iraq, and a fourth fell in the next day. You really mean to tell me that when the military simulates these operations they assume that kind of failure rate as a base level? I chalk it up to jitters, bad luck, or an unknown bug in the system. I still haven’t heard any evidence that it’s normal or to be expected.
From our removed vantage it does appear the war is proceeding according to the Pentagon’s plan. Irrespective of your opinion of the justification for this war, I think we all expected the Iraqi’s would be easily overwhelmed by the world’s biggest and baddest military, and rightly so, their forces are half of what they were 10 years ago when we trounced them. My OP was just pointing out the rocky start the war took. Four fatal helo accidents and a Patriot into a friendly jet before the smoke had cleared from the initial strike – If nothing else I’m certain that wasn’t the kickoff Bush had hoped for.
[Reagan]There you go again…[/Reagan]
I direct your attention to Exhibit A, “Is the war almost over?” from three days ago.
Although I suppose you could argue that Beagle, Sam Stone, and Feynn, among others, are not reasonable people.
[sub]I agree with the rest of your post, btw[/sub]
Shift the burden of proof much?
Exhibit B, “Stocks Fall as Reality Dents War Optimism”.
I posted a little ways up about preliminary reports related to a chemical weapons plant, so I thought I ought to clear the air. It now appears there were no chemical weapons at the plant – although I still wonder why it was camoflauged, booby-trapped, guarded by officers, etc.
AZ Cowboy, what makes you so sure the drop is a result of pessimism about the war on Iraq? I’d be more inclined to believe it’s the result of people taking profits from the run-up over the last couple of days.
Age Quod Agis, I’m not asserting any such thing. Experts on the stock market are making the assertion.
I am simply using that as evidence that reasonable people might have expected the war to go more smoothly.