"Bang $100,000 goes up in smoke..."

[Sivodsi]

Hey, its big news in NZ.

[MikeyD]

If they REALLY want something to complain about they should crash as B2 on takeoff. That's BANG x 2,000.

[Sequoia]

At least the US dollar is low now or it would cost more.

So do you think New Zealand would send troops to Taiwan if the Chinese invaded? How about Australia?

EDIT: Meaning would Australia send troops to Taiwan, not New Zealand to Australia.

[ March 21, 2008, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Sequoia ]

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Sivodsi:

Hey, its big news in NZ.

Yes well firing anything in NZ seems to be a big deal (was that half or all of the Defence Budget going down range?).

Cheers from across the ditch.

[wunwinglow]

Lets just hope Corporal Arendonk is in the right place at the right time if and ever one needs firing for real.....

Tim

[Chelco]

EDIT: wrong thread.

[markh]

Originally posted by Sequoia:

At least the US dollar is low now or it would cost more.

So do you think New Zealand would send troops to Taiwan if the Chinese invaded? How about Australia?

EDIT: Meaning would Australia send troops to Taiwan, not New Zealand to Australia.

Australia's main Pacific zone treaty obligations are to the USA, under the ANZUS Treaty. I understand the obligations to mean mutual assistance if the sovereign territory of any of the treaty members is attacked. Taiwan is not a member.

Australia's current prosperity is in large part due to Australia selling raw materials to the booming Chinese economy. I think that China has now become our leading trading partner. Australia supports a one-China policy, and is on record as saying it would not support Taiwan declaring itself independent of China. In summary, I could not see Australia sending troops unless very unusual circumstances intervened.

[gibsonm]

Sure, but our PFDA obligations might also cut in with regard to regional stability.

Also don’t forget that we have obligations to NZ under ANZUS, after all that is where the “NZ” in the acronym comes from.

[Redwolf]

Am I the only one who thinks that it was insane to make an infantry weapon costing $100,000 per shot?

These things get fired in Iraq at about anything. It's not like it's saving a company from being overrun by a regiment of Soviets tanks.

[MD82]

Not if it takes out a 6 million dollar tank.

If I were an infantry commander in Iraq and my choice were to send in a platoon of infantry into an ied and insurgent infested building or use a $100,000 missile it's a no brainer.

Fire power saves lives and I don't think any parent of a trooper or any superior officer would begrudge the extra cost.

[abneo3sierra]

Originally posted by MD82:

Not if it takes out a 6 million dollar tank.

If I were an infantry commander in Iraq and my choice were to send in a platoon of infantry into an ied and insurgent infested building or use a $100,000 missile it's a no brainer.

Fire power saves lives and I don't think any parent of a trooper or any superior officer would begrudge the extra cost.

For sure, it is either spend money or spend lives. I vote money.

[markh]

I agree with both "MD82" and "abneo3sierra" - with only one minor point of difference.

It really is not a question of " ... either spend the money or spend lives..." with regard to the example provided by MD82 of attacking a potentially insurgent infested building. To put it bluntly, a human casualty (whether KIA or disabled) is a very major expense to a modern western army, and to society as a whole in terms of veterans affairs type benefits. The provision and use of sophisticated smart arms in such cases probably represents a significant savings versus what may be the alternative costs.

When we as a society decide to place our servicemen and servicewomen at the ultimate risk we should not quibble about allowing them to use the tools that reduce those risks.

[YankeeDog]

I wonder how long it's going to take for Javelin-type, man-portable, self-guided, fire & forget AT weapons to become cheaper. Many other precision weapons are already getting dramatically cheaper as the technologies required to manufacture them become more commonplace -- the next-generation cruise missiles slated to replace the tomahawk are expected cost something like 1/3 as much, for example.

Actually, the US Navy/Marines are already developing the Spike missile as a cheaper and more flexible replacement to the Javelin. AIUI, the Spike is pretty similar in capability to the Javelin, adds some new capabilities like the option for laser guidance, and is dramatically cheaper -- sub-$10,000 per shot. And I seem to recall that the Indians are developing, or have already developed, a Javelin-type missile. I assume the Russians have taken notice as well.

But in any event, in general I agree; $100,000 is a small price to pay if it saves a serviceman's life. However, I also think the US military would do well to focus future research on retaining the capabilities of the Javelin, but at a lower cost per shot. The last five years of warfare has shown that such a weapon is extremely useful in a wide variety of situations.

Cheers,

YD

Edit to add: And, of course, there's the Israeli Spike system as well (not to be confused with the USN Spike already mentioned -- totally different system). AIUI, the Israeli Spike is already cheaper then the Javelin, but the Javelin is often effectively cheaper for US Allies, because of US "Finanical Aid."

[ March 22, 2008, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: YankeeDog ]

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I disagree, and think Redwolf has a valid point.

Firstly, the soldier is there to protect the citizen, not the other way around. Remember, they volunteered. Few citizens volunteer to pay tax.

And plenty of people do quibble about it. People complain about the cost of the war in Iraq. That war is costly for a reason.

Secondly, it's got to stop somewhere. I honestly believe that the USA is on the tipping point of crossing the boundary as to how expensive is worth the while. You now have planes flying that have the value of a town, dropping weapons with a value of a sizeable home on targets that have not the value of a home made tree hut. You can't seriously think that's sustainable on the long run.

And it's not just bean counter objections. The US army is developing all kinds of hideously expensive gadgets of marginal value. Sure, it might save a life on occasion. But it also burdens your troops and logistics and and the money for it comes out of the same jar that pays for more troops.

For now things are going OK, with Muqtada al-Sadr keeping the truce as long as the surge is on. But the US can't sustain the surge indefinitely. The extra troops are de-facto hostages of al-Sadr.

In Afghanistan however the coalition is severely short-handed and that war is just plain being lost right now because of it.

I honestly believe that had the US put more money in manpower and less in expensive gadgets it would have a similar butchers bill and victory in both conflicts.

And all that's the cost efficiency of an army that blows the **** out of nations of little brown people on a regular basis. For nations with a lesser bloodthirst, such expenditure is perhaps prudent but wasteful too.

[abneo3sierra]

Actually, both wars are being militarily won. What the politicians do with the victory is another issue.

Your last paragraph is insulting, and entirely inaccurate.

[Bigduke6]

I agree with Elmar.

1 x Javelin = How many tribesmen interested in helping out your side?

Don't forget, it's not just the cost of the missile, there's the launcher and the shipping and the training and the maintenance. Multiply that out times every single squad that has one of those things, and that's an awful lot of militia on your side you haven't bought.

Tactically, using a Javelin to kill off a couple of teenagers shooting AKs from a brick house, is like using Rohaldihno or Michael Jordan to run down to the corner store to get a carton of milk. Sure they'd do a great job, and definately the sergeant is going to say "Wow, they did an awesome job, hooah on the milk delivery."

But if your resources are limited, is that a wise use of your limited resources? I mean, happy sergeants able to shout "hooah!" weren't the sine qua non for success in armed conflict, last time I read my Clauswitz.

After all if the troops fighting with the Javelins are volunteer professionals, then where is it written that the taxpayer must give the soldier everything possible, including the very best chances possible of surviving the war? If the soldier is worried about dying, he can refuse to volunteer.

Sure, the soldier may think, the very best weapons and support are his birthright. But in most things as well as armies, it is the people paying the bills, that name the tune and set the priorities.

I think that an even worse aspect of "the best weapons possible" thinking is the pernicious influence of the idea that the soldier must have every possible gee-whiz weapon and combat support system, otherwise no one has any right to expect him to fight.

In the present wars, to use a simple and obvious example, you can make a very good case that had the American soldiers risked their personal lives more, and used high explosive less, there would be less angry Moslems these days.

Many nations would say that, if a democracy the US is unwilling to accept the casualties, the solution is not to reduce casualties to the minimum with no thought to cost, or damage to the country the US is supposedly trying to help, but rather to get the US citizenry more willing to see soldiers coming home in a box. It worked in WW2 after all.

By way of comparison, some less wealthy volunteer military forces than the US - the French Foreign Legion springs to mind - are of the opinion what you really need to do is train the soldier to sacrifice and discipline, and you teach him to look down on armies that use technology as a crutch. That way, when you tell him to fight, he does and he doesn't demand anything more than what you give him.

That attitude of course probably wouldn't hold up for long in a high-tech war between relatively equial opponents. But it seems to work quite well, if the task is going to a poor country and using your troops to enforce some kind of peace among the poor people shooting at each other, and the FFL.

The bottom line here is the validity of the arguement that nothing is worth a soldier's life. That's dumb. Obviously, victory is more important. Were it not, there would be no reason to risk the soldiers' lives.

Invest too much in keeping your soldiers alive, and your risk undermining discipline and running short of resources needed to win the war.

[ March 22, 2008, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

[Bigduke6]

Originally posted by abneo3sierra:

Actually, both wars are being militarily won. What the politicians do with the victory is another issue.

Your last paragraph is insulting, and entirely inaccurate.

Would you like, perchance, to expand on the first sentence?

As to the second, don't worry, Elmar is equal-opportunity with his insults. Of course, he usually knows what he's talking about. So I'm always interested when some one is able to contradict him.

To keep things simple, I would be fascinated to hear how the "war" is being "militarily won" in Afghanistan. And I am quite sure Elmar will be contrite, once he is put in his place.

[abneo3sierra]

As to your post, you misunderstood mine. I did not say nothing is worth a soldier's life, what I said was that in a choice between the two,money or soldiers, I would spend the money, sadly, war is not always going to let you choose.

As to mine,, we have not lost a single engagement in Afghanistan, and the relative stability there compared to before we were there is a bonus to the civilian population that was in the middle of a long civil war before our arrival. Politicians, ours as well as the Iraqi and Afghan, have really not done their end of the job as well as I personally would have liked to see.

By militarily won, what I mean is that in every situation where there is a firefight, the tangos retreat with usually heavy losses. I personally do not think that militarily won is enough though, but it is all that we can do.

The overwhelming vast majority of civilians in both countries are glad we are there, but are becoming impatient with the political situation, and the incessant, uninformed leadership in our congress which every week talks about withdrawing, has them on edge that if they support us now, what happens to them when we leave.

[Dean F.]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by abneo3sierra:

Actually, both wars are being militarily won. What the politicians do with the victory is another issue.

Your last paragraph is insulting, and entirely inaccurate.

Would you like, perchance, to expand on the first sentence?

As to the second, don't worry, Elmar is equal-opportunity with his insults. Of course, he usually knows what he's talking about. So I'm always interested when some one is able to contradict him.

To keep things simple, I would be fascinated to hear how the "war" is being "militarily won" in Afghanistan. And I am quite sure Elmar will be contrite, once he is put in his place. </font>

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Originally posted by abneo3sierra:

Actually, both wars are being militarily won. What the politicians do with the victory is another issue.

In the places coalition forces are present they are doing a bang up job blowing up Taliban and random villagers. Hurray! In the places they aren't, warlords and the Taliban are calling the shots to our detriment. And they are gaining terrain on us. The Taliban are burning the schools and hospitals much, much faster then we can build them. While B-1b's are giving CAS(!) to our troops fighting the Taliban in one village the Taliban march in to another one and tie a young man to a tree and set him on fire for assisting the coalition. How's that for winning militarily?

Iraq is a different kettle of fish. And wouldn't you know it, most of the cock ups result from faulty intelligence* and... with not going in with enough men in the first place. Because it was too expensive. Ofcourse, I grant you it's a long string of political cock ups from there on in. But point is still that the military in Iraq, for all it's prowess is too thin on the ground to protect citizens from bandits, zealots and/or militia.

Your last paragraph is insulting, and entirely inaccurate.

On the rare occasion that I smoke, I try to do so like Bill Hicks did. You should try it some time.

As for it being inaccurate, I urge you to find a list of wars the US has been involved in and going down that list picture the skin colour of the opposition.

*Not enough agents in the field, too much reliance on gadgets (waitaminute, that sounds familiar!

[Dean F.]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

As for it being inaccurate, I urge you to find a list of wars the US has been involved in and going down that list picture the skin colour of the opposition.

Not to degenerate into a flame war (but I was provoked):

Yeah. Those Serbians were sure dark-skinned. The truth is, in general, Europe and North America are not trouble-spots, so, yes, few Caucasians have come down on NATO's or the American's bad side.

And let's discuss Dutch colonialism some time...

No-one's hands are clean. And collectively the US military has a hell of a lot more respect for human life than anyone they've fought since WWI. They take casualties, invariably, because they are trying so hard NOT to kill the people whom the combatants are cowering behind.

I really hate these discussions. I just want to play my little game, but the trolls keep provoking me...

[ March 22, 2008, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Dean F. ]

[wolf66]

Originally posted by Dean F.:

Really ? So what would the body count be on the US side and on the Iraqi (including civilians) side since the invasion ?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I do apologize if you perceive me as trolling, that wasn't quite what I intended. I'm afraid when I set out to be thought-provoking I put as much effort in provoking as thought. My OTT satirical statement in my first post here was perhaps best left out.

And yet, in some way I feel mission accomplished. Because you are right, every one's history is *ahem* chequered. In a thread where $100.000 is put forward as a worthwhile expense to save/kill people, that's not a wholly undesirable sentiment to keep in mind. But perhaps that's a tad too philosophical for this thread.

But again, sorry for the offence.

On Afghanistan, I'm afraid I have to disagree. Casualties are low, you say. Well thank goodness for that. But low bodycounts are a poor way of tracking success. I don't know how things are in eastern Afghanistan but in the south it's still a mess and getting worse. The Taliban are less prone to the mass attacks of 2005, in part to the severe kicking the Canadians and UK forces gave them. Yet they are controlling more territory then ever. We are winning battles, in no small part due all our technical advantages. Yet the war is being lost. There are frequently large operations now where coalition forces clear out Taliban strongholds. That the Taliban even have strongholds at all is pretty damning. That these battles are so damaging to Afghan public opinion and that we are bagging so few Taliban is alarming too.

abneo3sierra,

I'm not proposing we send our soldiers out to the front with a stick and our best wishes. But I'm wondering if perhaps we are taking things tro far. (we as in, the Dutch army has some pretty nifty toys too) 100.000 is money well spent to save a soldier. Okay, this might be so, but is there an upper limit where you have to ask yourself if things aren't a bit silly. $1mln? $10mln? There comes a point where one has to except that people are going to end up dead if you fight a war. And I'm more and more of the thinking that the adversity to casualties and the costs that come along with preventing death is preventing Western armiess (as mentioned not just the US, but they are leading from the front, pardon the pun) from leaving a big enough footprint to win wars. Battles, yes. Wars, not so much.

I do agree on your view of Iraq though. Political dithering made sure a tricky situation just got completely FUBAR. In Afghanistan I feel the politicians were doing a lot better. Yet the inability to provide security for anyone not living directly near a coalition compound, coupled with the ill timed efforts to eradicate poppy fields undid everything.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Originally posted by wolf66:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dean F.:

Really ? So what would the body count be on the US side and on the Iraqi (including civilians) side since the invasion ? </font>

Truthiness alert!

Dean is right in saying that by and large the US tries harder then most. Hard enough to warrant a mention, dare I say praise even. But let's not pretend that they are extraordinarily prone to self sacrifice for fear of civilian casualties either. They carry a big stick and are not overly discreet in using it.

[Dave H]

Originally posted by abneo3sierra:

As to your post, you misunderstood mine. I did not say nothing is worth a soldier's life, what I said was that in a choice between the two,money or soldiers, I would spend the money, sadly, war is not always going to let you choose.

As to mine,, we have not lost a single engagement in ______________, and the relative stability there compared to before we were there is a bonus to the civilian population that was in the middle of a long civil war before our arrival. Politicians, ours as well as the ______________ and ______________, have really not done their end of the job as well as I personally would have liked to see.

By militarily won, what I mean is that in every situation where there is a firefight, the ______________ retreat with usually heavy losses. I personally do not think that militarily won is enough though, but it is all that we can do.

The overwhelming vast majority of civilians in both countries are glad we are there, but are becoming impatient with the political situation, and the incessant, uninformed leadership in our congress which every week talks about withdrawing, has them on edge that if they support us now, what happens to them when we leave.

By removing the names of nations and the reference to the opposition this entire post leaves me with a depressing sense of deja vu. This could so easily have been written about 35 years ago about another place where the US stampeded into a war. Back then we were also without knowledge of the enemy* and with absolutely no idea of the battering our enemy could and would withstand. Clearly the lessons that were learned and were used so effectively in the First Gulf War are being taught once again to the country that refuses to remember.

enemy* - in both Vietnam and Iraq the fighting was/is against people who had absolutely no grudge against the US until we did something completely idiotic. We (Truman) brought the French army back to occupy Vietnam after WW2. We (Bush) invaded and occupied Iraq. Political parties clearly have no monopoly on making bad choices. One example was in Barbara Tuchman's classic book "The March of Folly" and I'm sure the second would also qualify for her definition of folly.