Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post

Ronn_Bman · 03-24-2003, 03:07 PM

It gets full coverage in the media.. trust me. As do all the accidents, which have killed more people than actual combat and friendly fire combined so far (well at least until yesterday morning).

It isn't that the US doesn't care, and it isn't that they aren't well trained, and it isn't that they are unprofessional. The truth is that it's hard to combine separate armies into one army.

The Patriot missile attack against the Tornado could very well have been a mechanical malfunction. The Patriot was on automatic, and it could have falsely ID the Tornado through mechanical failure or the Tornado's Friend or Foe transmitter could have malfunctioned. Both are being looked at, as well as other possibilities.

The friendly fire accidents aren't just about the US hitting coalition forces, sometimes we even fire on our own troops. I don't think it's happened yet this time, but it certainly happened in the last Gulf War.

As to the reporter, if I read the story correctly, he was killed when nearby vehicles filled with Iraqi soldiers were targeted by tank fire. Reporting during wartime is a dangerous business especially when a firefight is underway and the reporter near the enemy. The other reporters missing and presumed dead near Basra were not traveling with the military. Being "embedded" with the military is dangerous enough, but traveling on your own into a war zone is much different than reporting from the safety of a protected hotel in Baghdad.

The bottom line is that it is incredibly hard to keep hundreds of thousands of soldiers from accidentally targeting each other occasionally.

Why is it always the Americans? As appreciated and important as the aid rendered by our allies is, it is the US force that makes up the overwhelming majority of troops on the ground, at sea, and in the sky. There is only a small percentage of friendly fire deaths(based on the damage inflicted), so it's more likely that the largest force would be the one most likely to inflict those casualties.

[ 03-24-2003, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

03-24-2003, 03:07 PM	#2
Ronn_Bman Zartan Join Date: March 11, 2001 Location: North Carolina USA Age: 58 Posts: 5,177	It gets full coverage in the media.. trust me. As do all the accidents, which have killed more people than actual combat and friendly fire combined so far (well at least until yesterday morning). It isn't that the US doesn't care, and it isn't that they aren't well trained, and it isn't that they are unprofessional. The truth is that it's hard to combine separate armies into one army. The Patriot missile attack against the Tornado could very well have been a mechanical malfunction. The Patriot was on automatic, and it could have falsely ID the Tornado through mechanical failure or the Tornado's Friend or Foe transmitter could have malfunctioned. Both are being looked at, as well as other possibilities. The friendly fire accidents aren't just about the US hitting coalition forces, sometimes we even fire on our own troops. I don't think it's happened yet this time, but it certainly happened in the last Gulf War. As to the reporter, if I read the story correctly, he was killed when nearby vehicles filled with Iraqi soldiers were targeted by tank fire. Reporting during wartime is a dangerous business especially when a firefight is underway and the reporter near the enemy. The other reporters missing and presumed dead near Basra were not traveling with the military. Being "embedded" with the military is dangerous enough, but traveling on your own into a war zone is much different than reporting from the safety of a protected hotel in Baghdad. The bottom line is that it is incredibly hard to keep hundreds of thousands of soldiers from accidentally targeting each other occasionally. Why is it always the Americans? As appreciated and important as the aid rendered by our allies is, it is the US force that makes up the overwhelming majority of troops on the ground, at sea, and in the sky. There is only a small percentage of friendly fire deaths(based on the damage inflicted), so it's more likely that the largest force would be the one most likely to inflict those casualties. [ 03-24-2003, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ] __________________ [img]\"http://home.carolina.rr.com/orthanc/pics/Spinning%20Hammer%20Sig%20Pic.gif\" alt=\" - \" />