Thread: The war in Georgia

as someone who works within the defense industry, I have a few insights into this particular aspect of the conversation:

Originally Posted by Stagga100

I'm sorry, but humans have now the technology of guided bombs etc and the loss of civilian life should be very minimal. I understand that in war innocent people will die but one begs to question... hundreds in a week or so???
Rick

it only takes ONE artillery shell off target by ONE fraction of MOA 20 miles away to collapse an apartment building and kill hundreds. guided weapons are only as precise as the people aiming them... if the human pilot can't tell the difference between a bearing factory and a school, the FLIR can't, either.

Originally Posted by jnich67

I think the Russians simply don't possess the precision munitions we in the West do...
Jordan

this is patently untrue. based solely on the stuff that I personally know about having been sold to Russia, they have sub 10m targeting capabilities in their fighters and bombers. whether they wish to use it or not is another matter. a single 20kilo artillery shell, HE with an uncomplicated fuze runs about 500 bucks. a single air to ground missile with a similar payload costs between fifty grand and a quarter of a million, depending on the range, sensor package and precision. if all you want to do is shock and awe, it's just plain stupid to do it with precision weaponry, it costs too much. it's an age old tenet of warfare that blowing up a tank worth a hundred grand with an AT4 that costs twice that is not a good investment of munitions. the lives of enemy civilians are apparently not worth investing in, to the military COs making these decisions.

Originally Posted by denmason

Can you hear those defense contractors salivating in unison? Yee-HAAAA; we got the cold war back!

pretty much, yeah. i know i'm excited. thanks to rampant political stupidity all over the world, my company's numbers have tripled in the last five years. *raises glass* here's to another lifetime of paranoia and bullying!

Originally Posted by jockeys

this is patently untrue. based solely on the stuff that I personally know about having been sold to Russia, they have sub 10m targeting capabilities in their fighters and bombers. whether they wish to use it or not is another matter. a single 20kilo artillery shell, HE with an uncomplicated fuze runs about 500 bucks. a single air to ground missile with a similar payload costs between fifty grand and a quarter of a million, depending on the range, sensor package and precision. if all you want to do is shock and awe, it's just plain stupid to do it with precision weaponry, it costs too much. it's an age old tenet of warfare that blowing up a tank worth a hundred grand with an AT4 that costs twice that is not a good investment of munitions. the lives of enemy civilians are apparently not worth investing in, to the military COs making these decisions.

You are correct. I didn't state my thinking well. They certainly have those systems. What I was really trying to get across, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that they haven't fully integrated those systems to the extent that the most modern militaries have. And, perhaps more importantly, I don't know that they updated their war fighting strategy/paradigm from blunt force overwhelming firepower and numbers to the more precise application of violence that western states have always been moving toward in anticipation of being outnumbered by Warsaw Pact forces. When Russia engages in more limited conflicts - Chechnya and now Georgia, for example. Civilian casualties are relatively high. Of course, I'm sure the cost of smart weapons is a consideration too.

Jordan

I think such things always have much to do with money and internal politics. Wouldn't surprise me if the "cool toys" costing quite a bit are "hoarded" by higher level commanders or units are tight with their usage...
As much as I distrust the Russians (or at least Putin) I do not believe them (Russian troops) to be so evil as to intentionally target civilians. It's possible, of course, but I doubt it. They may have less restrictive ROE based on less political scrutiny back in Russia, compared to the U.S. or UK but while this may allow for a more liberal application of force, and a higher cost to noncombatants in the wrong place, it isn't the same as intentionally targeting civilians as some would think.
I question the level of force used on both sides and the substance of Putin's argument for invasion of Georgia, but have difficulty believing trained Russian troops are genuinely so ruthless as to indiscriminately target civilians.

John P.

Originally Posted by jnich67

You are correct. I didn't state my thinking well. They certainly have those systems. What I was really trying to get across, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that they haven't fully integrated those systems to the extent that the most modern militaries have.
Jordan

I can't speak to their tactics and such, but their aviation-based munitions are more or less completely integrated. they have a 5-10 year lag behind us (as far as we know) in terms of sensor-capability, however.

Originally Posted by Ditch Doc

It amazes me that with all our technology and media, we get a less clear picture of what is really going on than many intelligent men in other countries who observe what is going on around them. We as Americans have lost our common sense, and we will pay for that. Sooner rather than later I think, but do not hope.

And what's that quote, possibly from Washington's farewell address but I'm not certain? "Avoid entangling alliances but maintain cordial relations with all nations." Boy, do I envy the Swiss!!!

Originally Posted by sidneykidney

I have always been a fan of Laughing Cow soft cheese myself. And who can think of a better reason NOT to invade a country than because they make good cheese. In fact, come to think of it the only reason they havent been invaded so far is likely because they make good cheese and wine!

Me being an uncultured Ugly Americanian I'll just stick with extra sharp cheddar. I'll toss that into just about anything. I'll not invade anything just so long as you don't mess with my cheddar supply!

Or Velveeta!!!!!

People simply need to look at history to understand what is going on in the region...or in the Balkans...or in Africa...or in Kashmir....and looking at things from a historical point of view is not an American forte. I am sure that there are people in the US who think "Russia just up and punched Georgia in the face!" Wrong. The problems in Ossetia have been festering for decades. In South Ossetia, the populace is mostly ethnic Russian - they even have Russian passports - but Georgia has insisted that it was their territory since the collapse of the USSR. Oddly, under the Tsars, it was not that much of an issue. Georgia and Russia both had peacekeeping troops in S.O. when the fighting erupted. Both countries sent in reinforcements...it wasn't as if S.O was quietly minding its own business and suddenly there were several thousand people name Ivan in the front yard.

Hmmm...a country went in to defend its citizens from a country that was viewed as having invaded.....hmmm...where have I heard this before? Oh...Grenada? A big, militarily massive country going in and in very short order kicking a smaller country's butt? US vs. Cuba...I wonder who won? Cuba had no business there....but the situation allowed the US to flex it's muscles without risking starting a larger hot war...for fewer citizens that Russia has in S.O. Unfortunately, the US likes to stick its nose in where it does not belong, while doing the very same thing elswhere. Rice should have seen this coming...she used to be a professor of Soviet Studies.

Russia's biggest fear is invasion - it is almost genetic. Russian's still refer to the "Tatar or Mongol yoke", recalling the time during the 13th-15th centuries when the Russian states were under the domination of the decendents of Genghis Khan. Thus, Russia will surround herself with buffer states. Add to that the conflict between the Orthodox Christians and Ottoman Turks and you have the trigger for Russia coming to the defense of nearly every Slavic nation. Moscow was declared the 3rd Rome after the fall of Constantinople and a majority of the expansion of the Russian Tsars targeted what had been Muslim lands. This adds a historic religious/cultural shading to Russia's view of defense.

The worst thing the West can do is make Russia think she is being "ganged up on".

If the US is opposing the desires of the South Ossetians, then they need to give Kosovo back to Serbia....they can't have it both ways: "we support your independence, but not yours"

Yet another slap in the face to our foreign policy's credibility.....where are Marshall and Acheson when you need them?

Originally Posted by gugi

Mr. Whiggamore, I have found a glaring flaw in your argument, so I will have to discard it

I personally will somehow manage quite well with Stilton which is under Anglo-Saxon control. However I do not think that I could survive even a weak without Burgundy, and you know that's most certainly not the Bordeaux from more or less Brittany....
Of course if you would be so kind to send me 52 cases of Montrachet I have no problem whatsoever with a war lasting a year....

Not only is stilton under Anglo Saxon control, but its export is tantamount to exporting weapons of mass destruction.
My English colleague likes to eat traditional pork pie every now and again, with leek and blue stilton on top.


Everybody in the same part of the building knows the exact moment he takes his first bite. As far as I am concerned, blue stilton should be a controlled substance, like plutonium or anthrax virus.

Is this now two threads in one? One about war in georgia, the other about cheeses?