Aren't they all connected ? You are presenting a technical argument, which does not match up to factual data from the field is put next to it...
The comment about war and profiteering was in reply to your comment regarding 'all life '. Regards Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: [email protected] > From: "Josh Reynolds" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Monday, April 4, 2016 1:06:52 PM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ot] battleship engineering > There's quite a bit of strawmen in your post Faisal. We went from talking > about > weapons systems to civilian casualties, and then when the points about the > strides made in minimizing civilian casualties was brought up, you turned it > from there to a political and philosophical rant on the nature of warfare and > those who profit. > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Faisal Imtiaz < [email protected] > > wrote: >> Yes, yes, yes... you can make any argument you like, it is easy to justify >> the >> weapons and their efficiency on a relative scale... >> However, if you take into account the views from the other side, on the >> ground >> and a dose of reality.... even the most sane person has to rethink the >> argument... >> this is just one example of what I am talking about..... >> http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2012/09/25/national/drones-terrorising-pakistan-civilians-experts/ >> (read the expert opinion.... and ask yourself the question of who were, are >> the >> other 98% killed ) >> And when these nut cases come back and kill kids in schools as a >> retaliation... >> the folks there pay the price, again for so called 'precision bombs'. >>> If you want to make an argument that all life is precious, I disagree - >>> there >>> are some individuals out there that the world would be better off had they >>> not >>> been born... a lot of them, sadly. It is tragic when non-coms get caught in >>> the >> > crossfire. >> Ok, lets go with this argument, the question is who is going the be judge and >> jury for them ? Whose laws are you going to judge someone by, ours ? Theirs ? >> .... >> If we are so right and correct in everything we do ....Then why is it that we >> simply cannot allow open public trial of the detainees in Guantanamo ? >> War is a dirty business, everyone looses .... except for those who profit >> from >> it ! >> Faisal Imtiaz >> Snappy Internet & Telecom >> 7266 SW 48 Street >> Miami, FL 33155 >> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 >> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: [email protected] >>> From: "Josh Reynolds" < [email protected] > >>> To: [email protected] >>> Sent: Monday, April 4, 2016 11:35:58 AM >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ot] battleship engineering >>> " The point is, modern fighting machines are much more destructive, and are >>> indiscriminate killing machines .. they don't know the difference between >>> solders and civilians... It might be sexy to talk about their destructive >>> power, but one has to realize that destructive power is far more reaching to >>> human beings....... and this is why we don't officially keep track of >>> civilian >>> deaths.... >>> " >>> Indiscriminate killing machines, yes. Always have been, and likely always >>> will >>> be. More destructive? Not necessarily. The initial Call For Fire for >>> artillery >>> given a map and compass has a "mean error" of 500m. It's still just as bad >>> now >>> as it was during World War I, maybe with slightly better numbers due to >>> better >>> mapping data. Fire a single Excalibur round out of one of the said artillery >>> pieces however, and you can place the round inside a window multiple stories >>> off the ground floor and even have a good understanding of possible building >>> and collateral damage before the round is ever fired. >>> Which one would you rather fire in a city? >>> The same goes for carpet bombing. It's vastly fallen out of favor due to >>> it's >>> expense and mass damage, and the fact that for point targets a single >>> 500-2000lb JDAM can have the precise effect. For moving targets, they now >>> have >>> laser guided JDAMS - GPS until near target, then switches to IR tracker. >>> This >>> means you're much more likely to have positive effects on target (EOT) than >>> using a shotgun approach. >>> Basically, CEP (Circular Error of Probability) went from 500m to single >>> digit >>> meters to centimeters now, depending on the weapons system. Understanding of >>> collateral damage (persons / structures) is also much better. >>> TLDR: Yes, we have some weapons systems capable of massive destruction. >>> We've >>> also come a long way in creating systems that have outstanding accuracy to >>> lower round expenditures, create positive EOT, and minimize civilian and >>> structural casualties. >>> If you want to make an argument that all life is precious, I disagree - >>> there >>> are some individuals out there that the world would be better off had they >>> not >>> been born... a lot of them, sadly. It is tragic when non-coms get caught in >>> the >>> crossfire. >>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Faisal Imtiaz < [email protected] > >>> wrote: >>>> >> Perspective is a powerful thing. >>>> Agreed.. >>>>>>. Not as high as the loss of life would have been if we were running at >>>>>>one >>>>>>another with swords and bows, not as high as lining up in front of one >>>>>>another >>>>>>taking turns to load and shoot, and not as high as it would be had we been >>>>>>forced from our trenches into the waiting maw of the enemy with the dull >>>>>>smell >>>> >>of onions in the air behind us. >>>> Hmm... opinion based on which account one has read... Most of those battles >>>> ended in one day or within a short amount of time, the battle field was >>>> always >>>> contained .... to soldiers. >>>> The point is, modern fighting machines are much more destructive, and are >>>> indiscriminate killing machines .. they don't know the difference between >>>> solders and civilians... It might be sexy to talk about their destructive >>>> power, but one has to realize that destructive power is far more reaching >>>> to >>>> human beings....... and this is why we don't officially keep track of >>>> civilian >>>> deaths.... >>>> Faisal Imtiaz >>>>> From: "Josh Reynolds" < [email protected] > >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Sent: Monday, April 4, 2016 10:03:07 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ot] battleship engineering >>>>> Not as high as the loss of life would have been if we were running at one >>>>> another with swords and bows, not as high as lining up in front of one >>>>> another >>>>> taking turns to load and shoot, and not as high as it would be had we been >>>>> forced from our trenches into the waiting maw of the enemy with the dull >>>>> smell >>>>> of onions in the air behind us. >>>>> Citizens of London, Stalingrad, Berlin, Nagasaki and Hiroshima would >>>>> appreciate >>>>> how "civilized" we have become from a certain point of view. >>>>> Citizens of cities who have been invaded by ISIS/ISIL... Probably not so >>>>> much. >>>>> Perspective is a powerful thing. >>>>> On Apr 4, 2016 8:09 AM, "Faisal Imtiaz" < [email protected] > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> No offense meant to anyone.... >>>>>> But let me ask you one question:- >>>>>> What was the cost in human lives paid for that adventure ? >>>>>> (Both sides, good, bad, ugly...... human cost ?) >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Faisal Imtiaz >>>>>>> From: "David Milholen" < [email protected] > >>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 4, 2016 8:24:36 AM >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ot] battleship engineering >>>>>>> I got to sit between two units on my M1A1 tank that had a fire mission >>>>>>> into >>>>>>> Kuwait and Iraq. >>>>>>> The unit I called the BIg Ear sat up on the forward berm to identify >>>>>>> targets of >>>>>>> opportunity. >>>>>>> These so called targets were other artillery that were firing on its >>>>>>> own troops >>>>>>> for desertion. >>>>>>> By late evening the star clusters that littered the sky soon died down >>>>>>> to one or >>>>>>> two after the MRLS missions were done. >>>>>>> On 4/4/2016 12:11 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote: >>>>>>>> My dream fire mission was MLRS :) >>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 2016 10:23 PM, "Cameron Crum" < [email protected] > wrote: >>>>>>>>> I'm all for precision guided munitions, but nothing says we've come >>>>>>>>> to kick some >>>>>>>>> ass like shelling an enemy position with the 16in guns from a >>>>>>>>> battleship. Talk >>>>>>>>> about demoralizing the enemy. >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Josh Reynolds < [email protected] >>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Systems like that don't exist so much... At least, there are no guns >>>>>>>>>> of that >>>>>>>>>> size on a battleship that I'm aware of (16"). >>>>>>>>>> I know there are much smaller systems now for certain classes of >>>>>>>>>> warships. When >>>>>>>>>> I was going through my joint fires naval training we talked about a >>>>>>>>>> bunch of >>>>>>>>>> systems (that are now public knowledge). One of the newer naval guns >>>>>>>>>> has a 40+ >>>>>>>>>> nautical mile range and GPS guided round - similar to the Excalibur >>>>>>>>>> artillery >>>>>>>>>> round. Those are mostly automated systems. >>>>>>>>>> If I remember right, a full battery salvo from an Iowa class >>>>>>>>>> battleship on a >>>>>>>>>> surface target could spread out the round impact locations to create >>>>>>>>>> a 1Km x >>>>>>>>>> 1Km "casualty box". I always wanted the opportunity to employ that >>>>>>>>>> system :P >>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 2016 10:23 AM, "David Milholen" < [email protected] > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> What an AWEsome piece of history. >>>>>>>>>>> I wonder how many of those systems are completely automated and how >>>>>>>>>>> much faster >>>>>>>>>>> reload time is ? >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2016 1:59 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/_wT1xkRpCKk I love this stuff. >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> --
