Kevin Tarr wrote:
> My points are, first about Afghanistan 2001: Gautam clearly writes that the
> Pentagon asked the administration to ask NATO not to get involved. Not the
> administration, the Pentagon. Not 'the US', the Pentagon. He then listed
> very clear reasons why the Pentagon did not want other forces in
> Afghanistan. A unified electronic battlefield is very important to the way
> the US forces work. On a black night, with thick fog, every US tanks knows
> where every other tank is and where all the people are. This is done with a
> local net, not with satellites. The planes and helicopters have this
> information also. The tank driver isn't looking out a viewport to see where
> he is going. The fire-control person isn't looking out a window either, she
> is looking at a screen that is identifying every piece of machinery, and the
> people. More importantly, the tanks can identify what isn't part of the
> network, what may be an enemy unit. Two US tanks wouldn't fire at the same
> enemy tank because each one knows what the other one is doing.
>
What happens if the net goes down?
--
Doug
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.zo.com/~brighto
"Imagine all the people,
Living for Today"
John Lennon
