At 07:20 9-2-02 -0500, Kevin Tarr wrote:
>Point 1: The technology is integrated. It isn't just slapping a locator on
>the rear bumper of a tank and letting it go. So why don't we let allies have
>the technology so they can build it into their equipment? In a word:
>secrecy. (Is that spelled right?). How many of our European allies are
>nuclear capable? None, a few?
What does nuclear capability have to do with being able to identify your
allies' tanks and troops on the battlefield?
>Well heck the US should just give all of NATO the technology, they need
>it to work with us. Sorry, I'm being snide but it's safer for US troops
>only to have the technology.
How would it be dangerous for US troops if European troops would have the
same technology as their US counterparts? It is not dangerous for US troops
to be able to recognise their allies in battle, and it would actually be
safer for European troops because it would prevent US troops from
misinterpreting a target as hostile and subsequently fire on their allies.
So, overall, everybody would stand to gain from sharing the technology.
>And you eliminated the most important word, TRAINING.
Then send us some of your instructors. If it will increase the overall
quality of our troops, we will be more than happy to pay for it.
>Point 4: I thought we were using ;-) to mark funny lines.
I did not use a smiley because my question ("are the US with all their
superior technology capable of distinguishing between friend and foe") was
not intended to be funny; it is a serious question.
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com
Tom's Photo Gallery: http://tom.vanbaardwijk.com
