OT: I Want Shock and Awe!

CamEdwards · 03-20-2003, 06:16 PM

I hate to say this, but is anybody else going to feel a twinge of disappointment if we don't get to see shock and awe?

sigh.. I guess that's what being raised on action movies turns you into.

Mac Howard · 03-20-2003, 06:44 PM

I saw an uncomfortable cartoon yesterday. It had a guy slumped down in his lounger pointing his remote at the wide screen TV of his surround sound home cinema system with the "booms" echoing around the room and shouting out to his wife "Come on, Dear. It's on!"

Isn't there some truth in that?

GrantDawg · 03-20-2003, 06:47 PM

While I understand the feeling somewhat (sort of anti-climatic), I hope that we do not see shocknawe. It would mean far less death and destruction. I hope the rest of the Iraqi army just surrenders.

STK · 03-20-2003, 06:52 PM

I have heard the perception is that the Iraqi government may already be crumbling, so CENTCOM is holding off.

scooper · 03-20-2003, 07:20 PM

I'm one who begrudgingly thinks we are doing the right thing by going in. I'd be ecstatic, however, if by launching a few surgical strikes with minimal casualties, this thing ends.

CamEdwards · 03-20-2003, 07:28 PM

I know, I know. Believe me, I hope this can be done with a minimum of casualties on both sides.

Maybe we can use the MOAB on Osama bin Laden, whenever we find what cave the bastard's hiding in.

Coffee Warlord · 03-20-2003, 07:40 PM

You know, I actually have a bit of a feeling the whole "shock and awe" thing is a big PsyOp. A "see what we've done to you already? That ain't shit" sorta deal.

True, we've got some very, very neat toys. But jesus, we're not talking about attacking China here. We're facing a very inferior enemy. We don't NEED the Super Duper Ultra Mega Killem Up Device. Hell, our conventional attack plans are pretty damn potent as it is.

Easy Mac · 03-20-2003, 07:48 PM

Honest question from someone w/ little military knowledge (have to phrase it that way since anything I say is quickly dismissed):

How accurate are our smart bombs nowadays? I remember reading they hit well under 50% of their targets in the 1st gulf war (don't remember where I read it). I assume they've gotten better, but might that be a reason we haven't really seen shocknawe, b/c this time were going for the jugular in Baghdad? Just wondering you're opinions

mrskippy · 03-20-2003, 08:09 PM

CNN military experts questioned a military expert and former military leader last night. When asked about the accuracy of the cruise missiles he said "Pick a window" ... meaning about as accurate as they can be.

STK · 03-20-2003, 08:23 PM

It is my understanding that a vast number of "smart bombs" are now equipped with GPS guidance systems rather than the laser systems used during the first Gulf War, thus making them immune to the effects of weather, smoke, etc.

CHEMICAL SOLDIER · 03-20-2003, 10:50 PM

Im vastly disappointed for I bought Nachos and dip as well as 10 recording tapes to record the event ..Alas all hope for the shock and awe is not lost ....just wait till tomorrow or during the weekend .

Ben E Lou · 03-21-2003, 05:44 AM

1. Coffee Warlord has a point. While I DO believe that we have the capacity for "shock 'n' awe," the THREAT of it could save the lives of thousands of Iraqi and coalition soldiers. If we can scare them into surrendering, then that is a wonderful thing.

2. Cam, thanks for being honest. Ultimately, I want to see this thing ended with minimum loss of lives, but I'd be lying if I said I was curious about seeing a little shocknawe, and I believe you and I are probably in the majority (of males at least...)

3. STK, that's what I'm gathering as well. It appears there has been an utter lack of any form of coordinated counterattack or retaliation, perhaps indicating that commanders aren't getting any orders from anywhere above them.

4. Easy, that is my understanding. I heard one analyst say that unless the bombs we sent in the first couple of waves are struck by significant amounts of anti-aircraft fire (ie blind luck), that 90-95% of the time they'll be accurate to within 6 feet.

5. (Not a response, but a new comment). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I've heard them say that Baghdad is about 300 miles from the Kuwaiti border. I KNOW I heard them say that the 7th Cavalry is moving at approx. 30 mph with little/no resistance. I assume they'll stop to rest and refuel at times, but even so, it sounds like we'll have tanks in Baghdad by the end of today, or tomorrow at the latest. A few thoughts on that then:

A. Conventional wisdom is that if we're going to meet stiff resistance anywhere, that is where it will be.

B. My understanding is that shocknawe is supposed to be massive coordinated land and air strikes.

Therefore...

C. I'd say the greatest probability of shocknawe will occur once we get significant ground troops in the vicinity of Baghdad. Baghdad is clearly where the greatest probability of significant loss of Iraqi and coalition lives could/would take place, so it is therefore where shocknawe could/would be the most useful.

Just my $0.02.

--Ben

rlfreeze · 03-21-2003, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SkyDog

4. Easy, that is my understanding. I heard one analyst say that unless the bombs we sent in the first couple of waves are struck by significant amounts of anti-aircraft fire (ie blind luck), that 90-95% of the time they'll be accurate to within 6 feet.

--Ben [/b]

I am stuck watching this from CNN International and one of the millitary experts they had on suggested that the accuracy of these smart bombs is around 98% up to 1 meter. He also said that if one does develop faults it could miss its target by as much as one half mile.

Fritz · 03-21-2003, 07:03 AM

A suggestion to the network types:

If you can't give us Shock and Awe can we please have some Tits and Ass?

Thank you

Anrhydeddu · 03-21-2003, 10:36 AM

Since we are being honest here (including Fritz), I have to say that I am not pro-War. However, I am anti-Saddam, anti-tyrants, anti-terrorist and anti-militant muslims. So how does one reconcile that? As a historian, I firmly believe that war is always inevitable, that is just the nature of man.

But I do echo the sentiments that through technology, we can be a lot smarter at the targets. I thought the initial surprise decapitation attack was brilliant, even at how difficult it would be to get the desired results.

This reminded me of Saratoga in the Revolutionary where Morgan's rifles where aiming at the British commanders. This was unheard of in standard European warfare and really pissed off the British as being barbaric. I think being barbaric is lining up 50 feet from each other and exchanging volleys. I rather see the test of abilities relying on smartness and accuracy instead of massive brute force. The same thing applies in this war, imo.

More than anything else, I am happy for the Iraqi people in knowing that they could live under more freedoms and liberties, without fear of death or constant reprisals. There are over 1 million Christians living in Iraq and I pray for them as well as the rest of the citizens, including the unfortunate Kurds. What they had to endure was shameful and I really hope things will become better for them.

sabotai · 03-21-2003, 01:36 PM

For those who were disappointed with no Shock and Awe...I hope you enjoyed your show.

Maple Leafs · 03-21-2003, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
I have to say that I am not pro-War.

Is anyone?

You can hate war and still believe that at times it is necessary.

Anthony · 03-22-2003, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by Coffee Warlord:
"True, we've got some very, very neat toys. But jesus, we're not talking about attacking China here. We're facing a very inferior enemy. We don't NEED the Super Duper Ultra Mega Killem Up Device. Hell, our conventional attack plans are pretty damn potent as it is."

i'm sooo glad you said this. i got into a debate today with my friends, with me saying is it really necessary for us to use the full might and force of our army...? the enemy has proven to be vastly inferior, to the point where they surrendered last week as the Brits were firing off some practice rounds. did we really need all this? my firends were knocking me, saying why not use everything we have to scare off Iraq and any other country who thinks about growing some balls. i was like "these bombs aren't free - guess who pays for them?" is Iraq really that much of an adversary that a "shock and awe" tactic that much needed?

i brought up China too, which made your quote hit home a litte more. it's not like we're going up a conventional threat here. no Chinese or Russians. we're fighting an enemy that is as effective as kids with sling-shots. waaay unnecessary. i say why send in 300,000 troops when i think only 100,000 could effectively get the job done? my friend, who loves to argue me btw, said in the same breath that American troops are professionals who are prepared to die. they know what they signed up for - why not send in as many as possible - but if there ever was a draft he would protest and not go. so i'm like "you'll shout for more and more troops being sent off to fight in your place, but when it's time for you to be asked to fight you won't do it."

i don't want war, i don't want to fight in one, i think it's only logical that if there has to be a war that we send in only as many as needed to achieve victory - and not a man more. i think it's only logical to use as many bombs as needed to bring the enemy to its knees, not when the enemy is a 3rd world country with hardly any advancements or assets to boast of. i don't think people understand how much it costs to make even a "normal" missile such as a Tomahawk.

HornedFrog Purple · 03-22-2003, 08:14 AM

Tomahawks cost about 1.5 million a pop.

The answer is it costs more money to mobilize in stages. If we had sent 100,000 troops, then had to send another 50,000 etc the cost overall would have been much more. The point being you might as well send the maximum number to the theatre you would need under dire circumstances and plan ahead for contingencies. 100,000 troops would hinder the manpower with all the land, airstrips and strategic cities they need to occupy. Flexability is the key to an operation of this magnitude.

They are also trying to prevent 2 million refugees fleeing like what happened in 1991.

One of the news channels I was watching they were talking to a Kuwaitian general who was at the site where they shot down one of Iraq's missles and he was saying it was poor quality. This was a general from Kuwait mind you heh.

300,000 would not be near enough for China. Not even close. Of course now China has the ok to liberate Taiwan in the name of preemption and national security but nevermind that.

Anthony · 03-23-2003, 12:56 AM

"Tomahawks cost about 1.5 million a pop."

exactly. we're not even talking about some of the other more "exotic" missles/bombs we have in our arsenal. the Tomahawk packs about 2,000 lbs. of explosives, while something like the MOAB has 21 tons if i'm not mistaken. these things don't just materialize out of thin-air, they come from tax dollars. do we need the shock and awe for such an underdeveloped country? not trying to say the Iraqis live in huts on the desert, but outside of their "modern" city of Baghdad and their 2nd largest city of Basra, what do they have? our missions should have focused a bit more on securing the oil fields from being trashed by the enemy.

then again, what do i know. Basra isn't even where all of Saddam's better forces are concentrated and we still haven't officially taken the city yet.

HornedFrog Purple · 03-23-2003, 02:01 AM

Well in my opinion, shock and awe was not for Baghdad it was more for the south and west of it. When these outlying areas see that much tonnage blow up central command (or what we believe is central command) the outlying troops who are not paid and treated badly will start surrendering some of which has been reported. It was pretty important to do it because Turkey was not allowing us northern access.

The meat of Iraq's forces are in Baghdad and they I believe will go out fighting at least for a while. These guys are fed, pampered and paid well. However there have been some tactics used where the Guard will dress up as civilians then start firing. They used that the last conflict also.

I also believe that someone is still leading their central command, even though Saddam might be injured or killed. They have already dug an oil moat around the city, although with air sorties by GPS it is a practically useless defense. I believe from here forward, it will become much more difficult.

Airhog · 03-23-2003, 02:20 AM

yeah, but that smoke plume would probably make it hard to fly in even with gps. My dad was a commercial pilot for some time, and says it can be quite easy to get disorientated in low visibility. It can be hard to know which was is up, and you need complete trust in your instruments. Although in this case I would imagine that the smoke while think, is probably no dispered heavily over the city. So its probably more of a non issue. And I heard they were using it as a tactic to motivate people in their city, and make it look as though much more damage has occured.

03-20-2003, 06:44 PM	#2
Mac Howard Sick as a Parrot Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Surfers Paradise, Australia	I saw an uncomfortable cartoon yesterday. It had a guy slumped down in his lounger pointing his remote at the wide screen TV of his surround sound home cinema system with the "booms" echoing around the room and shouting out to his wife "Come on, Dear. It's on!" Isn't there some truth in that? __________________ Mac Howard - a Pom in Paradise Last edited by Mac Howard : 03-20-2003 at 06:56 PM.

03-20-2003, 06:52 PM	#4
STK H.S. Freshman Team Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ	I have heard the perception is that the Iraqi government may already be crumbling, so CENTCOM is holding off. Last edited by STK : 03-20-2003 at 06:53 PM.

03-20-2003, 07:28 PM	#6
CamEdwards Stadium Announcer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Burke, VA	I know, I know. Believe me, I hope this can be done with a minimum of casualties on both sides. Maybe we can use the MOAB on Osama bin Laden, whenever we find what cave the bastard's hiding in. __________________ I don't want the world. I just want your half.

03-20-2003, 08:23 PM	#10
STK H.S. Freshman Team Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ	It is my understanding that a vast number of "smart bombs" are now equipped with GPS guidance systems rather than the laser systems used during the first Gulf War, thus making them immune to the effects of weather, smoke, etc. Last edited by STK : 03-20-2003 at 08:23 PM.

03-20-2003, 10:50 PM	#11
CHEMICAL SOLDIER College Starter Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Henderson, Nevada	Im vastly disappointed for I bought Nachos and dip as well as 10 recording tapes to record the event ..Alas all hope for the shock and awe is not lost ....just wait till tomorrow or during the weekend . __________________ Toujour Pret

03-20-2003, 06:47 PM	#3
GrantDawg World Champion Mis-speller Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Covington, Ga.	While I understand the feeling somewhat (sort of anti-climatic), I hope that we do not see shocknawe. It would mean far less death and destruction. I hope the rest of the Iraqi army just surrenders.

03-20-2003, 07:20 PM	#5
scooper College Benchwarmer Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Cinn City	I'm one who begrudgingly thinks we are doing the right thing by going in. I'd be ecstatic, however, if by launching a few surgical strikes with minimal casualties, this thing ends.

03-20-2003, 07:40 PM	#7
Coffee Warlord Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Colorado Springs	You know, I actually have a bit of a feeling the whole "shock and awe" thing is a big PsyOp. A "see what we've done to you already? That ain't shit" sorta deal. True, we've got some very, very neat toys. But jesus, we're not talking about attacking China here. We're facing a very inferior enemy. We don't NEED the Super Duper Ultra Mega Killem Up Device. Hell, our conventional attack plans are pretty damn potent as it is.

03-20-2003, 07:48 PM	#8
Easy Mac Registered User Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Here	Honest question from someone w/ little military knowledge (have to phrase it that way since anything I say is quickly dismissed): How accurate are our smart bombs nowadays? I remember reading they hit well under 50% of their targets in the 1st gulf war (don't remember where I read it). I assume they've gotten better, but might that be a reason we haven't really seen shocknawe, b/c this time were going for the jugular in Baghdad? Just wondering you're opinions

03-20-2003, 08:09 PM	#9
mrskippy Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: California	CNN military experts questioned a military expert and former military leader last night. When asked about the accuracy of the cruise missiles he said "Pick a window" ... meaning about as accurate as they can be.

03-21-2003, 05:44 AM	#12
Ben E Lou Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Greensboro, NC	1. Coffee Warlord has a point. While I DO believe that we have the capacity for "shock 'n' awe," the THREAT of it could save the lives of thousands of Iraqi and coalition soldiers. If we can scare them into surrendering, then that is a wonderful thing. 2. Cam, thanks for being honest. Ultimately, I want to see this thing ended with minimum loss of lives, but I'd be lying if I said I was curious about seeing a little shocknawe, and I believe you and I are probably in the majority (of males at least...) 3. STK, that's what I'm gathering as well. It appears there has been an utter lack of any form of coordinated counterattack or retaliation, perhaps indicating that commanders aren't getting any orders from anywhere above them. 4. Easy, that is my understanding. I heard one analyst say that unless the bombs we sent in the first couple of waves are struck by significant amounts of anti-aircraft fire (ie blind luck), that 90-95% of the time they'll be accurate to within 6 feet. 5. (Not a response, but a new comment). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I've heard them say that Baghdad is about 300 miles from the Kuwaiti border. I KNOW I heard them say that the 7th Cavalry is moving at approx. 30 mph with little/no resistance. I assume they'll stop to rest and refuel at times, but even so, it sounds like we'll have tanks in Baghdad by the end of today, or tomorrow at the latest. A few thoughts on that then: A. Conventional wisdom is that if we're going to meet stiff resistance anywhere, that is where it will be. B. My understanding is that shocknawe is supposed to be massive coordinated land and air strikes. Therefore... C. I'd say the greatest probability of shocknawe will occur once we get significant ground troops in the vicinity of Baghdad. Baghdad is clearly where the greatest probability of significant loss of Iraqi and coalition lives could/would take place, so it is therefore where shocknawe could/would be the most useful. Just my $0.02. --Ben __________________ The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!

03-21-2003, 07:03 AM	#14
Fritz Lethargic Hooligan Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: hello kitty found my wallet at a big tent revival and returned it with all the cash missing	A suggestion to the network types: If you can't give us Shock and Awe can we please have some Tits and Ass? Thank you __________________ donkey, donkey, walk a little faster

03-21-2003, 10:36 AM	#15
Anrhydeddu Resident Curmudgeon Join Date: Oct 2002	Since we are being honest here (including Fritz), I have to say that I am not pro-War. However, I am anti-Saddam, anti-tyrants, anti-terrorist and anti-militant muslims. So how does one reconcile that? As a historian, I firmly believe that war is always inevitable, that is just the nature of man. But I do echo the sentiments that through technology, we can be a lot smarter at the targets. I thought the initial surprise decapitation attack was brilliant, even at how difficult it would be to get the desired results. This reminded me of Saratoga in the Revolutionary where Morgan's rifles where aiming at the British commanders. This was unheard of in standard European warfare and really pissed off the British as being barbaric. I think being barbaric is lining up 50 feet from each other and exchanging volleys. I rather see the test of abilities relying on smartness and accuracy instead of massive brute force. The same thing applies in this war, imo. More than anything else, I am happy for the Iraqi people in knowing that they could live under more freedoms and liberties, without fear of death or constant reprisals. There are over 1 million Christians living in Iraq and I pray for them as well as the rest of the citizens, including the unfortunate Kurds. What they had to endure was shameful and I really hope things will become better for them.

03-21-2003, 01:36 PM	#16
sabotai General Manager Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The Satellite of Love	For those who were disappointed with no Shock and Awe...I hope you enjoyed your show.

03-22-2003, 01:58 AM	#18
Anthony Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Astoria, NY, USA	Originally posted by Coffee Warlord: "True, we've got some very, very neat toys. But jesus, we're not talking about attacking China here. We're facing a very inferior enemy. We don't NEED the Super Duper Ultra Mega Killem Up Device. Hell, our conventional attack plans are pretty damn potent as it is." i'm sooo glad you said this. i got into a debate today with my friends, with me saying is it really necessary for us to use the full might and force of our army...? the enemy has proven to be vastly inferior, to the point where they surrendered last week as the Brits were firing off some practice rounds. did we really need all this? my firends were knocking me, saying why not use everything we have to scare off Iraq and any other country who thinks about growing some balls. i was like "these bombs aren't free - guess who pays for them?" is Iraq really that much of an adversary that a "shock and awe" tactic that much needed? i brought up China too, which made your quote hit home a litte more. it's not like we're going up a conventional threat here. no Chinese or Russians. we're fighting an enemy that is as effective as kids with sling-shots. waaay unnecessary. i say why send in 300,000 troops when i think only 100,000 could effectively get the job done? my friend, who loves to argue me btw, said in the same breath that American troops are professionals who are prepared to die. they know what they signed up for - why not send in as many as possible - but if there ever was a draft he would protest and not go. so i'm like "you'll shout for more and more troops being sent off to fight in your place, but when it's time for you to be asked to fight you won't do it." i don't want war, i don't want to fight in one, i think it's only logical that if there has to be a war that we send in only as many as needed to achieve victory - and not a man more. i think it's only logical to use as many bombs as needed to bring the enemy to its knees, not when the enemy is a 3rd world country with hardly any advancements or assets to boast of. i don't think people understand how much it costs to make even a "normal" missile such as a Tomahawk. Last edited by Anthony : 03-22-2003 at 02:00 AM.

03-22-2003, 08:14 AM	#19
HornedFrog Purple Hattrick Moderator Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Fort Worthless, Tx	Tomahawks cost about 1.5 million a pop. The answer is it costs more money to mobilize in stages. If we had sent 100,000 troops, then had to send another 50,000 etc the cost overall would have been much more. The point being you might as well send the maximum number to the theatre you would need under dire circumstances and plan ahead for contingencies. 100,000 troops would hinder the manpower with all the land, airstrips and strategic cities they need to occupy. Flexability is the key to an operation of this magnitude. They are also trying to prevent 2 million refugees fleeing like what happened in 1991. One of the news channels I was watching they were talking to a Kuwaitian general who was at the site where they shot down one of Iraq's missles and he was saying it was poor quality. This was a general from Kuwait mind you heh. 300,000 would not be near enough for China. Not even close. Of course now China has the ok to liberate Taiwan in the name of preemption and national security but nevermind that. __________________ King of All FOFC Media!!! IHOF: Fort Worthless Fury- 2004 AOC Deep South Champions (not acknowledged via conspiracy)

03-23-2003, 12:56 AM	#20
Anthony Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Astoria, NY, USA	"Tomahawks cost about 1.5 million a pop." exactly. we're not even talking about some of the other more "exotic" missles/bombs we have in our arsenal. the Tomahawk packs about 2,000 lbs. of explosives, while something like the MOAB has 21 tons if i'm not mistaken. these things don't just materialize out of thin-air, they come from tax dollars. do we need the shock and awe for such an underdeveloped country? not trying to say the Iraqis live in huts on the desert, but outside of their "modern" city of Baghdad and their 2nd largest city of Basra, what do they have? our missions should have focused a bit more on securing the oil fields from being trashed by the enemy. then again, what do i know. Basra isn't even where all of Saddam's better forces are concentrated and we still haven't officially taken the city yet.

03-23-2003, 02:01 AM	#21
HornedFrog Purple Hattrick Moderator Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Fort Worthless, Tx	Well in my opinion, shock and awe was not for Baghdad it was more for the south and west of it. When these outlying areas see that much tonnage blow up central command (or what we believe is central command) the outlying troops who are not paid and treated badly will start surrendering some of which has been reported. It was pretty important to do it because Turkey was not allowing us northern access. The meat of Iraq's forces are in Baghdad and they I believe will go out fighting at least for a while. These guys are fed, pampered and paid well. However there have been some tactics used where the Guard will dress up as civilians then start firing. They used that the last conflict also. I also believe that someone is still leading their central command, even though Saddam might be injured or killed. They have already dug an oil moat around the city, although with air sorties by GPS it is a practically useless defense. I believe from here forward, it will become much more difficult. __________________ King of All FOFC Media!!! IHOF: Fort Worthless Fury- 2004 AOC Deep South Champions (not acknowledged via conspiracy)

03-23-2003, 02:20 AM	#22
Airhog Captain Obvious Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Norman, Oklahoma	yeah, but that smoke plume would probably make it hard to fly in even with gps. My dad was a commercial pilot for some time, and says it can be quite easy to get disorientated in low visibility. It can be hard to know which was is up, and you need complete trust in your instruments. Although in this case I would imagine that the smoke while think, is probably no dispered heavily over the city. So its probably more of a non issue. And I heard they were using it as a tactic to motivate people in their city, and make it look as though much more damage has occured. __________________ Thread Killer extraordinaire Yay! its football season once again!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)