[argod]

http://www.technologyreview.com/arti...ot1104.asp?p=0


The Iraq War was supposed to be a preview of the new U.S. military: a light, swift force that relies as much on sensors and communications networks as on heavy armor and huge numbers. But once the shooting started, technology fell far short of expectations.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by argod:
http://www.technologyreview.com/arti...ot1104.asp?p=0


The Iraq War was supposed to be a preview of the new U.S. military: a light, swift force that relies as much on sensors and communications networks as on heavy armor and huge numbers. But once the shooting started, technology fell far short of expectations.

Very interesting article, that emphasises the importance of air-superiority and instant information in modern warfare, and the problems with them when the technology isn't working. It is so interesting to me, as it also shows new possibilities to defeat the new modern networked US-army. For example, it is possible to use technology that disturbs any network, be it based on microwaves, radiowaves or infrared or whatever. The moving army is not connected through wires but through invisible rays, so it's possible to disrupt them or to overlap them.

Another and even more interesting possibility is to hack into the invisible communication network and to change targets so that US-airforce-planes attack US-groundforces with laser-guided bombs.

Another aspect of the article is that it hints that the future warfare could be based on robotic units making war, like in the movie "Terminator". That is even more interesting, as it would be possible to hack into the robotic US-army and to define the US as the enemy and the robotic US-airforce would fly back to the US and destroy all military complexes.

Brave new world.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Other interesting tidbits from that article are the fact that most iraqi-soldiers deserted and most iraqi brigades didn't fight the american forces. What the article doesn't cite is the fact that the CIA paid a lot of money to the generals of those brigades to not guide these brigades.

A general hate for Saddam among most of the iraqi-army played also a role.

So the US-army won a war against an iraqi-army that endured 12 years of sanctions and mostly even didn't fight at all. No scuds were fired upon the american army.

Another interesting tidbit from that article is that the US-army tries to restructure its army to be smaller more independent from top-to-down-instructions, more movable, etc.. Basically the US-army tries to copy a guerillia-army-structure with the additional support of air-force-planes.

Taliesin

[djohnson]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Another interesting tidbit from that article is that the US-army tries to restructure its army to be smaller more independent from top-to-down-instructions, more movable, etc.. Basically the US-army tries to copy a guerillia-army-structure with the additional support of air-force-planes.

Unless Kerry is elected. For a liberal, he sure wants a large army...