| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| The SDB finally deploys into War in IRAQ with several used from F-15 |
| 2006-10-21 |
| Posted by:3dc |
| #24 Whurt Omusing4942 Early tactics reflected general Iraqi support for re-building. I blame the deterioration on interference from Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Separate the ethnics, and you can at least diminish terrorism. Clinton never accepted that there are types of ethnic cleansing: protective and aggressive. Ask Kosovo Serbs about the aggressive depopulation that the Muslim enemy has inflicted since NATO went crazy. |
| Posted by: Snease Shaiting3550 2006-10-21 20:09 |
| #23 Fooey, I misread the headline. |
| Posted by: Wade McClusky 2006-10-21 17:50 |
| #22 Snease: "New tactics might include....." All of it sounds good. Just wondering why we didn't do this from the beginning of the conflict. |
| Posted by: Whurt Omusing4942 2006-10-21 17:44 |
| #21 Egads, the Traveller geek in me saw SDB and thought "System Defense Boat". Not that we couldn't use a few there to beat the bejeesus out of the malcontents... |
| Posted by: Trub 2006-10-21 15:45 |
| #20 ...I feel kinda bad about that F-8 in the pics, though. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2006-10-21 14:18 |
| #19 Getting input from those on the ground, knee deep in the situation, elicits the kind of insights that can't occur to those full of academic theory, however well trained in strategy and tactics, however much they may have experienced on the ground elsewhere. At least that's so when developing consumer household products, so I imagine it's true in war/peace-making as well. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-10-21 14:09 |
| #18 Redneck Jim My thinking is: security first, liberty second. It worked that way in the Jap and German occupations. No matter what the new tactics are, they will be taken as harsh. I like the fact that Field personnel are being solicited for counsel by the Commander in Chief. They will appreciate that. |
| Posted by: Snease Shaiting3550 2006-10-21 13:46 |
| #17 You forgot Our Constitution? "The Right to Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed" We are trying to establish a Democracy over there, and that EXPRESSLY neans that the rules of our constitution are to apply. Our Constitution is just that, "OUR CONSTITUTION"! NOT theirs. To suggest that our rules and rights apply to them is idiotic. |
| Posted by: NoBeards 2006-10-21 13:21 |
| #16 The SDB finally deploys into War in IRAQ with several used from F-15 |
| Posted by: RD 2006-10-21 13:20 |
| #15 Slaviger Angomong7708 #9 "a non-governmental person with any kind of weapon" You forgot Our Constitution? "The Right to Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed" We are trying to establish a Democracy over there, and that EXPRESSLY neans that the rules of our constitution are to apply. The whole idea of Personal Liberty WITHOUT arms freedom is impossible. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2006-10-21 12:27 |
| #14 8-> |
| Posted by: .com 2006-10-21 11:55 |
#13 cool |
| Posted by: Jesing Ebbease3087 2006-10-21 11:51 |
| #12 Ship, if you are referring to Iran, I would be satisfied with VLDBs. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2006-10-21 11:43 |
| #11 I was hoping the SDBs would first be employed by the Enterprise. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2006-10-21 09:03 |
| #10 Sorry. I was thinking SBD. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2006-10-21 06:11 |
| #9 "a non-governmental person with any kind of weapon" -- AFAIK the standard policy since 2003 has been to allow 1 AK-47 per household for defense of same. Failure to disarm the populace is due to the inability to provide adequate police protection partly due to inadequate staffing, partly due to a sustained terror campaign and partly due to fifth columnists inside the Iraqi law enforcers we have been able to train. "bond posting prior to entry of any person from Iran" either $10,000,000 per cap or bar entry of anyone from Iran for the duration. What possible reason is there to allow any traffic across that border? |
| Posted by: Slaviger Angomong7708 2006-10-21 06:02 |
| #8 retaliatory destruction of buildings near IED sites, to both deter future attacks and cause splits between the terrorists and locals G'wan, ya gotta be kidding!!! Did somebody finally grow a |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-10-21 05:23 |
| #7 In at least 2 Friday interviews the President hinted at Operations' deference to Field Commanders, in the Iraq theater. New tactics might include: use of heavy machine guns on patrols and the practise of massive bombardment, in face of any attack (RPG; sniper; general ambush); retaliatory destruction of buildings near IED sites, to both deter future attacks and cause splits between the terrorists and locals; secure residences for Iraq security and police personnel and use of polygraphs to detect infiltrators; destruction of any source of terror incitement, and that would include mosques (if terror is supposedly "unIslamic" then wouldn't incitement negate mosque status?); tactical ethnic division for both security purpose, and to enable inevitable targeting of the al-Sadr wings; massive use of investigative detention (Israelis have found: Arabs will inform on their own, if they can get away with it); use of heavy bombs on suspected arms caches (the MSA has a policy of accusing us of targeting civilians; that rhetoric can be made hollow); shoot to kill and on sight orders to snipers, who detect a non-governmental person with any kind of weapon; destruction of any business which peddles jihad tapes, or Islamic snuff movies; compulsory incrimination, with extreme penalties to back it up; bond posting prior to entry of any person from Iran; etc. I will also defer to Field personnel. War planning is easy by remote control. Grunts know best. |
| Posted by: Snease Shaiting3550 2006-10-21 04:44 |
| #6 "definitely" *pimf* |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2006-10-21 04:33 |
| #5 Yeah, Skidmark, chemical weapons. They're filled with a derivative of trinitrotoluene, which is defintely a chemical. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2006-10-21 04:32 |
| #4 Aren't they gas bombs? |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2006-10-21 04:13 |
| #3 I thought SBDs were weightless . . . . :-) |
| Posted by: gorb 2006-10-21 03:02 |
| #2 Initially I thought Steven Den Best (SDB) had deployed to Iraq... until I read more of the post! |
| Posted by: Leigh 2006-10-21 03:02 |
#1 The SDB is basically an unpowered missile, which can glide long distances. This makes the SDB even more compact, capable and expensive (about $70,000 each.) JDAM (a guidance kit attached to a dumb bomb) only cost about $26,000. The small wings allow the SDB to glide up to 70-80 kilometers (from high altitude.) SDB also has a hard front end that can punch through several feet of rock or concrete, and a warhead that does more damage than the usual dumb bomb (explosives in a metal casing.) The SDB is thus the next generation of smart bombs. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2006-10-21 00:21 |