[PEN-L:30685] RE: high tech warfare

[Charles Jannuzi <b_rieux@xxxxxxxxx>]

MP directed our attention to this WSJ piece and I
could find no follow up in the archive. My
comments follow the small quote of the article:


>>U.S. Military's GPS Reliance
Makes a Cheap, Easy Target
By ANNE MARIE SQUEO
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL


The hugely successful satellite-based technology
that has enabled a growing number of U.S. bombs
to hit their targets may be vulnerable to a kind
of jammer available through the Internet for
$39.99.
That could mean potential problems in any
invasion of Iraq. In
recent months, the Pentagon has stepped up orders
for
precision-guided bombs that use Global
Positioning System
satellites to hit targets with pinpoint accuracy,
and is expected
to rely on them for surgical strikes on Saddam
Hussein's military
infrastructure.<<


Of course target mis-recognition in Afghanistan
resulted in thousands of deaths of
non-combatants, as did the fact that the US was
quite willing to bomb anything identified as
Taliban or Al Qaeda (even Canadian troops).

But figure, if lower estimates put civilian
deaths in Afghanistan at 1000-3000, this means
that many non-combatants were intentionally
targetted or that precision bombing is not at all
that precise, even now (I mean, what sort of
combatant-to-non-combatant kill ratios are we
talking about here?).

In fact you are talking about a rather cheap
retrograde that uses GPS to locate a forward
spotter, who then uses a laser to guide the bomb
dropped from a B-52 or B-2 onto the target. One
wonders what fields of view operations in Bagdhad
afford.

Another interesting aspect to this story is why
the US military is pissed off at the European
militaries for going ahead with an alternative
system to the GPS the US military uses. You don't
have to be too sinister to read the US envy here.
They basically would like the Europeans tied to a
technology that is indeed easily jammed by the
US, who reserves the right to be superior in all
aspects when it comes to dropping bombs or
dealing with any potential enemies (and we know
the Europeans export to regimes the US never
would, right? Irony intended).

Now about why the WSJ would be discussing a US
vulnerability in the lead up to the war with
Iraq. Perhaps to justify future non-combatant
deaths? Or perhaps to justify even more
expenditure on another system? What's a few more
billion in the pockets of Boeing and GE when you
are already spending over 400 billion per year ,
right?

CJ




__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com