Defense Articles

“Operation Eradicate” may take place in 2008. As the founder of the Online Think Tank, one job we work very hard on is to consider “all options” and scenarios in the endeavors we choose to discuss and think on. Sometimes there are no good solutions, but there are best possible solutions considering the severity of the situation.

Recently, we went to work on a plan to remove the Nuclear Weapons Manufacturing efforts of Iran, because we find that sanctions are not working, the UN is not interested in doing what must be done and Nuclear Weapons in the hands of international terrorists, is not acceptable. Well, at least in my opinion. How serious is this issue and challenge for World Peace you ask?

Perhaps you might like some insight. First, Iran has been supplying weapons to insurgents in Iraq, these weapons have killed US Troops. Iran has infiltrated the Iraqi Government with spies. Iran has small-ICBM rockets capable of a 1250-mile range. Iran funds Hezbollah and Hamas, both International Terrorist Organizations, to the tune of 100 million dollars per year each. Iran has threatened to “blow Israel off the map!”

Iran has declared it has signed up 300,000 suicide bombers as part of its Army. When Iran gets nuclear weapons, it will most likely put them into the hands of International Terrorist Organizations to serve it’s will through proxy. Iran cannot be allowed to therefore have nuclear weapons and we have determined that it must be stopped from doing so. We believe 23,000 sorties in 72-hours to remove all potential targets is needed.

There are many anti-war protesters trying to sway public opinion on the Internet, stating that war with Iran is an illogical position to take for the United States of America. But, in reality we are already at war with Iran or rather they are at war with us, as they are supplying weapons and personnel to kill US Troops in Iraq. (FYI - My brother is a US Marine).

Dear Anti-War Protesters,Are you suggesting we do nothing to stop Iran’s intervention in Iraq or it’s continuation to build nuclear weapons? Are you suggesting that the US Troops dying are somehow acceptable when Iran has trained 300,000 suicide bombers, is building nuclear weapons, has 1250 mile range ICBMs, supports international terrorist groups, buying late model Russian fighters, etc.?

If we fail to protect the world from these things, then we do so at the expense of hundred’s f thousands, if not millions of innocent lives in the future. Are you saying it is okay for terrorists to have nuclear weapons to do a repeat in Bali, Madrid, London, Philippines, New York, etc. If these anti-war protesters are proposing this possible future, well that does not seem the least bit logical to me.

If folks do not want a war with Iran, then they need to take that issue up with Iran, not the United States of America. War Protesters if they are seriously legitimate need to contact the Iranian leadership and reason with them not to build nuclear weapons and to stop supporting International Terrorist Groups such as Hezbollah to the tune of 100 million dollars per year. That is where the anti-Iran-US-War protesters should focus their energies and time is wasting. Sincerely, Lance.

The strategic plan, which was released in late August, focuses on alignment with the needs of the warfighter. The objectives have been developed along the lines of providing vision and guidance, with explanations of why each focus area is important. Johnson discussed the focus on the war against Islamic extremists.
“This long war we’re currently engaged in is more dangerous than World War II,” he said. He explained that the United States is no longer protected from an enemy by ocean barriers.

Enemies can come here, and they are using unconventional tactics. Population increases step up the competition for resources, providing a source of friction among nations. Wars are fought at cyberborders as well, a factor that was not present in previous conflicts, Johnson said.

Specific areas of concern include the need to distinguish between counterinsurgencies and extremist efforts. Training and equipping the Iraqi army and police forces, and working with Iraqis to restore the nation’s infrastructure remain highly important.
Working with local Iraqi governments and providing them with “how-to” advice are not typically thought of as military functions. However, Johnson noted that this type of assistance is necessary, along with providing supplies, fuel and logistical help.

Science and technology contribute to the effort in the form of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, among other applications.

Johnson stated that results of the science and technology innovations used routinely in the field today are the products of past research and development, and he cited several examples, such as robotics and the Global Positioning System. (See text box below.)

Due to continuous technological improvements, there is an expectation for fast responses to warfighters’ needs, Johnson said. However, merely sending more equipment can cause problems as well as solve them. It’s not unusual for some warfighters to carry 100 to 1 0 pounds of equipment. This not only slows them down, but in the extreme heat of Iraq, carrying excessive weight can cause health problems as well. Significant effort is now going into lightening warfighters’ loads.

When you’re sending S&T to the field, you have to manage your efforts, said Johnson. “You can’t just send a jumble of stuff.” Miniaturizing equipment and making it more efficient is one way to approach this problem, but existing technologies can also be used in better ways. For example, using equipment that runs on a standard type of battery can reduce the need to carry many kinds of specialized batteries.

If you absolutely have to carry a lot of equipment, having a low-maintenance assistant to carry part of your load could be useful. Robotic assistants such as BigDog don’t eat, sleep or require R&R, and they can handle rough terrain too.

In addition to robotics, unmanned vehicles for ground, sea, air and space with integrated sensors save lives, gather intelligence and provide attack capability for high-risk missions. One such UGV, Multifunction Utility/Logistics and Equipment, or MULE, offers extraordinary capability in unmanned vehicle technology to tackle dangerous missions such as detecting and neutralizing anti-tank mines.

MULE’s highly advanced six-foot by six-foot independent articulated suspension, coupled with in-hub motors powering each wheel, provides extreme mobility in complex terrain, far exceeding that of vehicles with conventional suspension systems. The MULE vehicle is also an essential component of the Army’s Future Combat System to support dismounted and air assault operations.

[ILLUSTRATIONS OMITTED]

The S&T strategy addresses not only technologies, such as aviation and sea-basing, but also “human performance” and training. Human performance spans the areas of physiology, nutrition, cognition and kinetics.

Immersive training takes advantage of the Millennium Generation’s familiarity with video games and virtual reality, coupled with ever-increasing computing power. This training is useful not only for bringing new recruits up to speed, but also as a means of training experienced personnel to use new technologies.

Modeling and simulation provide a means of out-thinking an enemy and for assessing new weapons under various situations and conditions.

The strategy balances attention to the needs of today with anticipation of future needs. Marine Corps leadership is convinced of the necessity of S&T–”They’ve caught the bug,” Johnson said.

This story may not be true. Although it is widely posted on the Internet, mentioned in the compendium From Shield to Storm and cited in an anti-DU book called Metal of Dishonor, an extended search of Lexis-Nexis finds no reference to it before 2000. Calls to the U.S. Army’s public information office brought no further clarification. Metal of Dishonor author Dan Fahey says he regrets citing the incident.

But the story is plausible. Although many accounts of the Gulf War credit U.S. air bombardment with the lopsided American victory, the overwhelming superiority of U.S. and allied tanks, armor and DU ammunition were also factors. U.S. and coalition ground forces destroyed 1,000 Iraqi tanks and thousands of armored personnel carriers during the ground war. Iraqi forces destroyed zero Abrams tanks.
The mystery behind the three-to-one incident mirrors the larger controversy enveloping depleted uranium weaponry. Despite its success on the battlefield, in the past decade DU has been implicated in health problems suffered by thousands of U.S. soldiers and blamed for a five-fold increase in the cancer rate among civilians in Southern Iraq. Since the U.S. military’s widespread use of DU in the Gulf became known in 1991, the Pentagon has struggled to sup press mounting evidence that DU munitions are simply too toxic to use. It has cashiered or attempted to discredit its own experts, ignored their advice, impeded scientific research into DU’s health effects and assembled a disinformation campaign to confuse the issue.

“The cover-up started with the infamous Los Alamos memorandum sent to our team in Saudi Arabia during March 1991,” claims Doug Rokke, a retired health physicist who the Army tasked with the dean up of the nine U.S. tanks and 15 Bradley Fighting Vehicles that had been destroyed by “friendly fire” from DU shells. The memo suggested to Rokke that he downplay any environmental dangers or health hazards he might find. “There has been and continues to be concern regarding the impact of DU on the environment,” the memo says. “Therefore, if no one makes a case for the effectiveness of DU on the battlefield, DU rounds may become politically unacceptable and thus, be deleted from the arsenal.”

Rokke, the Army’s lead expert on DU in the 1990s, directed the cleanup effort and then developed a rigorous, 12-hour training program in DU safety and handling for U.S. soldiers. But the military never implemented the program. Between 1991 and 1996 Rokke also urged the military brass to test veterans for exposure to DU, and treat and monitor those who had been exposed. He says the Pentagon ignored him, along with many other military medical experts and a 1993 congressional order. He was fired from his post. Rokke blames his own persistent respiratory problems and a cataract on DU exposure.

Rokke wants DU banned, as do many Gulf War vets, peace and environmental activists around the globe. In 1996 a United Nations subcommittee passed a resolution urging that its use be banned, along with other weapons of mass destruction. The measure was adopted by a vote of 15 to one, with the U.S. the sole dissenter.

In 1999, the European Parliament voted to urge NATO to suspend the use of DU munitions. The request was ignored. In March, 6,000 activists rallied in Hiroshima, Japan, calling on the U.S. not to attack Iraq again and to stop using and selling depleted uranium weapons. Protestors used their bodies to spell out the words “NO DU.”

The U.S. has had DU ammunition since the 1970s, but never used it on the battlefield until the Gulf War. The U.S. and allied British fired 340 tons of DU in anti-tank shells in that conflict, by their own accounting. Tons more were used in the Balkans and Afghanistan.

The 1990s saw a tremendous proliferation of DU munitions around the world. In 1991 only the U.S., Great Britain and (probably) Israel had DU; by 1999, it was in the arsenals of a dozen countries. Both the U.S. and Russia sell depleted uranium weapons on the world arms market, providing a lucrative outlet for what had been expensive-to-dispose-of nuclear waste.

In the U.S. arsenal, DU is used not only in armor penetrators, but also in large bunker-buster bombs, cruise missiles and, according to Rokke, even light arms. “We have these things down to machine gun rounds,” he says. “This concept that DU is only used against tanks is totally wrong. It works great against any soft targets. When it comes out of the barrel it is already on fire.” That radioactive firestorm is the reason DU is so effective at piercing armor. It is also the reason DU is so dangerous to soldiers and civilians after the battle. The uranium ignites on impact.

Substantial elements of a real-time, theater-wide surveillance system capable of covering a region 1,000 kilometers (roughly 600 miles) across already existed in the mid-1980s. These elements would be supplemented by a robust theater-wide communications system. Surveillance would be carried out in part by forward observers on the ground and in part by small drone aircraft, equipped with global positioning system (GPS) navigation and with television cameras or other sensors that could obtain precise knowledge of the target position. Once a target was identified and located, attacking weapons were available that could be guided to the target by using a navigation grid common to the sensors and to the weapon.
As demonstrated in U.S. actions in Afghanistan in 2001 and in Iraq in 2003, this capability has been functionally achieved. The laser-guided bombs used during the Vietnam War have been augmented by the addition of highly accurate Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs). These devices are guided by GPS systems and do indeed “bomb by navigation” on coordinates provided by ground observers, aerial surveillance, or satellite observation. A typical JDAM is a 2,000-pound Mk 84 bomb. A much larger JDAM, a 21,000-pound device called Massive Ordnance Air Blast, or MOAB, was used in Iraq after its first test in 2003.

Despite the advances demonstrated by the U.S. Navy and Air Force, the Army has not yet seen the merit of largely replacing tube-fired artillery shells by GPS-guided rockets. Developing such weapons would be possible within the constraints of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which prohibits the United States and Russia from possessing ground-based ballistic or cruise missiles with a range between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. A ballistic missile with a range of 480 kilometers would give the Army the ability to mass accurate fire from secure areas onto targets across an entire theater. In contrast with a conventional howitzer, which has a range of only about 40 kilometers and might miss its target by as much as 150 meters, the probable error for GPS-guided rockets of any range is likely to be in the 5-meter range. The rockets also can be arranged for simultaneous arrival on target, with final approach from any desired angle.

The contribution of JDAMs has been realized in conjunction with an integrated targeting and communication system, including the possibility of changing the target coordinates in the individual weapons while the delivery aircraft is in flight. Similar in accuracy to laser-guided bombs, JDAMs offer the important capability of being able to work in cloud or smoke, and they can attack dozens of individual targets in a region tens of kilometers across from a single release of multiple bombs by a B-52 or other large aircraft.

Only extra care will prevent guided bombs from “accurately” destroying the wrong targets by mistake, as happened with the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. But it would be highly desirable in any case to add a feature to ensure that such weapons explode in the air rather than on the ground if their guidance system malfunctions or if surveillance shows a civilian bus approaching the target area.

The problem with missile defense

The Bush administration has placed great emphasis on National Missile Defense (NMD), focused on a possible North Korean attack on the United States using intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) bearing nuclear warheads. But as early as 1968, Hans Bethe and I warned that a missile defense that cannot deal with feasible countermeasures is worse than no defense at all. That, unfortunately, characterizes the midcourse interceptor system under development by the Pentagon. My colleagues and I have shown, for example, how balloons released by an ICBM could serve as credible decoys for a tumbling warhead, itself encased in a similar balloon, thus preventing intercept of a nuclear payload.

On the other hand, boost-phase intercept (BPI)-striking the missile before its rocket engine has driven it to full ICBM speed-has a real capability against the Taepo Dong 2 ICBM that North Korea has been expected to test since 1998. BPI would work against North Korea because the territory is small and almost surrounded by international waters. But progress has been slow in developing BPI, in large part because the administration has emphasized the ineffective midcourse system and to some extent because BPI would be more difficult to use against a missile launched from the much larger territory of Iran and, until the recent war, Iraq. Yet solving the most urgent problem first-North Korea-has some merit.

At the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC), the above scenario must be the most flexible in the battalion. the platoons’ mobility and lethality continually boost the task force’s agility and flexibility. During sustained operations, hasty missions are the order of the day. To help their platoons in ensuring success, Delta Company commanders should develop a “15-minute” checklist for the platoons. This checklist should contain mission-critical items for each member of the platoon to execute prior to starting the mission. Sample events are shown in Table 1. These actions are not surprising. They are in everyone’s precombat inspection (PCI) checklist. But units must carry compressed checklists and be able to use them effectively in 15 minutes or less. All too often, platoons move out from point A to point B without any real preparations because of higher headquarters’ emphasis on “moving out now!” Subsequently, there is no individual situational awareness, weapon system readiness, or contingencies for making contact.

All drivers must know the route. All Soldiers need to know a frequency and call-sign they can reach if they need indirect fire support. Every vehicle needs to know updated minefield locations and the locations of friendly forces they may be passing through. Leaders need to know a scheme of maneuver (movement formation, transitioning to bounding overwatch, preplanned indirect fire targets, etc.).

Commanders need to drill their platoons with sample scenarios so that they will be able to respond effectively. The difference between “speed” and “haste” has to be emphasized. When platoon members become proficient at conducting key pre-mission tasks, their success, confidence, and ability to execute aggressively will improve significantly.

Demonstrating exceptional resourcefulness and quick thinking, the team implemented a new and novel idea to minimize the chance of wasting scarce tax payer dollars or damaging vital equipment by deploying unnecessarily. By carefully scrutinizing real-time photos taken by the responding officers, the team was able to determine that the rocket was not 100 percent safe for the local authorities to handle. SSgt Futrell and SrA Strom directed the local officials to stay clear of the area, checked their equipment, loaded their response vehicles, and completed a thorough Operational Risk Management (ORM) assessment to ensure they were fully prepared to deploy, perform their duties, and return safely. The team was acutely aware that many illicit drug labs raided previously had been booby-trapped to discourage intervention. They also realized that the individuals responsible for assembling this particular lab had demonstrated at least some familiarity with military ordnance. After driving to the scene, the team cautiously entered the site using integrated combat tactics. While completing their initial reconnaissance, the team encountered no other weapons other than the AT-4 launcher. After securing the immediate area, they ensured the 2,000 square-foot house and adjoining 3-acre lot were safe and turned over the crime scene to local law enforcement officers for investigation. Upon closer inspection, the AT-4 launcher was found to be empty, something which could not be determined from the photographs reviewed back at the base. This team demonstrated exceptional ORM techniques, professionalism, selfless courage in a potentially hostile environment, and an unrivalled commitment to safety, underscoring Barksdale’s strong safety partnership with the surrounding civilian communities.

The Government, perhaps sensing public support for the princess’s remarks, quickly distanced itself from the criticism of her and made clear that it advocated a ban on most anti- personnel mines. Government officials point out that Britain has not manufactured such mines for years and that China and Russia are the world’s largest producers and exporters of landmines. The Clinton administration put forward its initiative at the United Nations- sponsored Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, but without much expectation that it would achieve rapid results. Diplomats said the 61-nation conference was likely to get bogged down in the next few weeks over the demands of non-aligned and developing countries for total nuclear disarmament before there was any progress on landmines. However, the US approach, which is supported by France as well as Britain, may produce results in the longer term. This is because Russia and China, whose support would be essential to the effectiveness of a world-wide ban, have indicated that they are at least prepared to discuss the issue in Geneva. US officials said it made more sense to push for a landmines ban at a conference where the Russians and Chinese were taking part. The US ban would cover mines designed to kill or injure people, but would exclude anti-tank mines. The International Committee of the Red Cross, one of several humanitarian groups pressing for a world-wide ban, estimates there are more than 100 million landmines in 64 countries.

Anti-tank guns are guns designed to destroy armored vehicles. In order to penetrate the armor of tanks and other armored vehicles they fire high-velocity shells.

Prior to World War II, anti-tank guns were relatively small, with anti-tank rifles primarily used for destroying tanks. Few had calibres larger than 50 mm. With the rapid improvement in tank armor and guns, anti-tank guns increased in calibre, firing larger shells at greater velocities. One of the most widespread and successful of these was the German 88 mm gun, which was originally developed as an anti-aircraft gun but later found widespread use in destroying tanks. Likewise, by the end of the war, all sides were using guns with diameters of 90 mm and up.
World War II also saw the mounting of antitank guns on vehicle chassis, sometimes armored, as a cheap substitute for a full-fledged tank. Some had open turrets, while others did not have rotating turrets at all, meaning that the whole vehicle had to be rotated to aim the gun. Americans called these vehicles tank destroyers.
At the start of World War II many of these weapons were still being used operationally, along with a newer generation of light guns that closely resembled their WWI counterparts. In combat both proved entirely useless against the larger and better armored tanks they faced. For instance, the German army had recently introduced a new lightweight 37-mm gun, whose users quickly nicknamed it the “armored door knocker” because all it seemed to do was announce its presence.

All combatants quickly introduced newer and more powerful guns, and the anti-tank rifle had largely disappeared by 1942. The “average” gun by 1943 was 50 mm or larger, the Germans had an excellent 50-mm high-velocity design, while the British introduced the “6-pounder” which was also adopted by the US Army as the 57 mm. A year later, sizes had grown due to pressure on the Eastern Front, German guns were now 75 mm and the famous 88 mm. The Soviet Red Army used a variety of general-purpose 100-mm and 122-mm guns. The British 17 pounder was less at 77 mm but delivered its amour piercing shell at high speed.

THE LONG-AWAITED battle for Fallujah, in effect, began last night with US forces moving into parts of the rebel stronghold.

American and Iraqi military sources revealed that incursions began at 7pm local time with marines moving into the city through a number of routes following sustained and heavy artillery fire.

The military action followed the declaration of Iyad Allawi, Iraq’s interim prime minister, of martial law in the country, after stating that the offensive against Fallujah cannot be delayed any longer.

Sources say there will not be a full offensive on Fallujah. Instead, US forces and their Iraqi allies will take the city section by section by clearing houses.
The US military, along with the fledgling Iraqi security forces in tow, hopes the Fallujah offensive will deal a heavy blow to the insurgency, creating sufficient stability for the elections in January. The insurgents say they will counter with escalating violence.

US troops announced yesterday that they had: “isolated Fallujah” and that all traffic in and out of the city has been halted.

This is expected to be the biggest US marine-led urban assault since Vietnam. US commanders pumped up troop spirits yesterday, saying they were no different from the storied heroes of Iwo Jima and Korea.

Standing before some 2,500 marines, who stood or kneeled at his feet, Lt-Gen John F Sattler, the commanding general of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, told them that they would be at the front of the charge.
“This is America’s fight,” Lt-Gen Sattler said. “What we’ve added to it is our Iraqi partners. They want to go in and liberate Fallujah. They feel this town’s being held hostage by mugs, thugs, murderers and terrorists.”

Two marine battalions, along with a battalion from the Army’s 1st Infantry Division, will be the lead units sent into a Fallujah attack. They will be joined by two brigades of Iraqi troops.

“God bless you, each and every one. You know what your mission is. Go out there and get it done,” Lt-Gen Sattler said.

More than 10,000 US troops massed around the Sunni Muslim city are expected to take a role in the assault on Fallujah, whose green-lit minarets are visible from the US base near the city.

Sgt Maj Carlton W Kent, the senior enlisted marine in Iraq, told troops the coming battle of Fallujah would be “no different” to the historic fights at Inchon in Korea, the flag-raising victory at Iwo Jima, or the bloody Tet Offensive to remove North Vietnamese from the ancient citadel of Hue in 1968.

“You’re all in the process of making history,” boomed his clarion voice. “This is another Hue city in the making. I have no doubt, if we do get the word, that each and every one of you is going to do what you have always done - kick some butt.”

Marine battalion commander Lt-Col Mike Ramos said many of the young fighters would be going into combat for the first time. In the barracks, marines could be seen packing up gear, strapping anti-tank missile tubes to their packs.

“They’re sharpening their K-Bar fighting knives; they’re cleaning their weapons for the last time; they’ve fuelled their vehicles and they’ve rehearsed the plan,” said Lt-Col Ramos, 41, of Dallas.

Despite the grisly evidence of earlier US offensives against the insurgents Lt-Col Ramos predicted that “freedom and democracy” would prevail in Fallujah within days.

“Make no mistake about it, we’ll hand this city back to the Iraqi people,” he said. “I think it will be rapid.”

During the fight, rules of engagement allow US troops to shoot and kill anyone carrying a weapon or driving in Fallujah, a move aimed at allowing US troops to fire on car bombers, Lt-Col Ramos said. Military-age males trying to leave the city would be captured or turned back.

“If I see someone who looks like a martyr, driving at high speed toward my unit, I’ll send him to Allah before he gets close,” he told reporters embedded with US troops.

Lt-Gen Sattler reminded the troops that the assault would be a joint US-Iraqi effort. The fledgling Iraqi military, which has been under intense US training, needs to be led by example into the fight against Fallujah, he said. “They need you to motivate them,” he said. “You can feel the energy. You can feel the chemistry. You take that to the Iraqi forces as they join this fight.”

Sattler told the marines that their assault would allow Fallujah residents to “rise up” and take the town back, comparing the coming battle to the three-week August onslaught in Najaf, where marines and Army forces eventually forced a Shiite militia to drop their fight and leave the city.