Thursday, 04.17.08
Con-Fuzed
US Army
Stay or Go?
13 November 2006
Several Atlantic writers consider whether we ought to stay in Iraq or leave.
Will the Petraeus strategy be the last?
17 September 2007
The roadside bomb is the signature weapon of the Iraq war, but measured purely by the man-hours of dread they inspire, rockets and mortars easily have it beat. Roadside bombs kill soldiers only when they're on the road. But indirect fire can hit U.S. bases at any hour, in any place, and with little warning. (Some bases have red-alert sirens, which usually crank up only after the attack has started and are therefore widely ignored.) The homey comforts of the bases -- rich food, well-stocked stores, fast-food restaurants -- only increase the psychological stress, since they make death a constant presence during what otherwise feels like your safest moments. That war-zone Whopper tastes a lot less like comfort-food when you know each bite could be your last.
The effect of these new weapons is to rob U.S. soldiers of one small consolation: Whereas rockets that use a point-detonated fuze (an object on the nose of the rocket that causes it to blow up when it hits its target) often don't explode when they land in bases, these new fuzes rely on radio-frequency detonation and probably produce fewer duds. And when the fuze activates, the rocket explodes a few meters above the ground, rather than on the ground -- creating a wider and more deadly kill-radius.
Although these fuzes could, if used correctly, substantially reduce the security of American soldiers, there is good news. First, the leaked document says U.S. forces found the proximity-fuze weapons in February 2006. It has been a long time since then, and the casualty rate from mortars does not, from anecdotal reports, seem to have increased much, if at all. The second, more interesting bit of good news is that the mortars that do land are not always targeted precisely. A properly trained mortar team can be miles away and drop a mortar in an area the size of my office. The Green Zone, site of much of the civilian government, is well-mapped, and mortars do rain down in tight clusters there. But on military bases -- where photography and maps are prohibited -- they land much less precisely.
The leaked report, classified as secret, wasn't even sure whether the insurgents knew their new fuzes were better than the ones they had been using. Judging by the middling skill with which they've been lobbing the rockets in so far, it's quite possible the insurgents are as clueless as the report hopes. But even if they are, it's a scandal that at this late stage in the war they're able to shoot mortars and rockets into U.S. bases so easily, rattling nerves even when they toss in a poorly-aimed dud.
Casualty makerDavid Hambling parses (and links to) an Army intelligence report on proximity fuzes. |
Chopper safetyGreg Grant explains how proximity fuzes make American helicopters more vulnerable. |
A weapon's storied historyEd Jennings writes that the proximity fuze was key to the Allied victory in World War II. |
Used in battleThis film begins with text explaining proximity fuzes -- skip forward to see combat footage. This one shows a mortar attack on a US base in Afghanistan. |
Will it help the insurgents?A message board conversation at Military.com concerns whether Wikileaks should have posted a classified document about proximity fuzes. |
(3)
I am wondering why this article was even written. To an outsider it seams irresponsible, and I would say that it has increased a threat to our troops lives. It seems that you found a leaked Secret document (it might be the real McCoy though your source seems untrustworthy and sensational), and decided to write an in depth article about it including the source document itself and some other facts without any reference or true tie to the rest of the article. This 'leaked document' was Secret because of the possibly threatening information that it contained. I would like to hear a response from the author about why he thinks that this was a responsible article to write. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I am going to hope that the American people truly needed to learn about this and that he did not just endanger any of my friends or family to simply 'publish'. Maybe there is something to this article that I am not seeing. Please, tell me what that is.
O please! Our troops' lives are threatened by this idiotic war policy that's put them in an impossible situation, and a little truth is going to harm them?
Congratulations to every journalist who cuts through the lies, the lies that kill our soldiers, promulgated by a president who should be impeached and tried for war crimes.
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Current does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
-->
This illustrates the idiocy of the Bush/McCain "strategy" and the nuttiness of our weapons spending.
We invest billions in high-tech weapons, but our troops can't easily defend themselves against these low-tech devices. And our understaffed forces in Afghanistan still unsuccessfully pursue the people who actually attacked us.
We're preparing for a war against, maybe, China, or Russia -- while the real challenges facing us lie with grunt-level combat fought in the old-fashioned way with small arms and close-in air support.
This isn't a "dove" vs "hawk" discussion, it's a smart vs stupid discussion.
Posted by denis arvay | April 18, 2008 8:53 AM