NationStates Jolt Archive

It's going to suck to be the guy who plants roadside bombs from now on. AC-130s will be patroling the skies in Iraq. They'll be able to monitor action on the ground from a high altitude and respond with 25mm, 40mm, and 105mm shells.

I'd post a video of one in action in Afghanistan, but I'd probably get banned. Even grainy, long-range, night vision images of death are not allowed in NS General.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11657894/

I'd post a video of one in action in Afghanistan, but I'd probably get banned. Even grainy, long-range, night vision images of death are not allowed in NS General.
Indeed, for we are as innocent and pure as lambs, and the corrupting influence of the Internets must be kept at bay, lest we lose our lilly white natures and descend into anarchy, lawlessness, and other such redundancies.

So why didn't they bring these puppies over sooner? Not a statement on right or wrong about the war just wondering why would anyone do only half a job?

So why didn't they bring these puppies over sooner? Not a statement on right or wrong about the war just wondering why would anyone do only half a job?
They had them for a while. Used them in Falujah according to the article.

They had them for a while. Used them in Falujah according to the article.

If I remember right the Falujah thing cost the Mahdi army quite a few fighters.

If I remember right the Falujah thing cost the Mahdi army quite a few fighters.
I think the mahdi army was involved in the Najaf fight. Fallujah, IIRC, was against Sunni insurgents.

I think the mahdi army was involved in the Najaf fight. Fallujah, IIRC, was against Sunni insurgents.

No doubt you are right.

It's going to suck to be the guy who plants roadside bombs from now on.

As well as men, women, children, stray canadians, Italian secret service people, Iraqi police and others on the ground.

As well as men, women, children, stray canadians, Italian secret service people, Iraqi police and others on the ground.
Actually compared to past wars the number of civilian casualties due to American guns and bombs has been very low.

Actually compared to past wars the number of civilian casualties due to American guns and bombs has been very low.

I do not see the use of 40mm and 105mm calibre shells in urban areas (presuming they are used there), as something that would be suitable in order to keep down collateral damage. Furthermore, the use of such large calibre weapons would in all likelyhood run the risk of detonating said bombs.

Besides, how do you tell the difference between a roadside bomb and a sack of potatos from up there unless the person planting the bomb was very open about it?

I beleive the AC 130 is what they call a gunship. Those things mean business.

http://dc-mrg.english.ucsb.edu/WarnerTeach/E165mc/image/ac130.large.jpg

I do not see the use of 40mm and 105mm calibre shells in urban areas (presuming they are used there), as something that would be suitable in order to keep down collateral damage. Furthermore, the use of such large calibre weapons would in all likelyhood run the risk of detonating said bombs.

Besides, how do you tell the difference between a roadside bomb and a sack of potatos from up there unless the person planting the bomb was very open about it?
If a guy's fiddling around with something at 2 AM on the side of the road leading to Baghdad airport, It's likely not a sack of potatos.

If a guy's fiddling around with something at 2 AM on the side of the road leading to Baghdad airport, It's likely not a sack of potatos.

He could be making "French" fries. Although I guess that is all the more reason to open up with the gattling gun. Anyway these are an intimidation factor. When an enemy hears or see's these over head they are going to run. Ask the Vietnamese what they thought of these. The term death from above surely fits these things.

If a guy's fiddling around with something at 2 AM on the side of the road leading to Baghdad airport, It's likely not a sack of potatos.

Best shoot first and ask questions later. Who cares about the innocent?

Best shoot first and ask questions later. Who cares about the innocent?
Certainly not the mighty and just United States of America.

Best shoot first and ask questions later. Who cares about the innocent?
In some situations you should shoot first. For example in the situation I mentioned earlier. Innocent people don't hang out on the side of the most dangerous road in Iraq at 2 am. Guys planting roadside bombs do.

Certainly not the mighty and just United States of America.

The understatement of the last six decades.

In some situations you should shoot first. For example in the situation I mentioned earlier. Innocent people don't hang out on the side of the most dangerous road in Iraq at 2 am. Guys planting roadside bombs do.

Such wonderful values to fight for.

Such wonderful values to fight for.
What does killing an insurgent who's planting a roadside bomb have to do with values?

What does killing an insurgent who's planting a roadside bomb have to do with values?
the "shooting first and asking questions later" value, perhaps?

What does killing an insurgent who's planting a roadside bomb have to do with values?

Very little indeed, as it is quite poor the value that lies behind assuming guilt above innocence. Funny, I thought Saddam was bad when he did that...

the "shooting first and asking questions later" value, perhaps?
So it's better to let an insurgent plant a bomb that may kill a dozen men than to shoot him and risk the extremely slim possibility that he's just an insomniac who likes to dig holes on the side of the most dangerous road in Iraq in the wee small hours of the morning?

Nice reasoning. I question your values if you're willing to take that risk. You know civilians travel that road too.

Very little indeed, as it is quite poor the value that lies behind assuming guilt above innocence. Funny, I thought Saddam was bad when he did that...
Assuming guilt above innocence based on evidence is something that's done every day.

Screw the AC 130. I want to see more of these fuckers flying around.

http://www.holloman.af.mil/airshow2005/images/A-10%201.jpg

Btw, the A-10 is an anti tank aircraft.. good luck using it in Iraq.

Anyway, this is good news. Something to help keep all coalition troops out of danger. Can you TG me the footage link, Drunk Commies?

Assuming guilt above innocence based on evidence is something that's done every day.

Yes, and apparently what suffices for "evidence" in this value system is being some place. Because we all know that being at the scene of the presumed crime before it is committed is having committed the crime.

Yes, and apparently what suffices for "evidence" in this value system is being someplace.
Lingering in a certain location known for roadside bombs at a time of night when normal people are asleep, during an insurgency. Don't make it out like they'd be shooting a guy standing on the corner leaning up against a post in broad daylight.

Btw, the A-10 is an anti tank aircraft.. good luck using it in Iraq.

Anyway, this is good news. Something to help keep all coalition troops out of danger. Can you TG me the footage link, Drunk Commies?
Will do. Look for it in a couple of minutes.

So it's better to let an insurgent plant a bomb that may kill a dozen men than to shoot him and risk the extremely slim possibility that he's just an insomniac who likes to dig holes on the side of the most dangerous road in Iraq in the wee small hours of the morning?

Nice reasoning. I question your values if you're willing to take that risk. You know civilians travel that road too.
I wasn't defending the value, I was defining it for you. You're welcome.

Lingering in a certain location known for roadside bombs at a time of night when normal people are asleep, during an insurgency.

Yup. Being some place is "evidence" of culpability. What a glorious system.

Don't make it out like they'd be shooting a guy standing on the corner leaning up against a post in broad daylight.

You're talking about the US military - such course of action would not surprise me in the least, as they're not exactly famous for being a force of righteous actions.

He could be making "French" fries. Although I guess that is all the more reason to open up with the gattling gun. Anyway these are an intimidation factor. When an enemy hears or see's these over head they are going to run. Ask the Vietnamese what they thought of these. The term death from above surely fits these things.
Death from above was referring to the B-52 bombers, which flew way too high for anyone to shoot down. These things fly very low and very slow, and at least one has already been shot down over Iraq by a ground to air missle.

Death from above was referring to the B-52 bombers, which flew way too high for anyone to shoot down. These things fly very low and very slow, and at least one has already been shot down over Iraq by a ground to air missle.
I know one was shot down during Desert Storm, but I wasn't aware any were shot down during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Btw, the A-10 is an anti tank aircraft.. good luck using it in Iraq.

Anyway, this is good news. Something to help keep all coalition troops out of danger. Can you TG me the footage link, Drunk Commies?

It's actually close air support. It can be used against ground positions of any kind.

I know one was shot down during Desert Storm, but I wasn't aware any were shot down during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
haha, that name never fails to make me laugh. Soooooo Orwellian, soooo stupid.

haha, that name never fails to make me laugh. Soooooo Orwellian, soooo stupid.
It does kind of suck. Operation Angry Shrub would have been alot more fun.

haha, that name never fails to make me laugh. Soooooo Orwellian, soooo stupid.

To me, it has more cringe than humour value, this far down the road into quagmire...

I know one was shot down during Desert Storm, but I wasn't aware any were shot down during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Looking at it again, I think the site I got that from was referring to the first Gulf War...still, it goes to show that they're vulnerable to ground fire, and I'm sure they'll be big targets for the fighters on the ground.

Looking at it again, I think the site I got that from was referring to the first Gulf War...still, it goes to show that they're vulnerable to ground fire, and I'm sure they'll be big targets for the fighters on the ground.
They've got chaff and flares, and the fighters on the ground are using modified RPGs to target aircraft, not ManPADs. RPGs aren't all that accurate and don't have the range to hit fixed wing aircraft. If the insurgents do get their hands on ManPADs the flares on board the AC-130 should give it a good chance of not being hit, and the size of the plane plus the fact that it has multiple engines gives it a chance of limping back if it is hit.

Hey Questers, did you get my TG?

Death from above was referring to the B-52 bombers, which flew way too high for anyone to shoot down. These things fly very low and very slow, and at least one has already been shot down over Iraq by a ground to air missle.

Don't recall saying that the term was coined by the ghost's/spectre's. I said the saying fits is all. Yes they are vurnerable from enemy ground fire aka shoulder fired missles. Although I am not sure if I for one would want to expose myself long enough to target and fire on one of these.

It does kind of suck. Operation Angry Shrub would have been alot more fun.


Maybe operation "you tried to kill my daddy"?

They've got chaff and flares, and the fighters on the ground are using modified RPGs to target aircraft, not ManPADs. RPGs aren't all that accurate and don't have the range to hit fixed wing aircraft. If the insurgents do get their hands on ManPADs the flares on board the AC-130 should give it a good chance of not being hit, and the size of the plane plus the fact that it has multiple engines gives it a chance of limping back if it is hit.

Very true, I don't believe that any were actually lost in Vietnam. I believe they were hit and took a few casualties but did make it back to base. The one if the first gulf war was actually shot down off the coast of Kuwait in a support mission for Special Forces. I believe all were lost in that one. Don't think any were lost in Afghanistan either. The plane has a good track record overall.

Yea, I got the vid (sorry I was revising for GCSE stuff) it's pretty cool -- I wasn't sure when they'd start shooting, didn't see any tracer or anything - what did they engage the first target with?

Oh yeah, and RPGs for anti air.. lol..

Actually compared to past wars the number of civilian casualties due to American guns and bombs has been very low.


Wow...Thats good to hear .I'm sure the 30,000 dead Iraqis appreciate how small their sacrifice on behalf of the US is......

Besides, how do you tell the difference between a roadside bomb and a sack of potatos from up there unless the person planting the bomb was very open about it?

Join the military, they will be glad to teach you how that is done. :eek:

AC-130s will be patroling the skies in Iraq.
What, all three of them?

They better damn well stay away from using those howitzers. They're no good in an urban environment.

What, all three of them?

They better damn well stay away from using those howitzers. They're no good in an urban environment.

IEDS are not planted only in urban areas, they are also planted along roads in rural areas. :(