Posted on 04/04/2008 9:43:40 PM PDT by Straight Vermonter
I bet they leave a bitchin heat signature for a close by drone?
I think we should send them a few missiles, every day.
LOL! This is hilarious. The idiots still don't realize that they aren't fighting the Russians, and it isn't 1985 anymore.
Even if they acquire the world's supply of antiaircraft missiles (which they won't) we an blanket the skies with drones--even stealthy drones--that can kill them at will.
I say sell them duds wired for sound with video.. and GPS positioning..
Whatever happened to the stingers that we gave them back in the ‘80s?
Their electronics packages are very delicate and only have a shelf life of a few years before they have to receive a full diagnostics checkup and have certain parts replaced.
The SAM rockets themselves are also designed to have a short shelf life, by international treaty.
Wait a minute! Who makes a better shoulder fired anti-aircraft missle than the the US Stinger? The Mujahadin didn’t use all its Singers back when the soviets occupied Afghanistan. The USAF tested some Stingers back in 2001 that had been in long term storage. They worked perfectly. If the Taliban can’t use their existing Stingers against US aircraft and helicopters, what makes them think any other vendor’s hardware will work?
To me that makes the plan of attack rather obvious. Destroy the opium crop.
Not to mention that the rocket motor tends to develop cracks after a while (no matter how you store it) and you have to replace it. If you are stupid and try to fire it in that state, one of three things will happen: 1. The missile will detonate in the tube. 2. The missile will launch and then immediately detonate as it leaves the launcher. 3. The missile will detonate shortly after launching but not close enough to endanger the user.
Amusingly, those three Stinger failures are considered “acceptable” in the Russian/Soviet counterpart systems. Anyone using Russian surface to air systems deserves what they get.
The USAF missiles were properly prepped for storage and when removed from storage were partially refreshed with new batteries.
Unfortunately for the Muj and the Taliban, the batteries in the ones we gave them have long since died, they’re a very strange size and voltage (among other differences) and an off-the-shelf battery will not work.
No battery, no boom.
Why not advise the farmers that if they do not grow the crop, the U.S. will pay them what they would have gotten for it? Further advice would include that we would have aerial inspection at all times, and if they did grow and try to “double dip”, the farmer would be executed, his lands taken over by a more honest farmer. It would be cheaper than continuing military ops.
We can't build a fence on the Mexican border.. No doubt because that would hinder the drug trade.. The drug trade that keeps America drugged and oblivious.. and wants it that way.. We have NOW the government we want.. Yes we do...
Yeah, just like those Coca leaf trade in places like Colombia and the Marijuana trade in the continental US and Mexico. I read a year or so ago that the US might have considered finding a medical use for Afganistan’s cash crop so that this conflict wouldn’t get turned into another front in a hopeless 30 year long drug war. But instead of trying a change in strategy they’re probably going to drive the industry underground, depend on the corrupt and inept “government” of Afganistan to turn Afganistan into a viable state, and in the process keep the Taleban entrenched, well armed, and well financed. Brilliant, only why do our troops have to be continuously set up for failure?
Right now, I hear that the defense department is having trouble procuring enough uavs for Iraq, much less Afganistan. Don’t know whether its a funding problem, politics, or bureaucratic ineptitude, but I agree that UAVs are the future.
It’s not a matter of finding them, the air force doesn’t want to use them. They have been ordered by the Pentagon to send them to Asia over their strenuous objections.
If you left out the executed part you might have a viable idea.
In today’s political climate that summary execution stuff is out of fashion.
Not a whole lot of opium is coming across the Mexican boarder.
The object of my comment is to dry up the Taliban’s source of funding.
On the surface this does not sound like a bad idea.
But think about it for a little while and it falls apart.
First how much opiates can the world use. I have not heard of any shortages lately.
Put the illegal opium in the legal market and you will drive down the price and the farmers either will make less money or the US will have to subsidize the farmers’ crop.
Also buy the farmers’ crop on the legal market will not stop the Taliban from find other farmers to grow poppies for illegal opium trade. The illegal farmers will always make more money than the legit farmers.
The Taliban could also steal the cooperative farmers’ crop and sell it on the illegal market. Is the US going to station troops to guard opium fields?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.