To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 20111
20110  |  20112
Subject: 
Re: Newspeak 2003
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Tue, 1 Apr 2003 21:08:04 GMT
Viewed: 
183 times
  
Fredrik Glöckner wrote:

Another interesting term is "precision bombing".  The US government has
officially apologized to the Iranian government for US missiles hitting
Iranian soil.  They were obviously intended for Iraqi targets.
Apparantly, some have hit Saudi Arabia as well.  I think that to apply
the word "precision" to a weapon system makes little sense, when some
war heads don't even hit the correct country.

Fredrik

Note - the word "hit" needs to be qualified here.  Errant missiles have not
made it to their targets, but they basically crash-landed.  Tomahawks are
not fully armed until just before reaching their targets, so errant missiles
may cause small amounts of damage (and even civilian deaths) from simple
kinetic energy, but FAR, FAR less damage than Tomahawks that "hit" their
targets within Iraq with warheads that actually detonate.

And to the Turkish citizens throwing things at the people trying to retrieve
errant missiles - SHAME on you.  A major reason for retrieval is to help
figure out WHY they were errant (of course naysayers will say they were
retrieved so that other countries could not harvest the technology - while
this is a true concern, stopping it from happening again in the future is
the main concern).

Oh, and BTW, errant missiles count for less than 1% of the ones launched.
In just about ANY technology I can think of, a < 1% failure rate is pretty
good.


--
| Tom Stangl, Sun ONE Internet Technical Support, Sun Microsystems
| Sun ONE Support - http://www.sun.com/service/sunone/software/index.html
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: Newspeak 2003
 
(...) Hey, why not let China [et al] make a copy of a dud? ;) Scott A (22 years ago, 2-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: Newspeak 2003
 
(...) Tom, I know yourself as one of the most reasonable guys here, much more than most of the other guys here including myself. But Iwhat you are doing right now is trying to rationalize the things in a wrong way, I believe. Just imagine: Some (...) (22 years ago, 2-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Newspeak 2003
 
(...) No way! Are you saying that the word "terrorism" is misused to discredit the enemy? I am shocked! Another interesting term is "precision bombing". The US government has officially apologized to the Iranian government for US missiles hitting (...) (22 years ago, 1-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

24 Messages in This Thread:












Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR