Search

IT Employment

General discussion

Gravatar
Locked

The Patriot

By Oz_Media ·
Last night I was watching a W5 report on the Partiot missiles failure and how the government had mislead not only American citizens but the Amry too. The end result was that American's were killed because they were assued the Patriot would intercept a scud coming at their bunker. If they had taken normal cover proceedures, they may have lived but since they were assured that the Patriot had been intercepting scuds (actually 0 for 41) they waited patiently and unfortunately died. Now the government's lies are killing soldiers. I took notes and wrote a short paper based on the information provided. I have posted it to a freind's website and would like feedback as to your thoughts on the situation.
NOTE: I am not aiming this as an attack on American's but it was a real eye opener to see the evidence put forth and made me wonder about the accuracy in their saying the American public is blind to the issue, even though it has been well known for over 12 years that the Patriot has NEVER made a successful SCUD intercept.

Here's a link to the paper I put together (in haste at midnight, ignore bad grammar please)
http://tinyurl.com/17a

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

97 total posts (Page 1 of 10)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
+ Follow this Discussion ·
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

gravatar
Collapse -

Repost URL

by timwalsh In reply to The Patriot

I think part of it got cut of. There's usually four characters in the last part of the URL.

gravatar
Collapse -

NEW URL Sorry

by Oz_Media In reply to The Patriot

I went to the page and again got the same Tiny URL,it is no good.

Here's the full addy:

http://www.rushcatering.com/Patriot.doc

gravatar
Collapse -

To open you eyes further

by Oldefar In reply to The Patriot

Take a look at some additional references -
http://www.cdi.org/issues/bmd/Patriot.html
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/gao/im92026.htm
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/patriot/
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/gao/im92026.htm
http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/disasters/patriot.html

I opted not to trust TinyURL on these.

Now for some of your points and questions. I don't know anyone who thought the SCUD had sufficient range even after modification to hit anywhere outside of the Middle East. If either the US media or some segment of the population had that idea I never heard about it.

Effective is a relative term. I never thought any weapon or defense system was 100% effective, or was expected to be. The TRIAD system of nuclear missile silos, bombers, and submarine launched missiles that supported the MAD policy during the Cold War was a result of that. For the Gulf War, the Patriot was the only missile defense system active. A modified anti-aircraft system.

During the Gulf War, I never felt there was an implied promise of effectiveness. There was a hope for success against SCUD missiles, in particular against those launched towards Israel. A key factor was keeping Israel on the sideline, a tough request when under attack.

There is a very legitimate reason for limiting the publication of military performance. I may be able to convince you to stop an action if I have a gun pointed at you. This is less likely if my gun is known to shoot only blanks. As long as you think it may pose a threat or defense, you must take it into consideration with your plans. This also would explain why Saddam would act as if he had WMD to hide if he did not.

As for Star Wars, a totally secure defensive system is a pipe dream. The 9-11 attack again demonstrates how low tech approaches can wreak havoc if the attackers are willing to make the sacrifice. However, advances from pursuing Star Wars may prove a gain for us all. Military programs often provide rapid advancements in other areas - transportation, communications, information technology, process and procedure, manufacturing, medicine.

gravatar
Collapse -

This is OLD news

by maxwell edison In reply to The Patriot

A 10 month investigation by the U.S. House of Representatives Government Operations subcommittee on Legislation and National Security concluded that there was little evidence to prove that the Patriot hit more than a few Scuds. (It actually had only about a 27% hit rate in that first Gulf War.) Testimony was provided in these VERY PUBLIC hearings by a number of people.

The hearings were in April, 1992 - WELL BEFORE the 1992 elections.

There were even a couple of mishaps with the Patriot in the recent Iraq war. Perhaps you read about those. (Again, nothing that an "informed" person wouldn't have heard.)

Your paper is just dripping with mistruths and half-truths. I would point them all out, but I think it's rather pointless. You should do your own research on the subject instead of relying on a biased CBC story.

Here's a tip for you. If you read of hear something in the news (or in one of those "documentary" type stories), do some research to try to disprove a claim or to see it from the other perspective. Your findings will be quite interesting. An old debate class strategy - take the opposing view and find ways to support it. That's the best way to defeat it. And in this case, it's a good way to see something in a more balanced way.

gravatar
Collapse -

My point exactly

by Oz_Media In reply to This is OLD news

"Your paper is just dripping with mistruths and half-truths. I would point them all out, but I think it's rather pointless. You should do your own research on the subject instead of relying on a biased CBC story.

Here's a tip for you. If you read of hear something in the news (or in one of those "documentary" type stories), do some research to try to disprove a claim or to see it from the other perspective. Your findings will be quite interesting. An old debate class strategy - take the opposing view and find ways to support it. That's the best way to defeat it. And in this case, it's a good way to see something in a more balanced way."

gee Max, I think that is what I'm trying to do. You should know I don't believe ANYTHING I hear or read, I'm the first one to shoot down biased media, unless written by Richard Scarry.
MANY countries including the US had contributed to these statements via live interviews, it wasn't just a CBC angle, although somewhat colored for TV viewers.

The statements were that NO Patriots had EVER intercepted (hit and destroyed) a SCUD. The American press also stated that MOST Americans still believe they were effective.

gravatar
Collapse -

Provide links to your sources

by maxwell edison In reply to My point exactly

Find a reliable American source that said, "NO Patriots had EVER intercepted (hit and destroyed) a SCUD". I don't think you can.

Find another "American press" source that said, "MOST Americans still believe they (the partiots) were effective". Again, I don't think you can.

You claim to credit (or blame, whichever it is you're doing) an American media source for what you heard stated (or aired) by a Canadian media outlet. What's wrong with this picture?

And anyone who thinks that the American military would want to use an ineffective weapon, and would conceal its ineffectiveness to serve that end, doesn't have a clue about how the military operates. If anything, they would be screaming about how ineffective it was so they could justify budget increases to update it.

gravatar
Collapse -

Interviews

by Oz_Media In reply to Provide links to your sou ...

Interviews condicted shortly after the initial trials as well as after the Gulf War with American Military officers (Ok, they MAY have been Canadians POSING as American military officers)showed them ADMITTING to the judge who conducted the trial that the SCUD had NEVER hit a target. Well they tried to ***** foot and rephrase the judges question into 'Intercepted' missiles. But then were asked for their definition of Intercept, which was "...crossing the path or matching the tradjectory at SOME point".


["Find a reliable AMERICAN SOURCE that said, "NO Patriots had EVER intercepted (hit and destroyed) a SCUD". I DON'T THINK YOU CAN.]

[..."American military would want to use an ineffective weapon, and would CONCEAL IT'S INEFFECTIVENESS"]

Hmmmmmmmmmmm, I think you're on to something here.
Let's see, No American sources of this info, yet, American's wouldn't conceal the info. But it was taped live at the trial (You're right Max, they must have been Canadian imposters dressed up as American military officials).


"Find a source that says they were ineffective..."
it was taped video of the American military trials after Tel Aviv comlpained they were lied to about the Patriot's effectiveness. Patriots were 'apparently' hitting SCUDS but TelAviv was still getting hit by the SCUDS that had apparently been destroyed (sorry, 'intercepted')

"Find a source who says the Americans would conceal this information"....How about the fact that YOU can't find an AMERICAN source that says they never DESTROYED a SCUD. Many sources will say they intercepted SCUDS, but again, as the American military officials stated in court, they have a different definition of INTERCEPT.

gravatar
Collapse -

Intercept VS Destroy

by generalist In reply to My point exactly

Interception and destruction are two different things.

If you make the claim that NO Patriots had EVER utterly destroyed a SCUD, converting it into completely harmless pieces that fall to the ground without causing problems I would totally agree with you.

Unfortunately, technology isn't quite at the point where you get complete destruction and an intercept that 'kills' a missle doesn't necessarily keep it from causing damage when the missle AND the interceptor fall to the ground.

The interception may keep the missle from hitting it's intended target with a functional payload. But it doesn't prevent a target of accidental opportunity from being hit as a consequence.

I would have to see the W5 program to see how they deal with the fact that a 'killed' missle still has the capability of doing damage just by falling out of the sky. And if W5 uses the word 'intercept' to mean 'hit and destroy', then they are playing fast and loose with the language.

gravatar
Collapse -

Intercept VS Destroy

by generalist In reply to My point exactly

Interception and destruction are two different things.

If you make the claim that NO Patriots had EVER utterly destroyed a SCUD, converting it into completely harmless pieces that fall to the ground without causing problems I would totally agree with you.

Unfortunately, technology isn't quite at the point where you get complete destruction and an intercept that 'kills' a missle doesn't necessarily keep it from causing damage when the missle AND the interceptor fall to the ground.

The interception may keep the missle from hitting it's intended target with a functional payload. But it doesn't prevent a target of accidental opportunity from being hit as a consequence.

I would have to see the W5 program to see how they deal with the fact that a 'killed' missle still has the capability of doing damage just by falling out of the sky. And if W5 uses the word 'intercept' to mean 'hit and destroy', then they are playing fast and loose with the language.

gravatar
Collapse -

Not just pieces

by Oz_Media In reply to Intercept VS Destroy

The SCUD warheads were completely intact and hammered on the intended targets with complete destruction. What was shown to many as a successful interception was actually a SCUD breaking apart as it neared it's target. The widely aired firest M-M intercept wasn't even a Patriot shooting at a SCUD, but a misfire due to a computer error, admittedly by the American DOD.
the Patriot simply flew and detonated in mid air.
as for tapes of SCUDS being HIT by Patriots, they were found to be SCUDS breaking up naturally as they neared targets, due to heat and exceesive vibration.

Back to IT Employment Forum
97 total posts (Page 1 of 10)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Start or search

Related Discussions

Related Forums