03-04-2003, 09:37 PM
The assumptions you make are erroneous.
I know what goes into targeting, and single sensor targeting is slowly but surely becoming a thing of the past, precisely for the reasons being discussed in this thread. The profound poltical impact of errors in targeting, particularly when the governments involved, for example, any NATO government, has as its goal the minimization of targeting errors. You don't want to blow up a nursery if you are aiming for an electrical switching station. 1) i It is a waste of a sortie and a bomb 2) you don't, aAS A MATTER OF POLICY target non combatants, 3) you have political trouble to deal with thanks to the way the modern age works: war as a spectator sport on CNN.
Even so, with multi source infor being used for targeting, errors are still made. The error rate, however, is well below 1%. Try that error rate in any other endeavour.
Great illustration? The Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. Error. How the intelligence services of 16 countries could not agree on where that 'non target' was (NATO target lists go through a formal targeting board to get on the approved target lists: that is official NATO military doctrine), I considers it as being as much an error in 'war by committee' as a pure human error.
I imagine the briefing to pilots on that raid: "These coordinates house non targets, thus, if you lock on to it abort the drop and go to secondary target" All it takes is the briefing card to have a single typo . . .
If your assumptions were correct, in the microwave transmissions example, then the perception of callousness certainly would pass my common sense test.
I know what goes into targeting, and single sensor targeting is slowly but surely becoming a thing of the past, precisely for the reasons being discussed in this thread. The profound poltical impact of errors in targeting, particularly when the governments involved, for example, any NATO government, has as its goal the minimization of targeting errors. You don't want to blow up a nursery if you are aiming for an electrical switching station. 1) i It is a waste of a sortie and a bomb 2) you don't, aAS A MATTER OF POLICY target non combatants, 3) you have political trouble to deal with thanks to the way the modern age works: war as a spectator sport on CNN.
Even so, with multi source infor being used for targeting, errors are still made. The error rate, however, is well below 1%. Try that error rate in any other endeavour.
Great illustration? The Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. Error. How the intelligence services of 16 countries could not agree on where that 'non target' was (NATO target lists go through a formal targeting board to get on the approved target lists: that is official NATO military doctrine), I considers it as being as much an error in 'war by committee' as a pure human error.
I imagine the briefing to pilots on that raid: "These coordinates house non targets, thus, if you lock on to it abort the drop and go to secondary target" All it takes is the briefing card to have a single typo . . .
If your assumptions were correct, in the microwave transmissions example, then the perception of callousness certainly would pass my common sense test.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete