<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" > <channel><title>Comments on: Beating The Low Signature Enemy</title> <atom:link href="http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/22/beating-the-low-signature-enemy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/22/beating-the-low-signature-enemy/</link> <description>Online Defense and Acquisition Journal</description> <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:33:29 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <item><title>By: Board O. Byron</title><link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/22/beating-the-low-signature-enemy/#comment-18113</link> <dc:creator>Board O. Byron</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2009 20:29:10 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12038#comment-18113</guid> <description>Byron!! Get back on your Med&#039;s!!!....Darn it man, I bet you could talk to yourself for hours! </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Byron!! Get back on your Med’s!!!.…Darn it man, I bet you could talk to yourself for hours!</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: BooDogCrap</title><link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/22/beating-the-low-signature-enemy/#comment-18111</link> <dc:creator>BooDogCrap</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2009 20:02:55 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12038#comment-18111</guid> <description>77705256 These tactics are field proven - yet may not produce the desired results - situation dependent! Strike - Counter  - Strike - Counter - fail Revise - Strike - Counter - Strike - WIN lots of variables, yet proven to work in a high percentage of cases </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>77705256<br /> These tactics are field proven — yet may not produce the desired results — situation dependent!</p><p>Strike — Counter  — Strike — Counter — fail</p><p>Revise — Strike — Counter — Strike — WIN</p><p>lots of variables, yet proven to work in a high percentage of cases</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: James</title><link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/22/beating-the-low-signature-enemy/#comment-18104</link> <dc:creator>James</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2009 18:40:12 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12038#comment-18104</guid> <description>I concur.  I went to war with Marine Recon in Vietnam, small units, extremely effective, however we had a very high casullaty rate.  Then went to an Army Special Forces A team, a slightly bigger unit, but again extremely effective.  We could win the war with team leaders, but the generals would be denied their glory. The only thing that I disagree with is the &quot;relatively little support&quot;.  Small specialized units usually require at least twice as much support units as conventional units.  SF units are backwards designed from a normal unit. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I concur.  I went to war with Marine Recon in Vietnam, small units, extremely effective, however we had a very high casullaty rate.  Then went to an Army Special Forces A team, a slightly bigger unit, but again extremely effective.  We could win the war with team leaders, but the generals would be denied their glory. The only thing that I disagree with is the “relatively little support”.  Small specialized units usually require at least twice as much support units as conventional units.  SF units are backwards designed from a normal unit.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Cwolf88</title><link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/22/beating-the-low-signature-enemy/#comment-18103</link> <dc:creator>Cwolf88</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2009 18:19:28 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12038#comment-18103</guid> <description>I attended a presentation by the USMC&#039;s anthropologist and she asked an interesting question:&quot;Why do folks fight wars?&quot; Equally good question is how do you end wars? We have a linear force that is organized, manned, trained, and equipped to fight a similar opposing force in uniform on a front line with a secure rear area while on the move. The traditional focus has always been on killing the Bad Guys.  In asymmetric war (guerilla war), where is the force to be destroyed?  If they would just wear uniforms and mass in an open field, we could kill them all. I&#039;m as fond of 60 ton, high tech, multi-million dollar tanks with a huge infrastructure tail as anyone (or planes or boats or missiles), but 80% of the Bad Guys are being killed by 20% of the Good Guys with small arms today. The Soviets allegedly killed 1 million Afghans and bombed them back to grass soup.  Shall we kill them all to save them?  Soviets did that, too, with some populations. If we had a Taliban &quot;bomb&quot; today and killed all the Taliban (pick whatever group you want to kill), would the war be over? I have no problem with killing folks.  There is only a definable pot of resources; the question is how to accomplish the mission (assuming we can define measurable mission outcomes). Throwing rocks and name calling are national sports, but, aside from the entertainment value, it accomplishes little. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I attended a presentation by the USMC’s anthropologist and she asked an interesting question:“Why do folks fight wars?“<br /> Equally good question is how do you end wars?<br /> We have a linear force that is organized, manned, trained, and equipped to fight a similar opposing force in uniform on a front line with a secure rear area while on the move.<br /> The traditional focus has always been on killing the Bad Guys.  In asymmetric war (guerilla war), where is the force to be destroyed?  If they would just wear uniforms and mass in an open field, we could kill them all.<br /> I’m as fond of 60 ton, high tech, multi-million dollar tanks with a huge infrastructure tail as anyone (or planes or boats or missiles), but 80% of the Bad Guys are being killed by 20% of the Good Guys with small arms today.<br /> The Soviets allegedly killed 1 million Afghans and bombed them back to grass soup.  Shall we kill them all to save them?  Soviets did that, too, with some populations.<br /> If we had a Taliban “bomb” today and killed all the Taliban (pick whatever group you want to kill), would the war be over?<br /> I have no problem with killing folks.  There is only a definable pot of resources; the question is how to accomplish the mission (assuming we can define measurable mission outcomes).<br /> Throwing rocks and name calling are national sports, but, aside from the entertainment value, it accomplishes little.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: anton</title><link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/22/beating-the-low-signature-enemy/#comment-18081</link> <dc:creator>anton</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:14:48 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12038#comment-18081</guid> <description>We here at Lockheed Martin will stay ahead n future types of super air domination,wich we are are all ready making a asembly line for.Of course we have our fellow partners that will be helping us in the fute as we help them stay ahead!If we could only show you what we have now,that makes the air or UAV now look 20 years old!! </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We here at Lockheed Martin will stay ahead n future types of super air domination,wich we are are all ready making a asembly line for.Of course we have our fellow partners that will be helping us in the fute as we help them stay ahead!If we could only show you what we have now,that makes the air or UAV now look 20 years old!!</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: todd caswell</title><link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/22/beating-the-low-signature-enemy/#comment-18077</link> <dc:creator>todd caswell</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:37:33 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12038#comment-18077</guid> <description>Sir, go back a few years more. Post desert storm, we got stuck paying the no fly zones, trillion or 2 dollars, with the end in site.... </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sir, go back a few years more. Post desert storm, we got stuck paying the no fly zones, trillion or 2 dollars, with the end in site.…</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: WarPony</title><link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/22/beating-the-low-signature-enemy/#comment-18053</link> <dc:creator>WarPony</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 30 Dec 2009 05:02:53 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12038#comment-18053</guid> <description>When the eufrrprc-5thgenmil comes knocking, and it will when WE&#8217;re weak, theories will have a robust way of turning up as stubborn things - facts.  Fact is, when you boil it down it is painful to see who profits - not US not now and I&#039;m not the first to dis tyranny from the empire.  lol - Halliburton is a &quot;roof&quot; contractor. As for collateral damage, look around in our yard and tell me who is hurting.  I guess if you&#8217;re not PO&#8217;d, you&#8217;re not paying close attention and history does repeat.  &#8220;ALLONS&#8221; &#8211; cool. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When the eufrrprc-5thgenmil comes knocking, and it will when WE’re weak, theories will have a robust way of turning up as stubborn things — facts.  Fact is, when you boil it down it is painful to see who profits — not US not now and I’m not the first to dis tyranny from the empire.  lol — Halliburton is a “roof” contractor.</p><p>As for collateral damage, look around in our yard and tell me who is hurting.  I guess if you’re not PO’d, you’re not paying close attention and history does repeat.  “ALLONS” – cool.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: William C.</title><link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/22/beating-the-low-signature-enemy/#comment-18052</link> <dc:creator>William C.</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 30 Dec 2009 05:00:39 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12038#comment-18052</guid> <description>Good to see your conveniently ignore those two Chinese AWACS in hangers, and in case you think both crashed there is another photo showing all four hangers with AWACS inside. Cowards who won&#039;t even post under the own names? Are you serious? Your service in Vietnam is no excuse for coming into EVERY topic and whining about conservatives who believe in a strong national defense. Your continued disrespected to all of the men and women working in the defense industry doesn&#039;t do you any credit either. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good to see your conveniently ignore those two Chinese AWACS in hangers, and in case you think both crashed there is another photo showing all four hangers with AWACS inside.</p><p>Cowards who won’t even post under the own names? Are you serious? Your service in Vietnam is no excuse for coming into EVERY topic and whining about conservatives who believe in a strong national defense. Your continued disrespected to all of the men and women working in the defense industry doesn’t do you any credit either.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Nico</title><link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/22/beating-the-low-signature-enemy/#comment-18046</link> <dc:creator>Nico</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:03:46 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12038#comment-18046</guid> <description>Okay, pardon my lack of history/political knowledge, but I&#039;m just curious.  How does that come into conflict with US interests?  I would assume that you&#039;re implying the US is somehow going to get involved. Moreover, in the event of any ballistic missile sale/deal, couldn&#039;t the US heavily publicize it and turn it into a political firestorm?  The Russians did that to us with our whole European missile defense system and made things alot harder, so I assume that it could work to some similar effect with this. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Okay, pardon my lack of history/political knowledge, but I’m just curious.  How does that come into conflict with US interests?  I would assume that you’re implying the US is somehow going to get involved.</p><p>Moreover, in the event of any ballistic missile sale/deal, couldn’t the US heavily publicize it and turn it into a political firestorm?  The Russians did that to us with our whole European missile defense system and made things alot harder, so I assume that it could work to some similar effect with this.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Byron Skinner</title><link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/22/beating-the-low-signature-enemy/#comment-18041</link> <dc:creator>Byron Skinner</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:53:28 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12038#comment-18041</guid> <description>Good Morning Folks,I see that the antebellum wingers have nothing of a substance to add to this discussion  other then their usual &quot;gotch ya&#039;s and lame/limp attempts of personal attacks.The humor of course is that these cowards, who won&#039;t even post under their own names, who never served a day in uniform, now want to equip the military by peddling junk to the DoD from foreign companies. Now that&#039;s a joke.ALLONS, Byron Skinner</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good Morning Folks,</p><p>I see that the antebellum wingers have nothing of a substance to add to this discussion  other then their usual “gotch ya’s and lame/limp attempts of personal attacks.</p><p>The humor of course is that these cowards, who won’t even post under their own names, who never served a day in uniform, now want to equip the military by peddling junk to the DoD from foreign companies. Now that’s a joke.</p><p>ALLONS,<br /> Byron Skinner</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: William C.</title><link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/22/beating-the-low-signature-enemy/#comment-18034</link> <dc:creator>William C.</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 04:41:14 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12038#comment-18034</guid> <description>I see that Byron Skinner&#039;s complete howling moonbat liberal insanity is attracting conspiracy theorists. Byron I suggest you look up the KJ-2000 AWACS. Here is a picture of two of them just to prove you wrong. ==&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/awacs2.jpg==&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/wp-content/up...&lt;/a&gt; But I guess it is all an illusion by the &quot;vast right-wing conspiracy&quot; in order to properly equip our military, right Byron? </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I see that Byron Skinner’s complete howling moonbat liberal insanity is attracting conspiracy theorists. Byron I suggest you look up the KJ-2000 AWACS. Here is a picture of two of them just to prove you wrong.</p><p>==<a href="http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/awacs2.jpg==" target="_blank">http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/wp-content/up…</a></p><p>But I guess it is all an illusion by the “vast right-wing conspiracy” in order to properly equip our military, right Byron?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: WarPony</title><link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/22/beating-the-low-signature-enemy/#comment-18033</link> <dc:creator>WarPony</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:54:49 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12038#comment-18033</guid> <description> &#8220;Beating The Low Signature Enemy&#8221;&#8211;let&#8217;s talk Puppet Master.  &quot;Naked-emperor&quot; was why the Colonials revolted and AGAIN the US is at the &#8220;eureka&#8221; moment &#8211; long after the deaths of Jackson, Lincoln, McKinley &amp; JFK.  Executives who survived sold us down the river as slaves on the global plantation (see: Ron Paul, Congressman/Audit-Abolish the FED).  The PM is the EU-&quot;royalty&quot;/NATO mo-net/$-MASTERS who use our kids&#8217; blood to pave the roads: oil, opium, hashish, gas, etc. and ARE THE enemy domestic.  Obama can lead follow or get out of the way, but our freedom depends on US realizing &quot;terrorism&quot; was a ruse to deploy our corpses for emperor profit.  If this hasn&#8217;t got you pissed off, think about it &#8216;cause it will. Houston, we have lock-on </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>“Beating The Low Signature Enemy”–let’s talk Puppet Master.  “Naked-emperor” was why the Colonials revolted and AGAIN the US is at the “eureka” moment – long after the deaths of Jackson, Lincoln, McKinley &amp; JFK.  Executives who survived sold us down the river as slaves on the global plantation (see: Ron Paul, Congressman/Audit-Abolish the FED).  The PM is the EU-“royalty”/NATO mo-net/$-MASTERS who use our kids’ blood to pave the roads: oil, opium, hashish, gas, etc. and ARE THE enemy domestic.  Obama can lead follow or get out of the way, but our freedom depends on US realizing “terrorism” was a ruse to deploy our corpses for emperor profit.  If this hasn’t got you pissed off, think about it ‘cause it will.<br /> Houston, we have lock-on</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Alex</title><link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/22/beating-the-low-signature-enemy/#comment-18026</link> <dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:32:34 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12038#comment-18026</guid> <description>1999 was ten years ago.  So much has changed since then in the technology that is available to our troops.  Not only that, and I don&#039;t know what the study the conducted assumed about the combat situation, but perhaps they were exploring distributed warfare in a region that we did not occupy where getting fire support would be difficult, if not impossible.  If anything, distributed warfare is probably just a more refined version of what we are doing in Afghanistan already - it&#039;s not like their aren&#039;t special forces teams all over the region getting their hands dirty as we speak. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>1999 was ten years ago.  So much has changed since then in the technology that is available to our troops.  Not only that, and I don’t know what the study the conducted assumed about the combat situation, but perhaps they were exploring distributed warfare in a region that we did not occupy where getting fire support would be difficult, if not impossible.  If anything, distributed warfare is probably just a more refined version of what we are doing in Afghanistan already — it’s not like their aren’t special forces teams all over the region getting their hands dirty as we speak.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Alex</title><link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/22/beating-the-low-signature-enemy/#comment-18025</link> <dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:26:29 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12038#comment-18025</guid> <description>Dozens of units won&#039;t need fire support at the same time.  If I&#039;m not mistaken, the idea is that all of the units should have enough situational awareness of one another that they can either support each other, or support fire can be directed to any units in need of it.  I don&#039;t understand why getting supporting fire would be any more of an issue in distributed warfare than it is now?  Just like we do now, there will be fast movers, attack helicopters and/or armed drones airborne 24/7 ready to provide support to any unit requesting it.  Not only that, but these distributed units should require support fires less frequently than generic combat units that are much more visible to the enemy. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dozens of units won’t need fire support at the same time.  If I’m not mistaken, the idea is that all of the units should have enough situational awareness of one another that they can either support each other, or support fire can be directed to any units in need of it.  I don’t understand why getting supporting fire would be any more of an issue in distributed warfare than it is now?  Just like we do now, there will be fast movers, attack helicopters and/or armed drones airborne 24/7 ready to provide support to any unit requesting it.  Not only that, but these distributed units should require support fires less frequently than generic combat units that are much more visible to the enemy.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Byron Skinner</title><link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/22/beating-the-low-signature-enemy/#comment-18024</link> <dc:creator>Byron Skinner</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 28 Dec 2009 03:32:37 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12038#comment-18024</guid> <description>Good Evening Cole,I assume that you are in reference to the Anthrax attacks via the U.S. Mail in the United States. Who ever referred to them as Terrorists WMD events?  In fact President Bush himself when asked this question said that they were not a terrorists event.Again I&#039;m asking what, if any country or  none state party has ever weaponized Biological Pathogens. The old Soviet Union tried for many years to weaponize live viruses. Lives viruses just don&#039;t lend themselves to be weaponized. Another problem is how would you control  a biological weapons?Your rusty Cole, I know you can do better then this. You and John Nooan of Heritage are the only two neo-cons that I&#039;ve run across who have to ability to formulate an argument and more or less support it. You need to get back in shape Cole.ALLONS, Byron SkinnerALLONS, Byron Skinner</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good Evening Cole,</p><p>I assume that you are in reference to the Anthrax attacks via the U.S. Mail in the United States. Who ever referred to them as Terrorists WMD events?  In fact President Bush himself when asked this question said that they were not a terrorists event.</p><p>Again I’m asking what, if any country or  none state party has ever weaponized Biological Pathogens. The old Soviet Union tried for many years to weaponize live viruses. Lives viruses just don’t lend themselves to be weaponized. Another problem is how would you control  a biological weapons?</p><p>Your rusty Cole, I know you can do better then this. You and John Nooan of Heritage are the only two neo-cons that I’ve run across who have to ability to formulate an argument and more or less support it. You need to get back in shape Cole.</p><p>ALLONS,<br /> Byron Skinner</p><p>ALLONS,<br /> Byron Skinner</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Cole</title><link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/22/beating-the-low-signature-enemy/#comment-18013</link> <dc:creator>Cole</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:11:40 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12038#comment-18013</guid> <description>Byron said: &quot;Saddam never had any WMD&#039;s never said he had any WMD&#039;s and any thoughts other wide are just sugar plumb winger dreams. So go down stairs to the kitchen and have a piece of yellow cake and forget about it.&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494_page4.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minut...&lt;/a&gt; Whay say you now? Do you need a refresher on the Kurds or Shi&#039;ites he killed using chemical weapons? </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Byron said: “Saddam never had any WMD’s never said he had any WMD’s and any thoughts other wide are just sugar plumb winger dreams. So go down stairs to the kitchen and have a piece of yellow cake and forget about it.”</p><p><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494_page4.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody" rel="nofollow">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minut…</a></p><p>Whay say you now? Do you need a refresher on the Kurds or Shi’ites he killed using chemical weapons?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Cole</title><link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/22/beating-the-low-signature-enemy/#comment-18017</link> <dc:creator>Cole</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:38:37 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12038#comment-18017</guid> <description>&quot;My question is, who besides idiot neo conservatives have ever listed chemical agents as WMD&#039;s?&quot; ------------------------------------- I rest my case. Bet you believe anthrax used as a terror weapons does not qualify either. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>“My question is, who besides idiot neo conservatives have ever listed chemical agents as WMD’s?“<br /> ————————————-</p><p>I rest my case. Bet you believe anthrax used as a terror weapons does not qualify either.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Byron Skinner</title><link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/22/beating-the-low-signature-enemy/#comment-18016</link> <dc:creator>Byron Skinner</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:59:17 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12038#comment-18016</guid> <description>Good Morning Cole,Lets see. I guess I&#039;ll start with WMD&#039;s, yes Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds, routinely in the US we use CS gas in law enforcement, so what does that prove Cole?  My question is, who besides idiot neo conservatives have ever listed chemical agents as WMD&#039;s?The only time this weapon was used to any extent was in WW l and the death total from all sides was less then 78,000, hardly a mass killing weapon. Post World War l investigations about the use of chemical agents say that among other things more troops in on all sides were treated for VD then exposure to gas. Officers on both side down played any tactical use or effectiveness that the use of gas gave either side in the conflict.The non use of chemical weapons in WW ll was not because everyone was afraid to be the first to use chemical weapons, it was because they simply have no military use. If the use of chemical weapons would have been of any value the Germans would have packed chemical chemical agents into their V-2&#039;s, by that time they were clearly losing the war and knew that it was all over, but they didn&#039;t. Why Cole? In Vietnam we used CS (in grenade and crystal form}, CN and some old left over CR chemical agents and they were worthless.  The use of thermite bombs are far more effective o WMD then chemical agents and is still legal.So Cole before the wingers started building a case for invading Iraq, could you show me where some internationally  body that the US is part of or even recognizes declared the  use of chemical agents as WMD&#039;s or for that matter even listed any Biological Agents as WMD&#039;s?On China Cole you might be advised to go back and read my past posts. The Position you claim that I have, is in fact that of all the antebellums out their who want to keep spending more and more on worthless never to be used weapon systems/platforms like the FCS and F-22.As far as Chinas ability to produce quality weapons/platforms/systems or whatever  they are at least 50 years behind the United States, if we stopped developing and building weapons now, which of course we are not. Maybe Cole you have eaten to much yellow cake, perhaps?Lets see the FCS, oh yes, you lost on that one, whine away. I see you are telling me that China has replaced it lost AWACS, where can I find this information since it&#039;s news to me?On a bomber since I see the daily DoD contracts and also those in Commerce Business Daily I haven&#039;t seen any RFQ&#039;s or request to bid on such a project.  Cole you say the NG has a CONTRACT for something bomber-related, could you please share the source besides Aviation Week, which is hardly reliable and subject to posting speculation as fact.  Any manned combat platform plane after the F-35 right now is the product of to much PBR and Meth on the winger mind.On the Seawold Cole. If you were up on the literature you would know that Seawolf was an extension of the Los Angeles Class and not a direct decedent of the Virginia Class boats.The RQ-170, is still an unknown neither the AF or NG are talking, so anything you or anyone else, including Aviation Week, is saying is purely speculation. The air frame form the two pictures that have been shown appears to be quite similar to the half size X-47 that was tested a couple of years ago for the navy as proof of concept.ALLONS, Byron Skinner</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good Morning Cole,</p><p>Lets see. I guess I’ll start with WMD’s, yes Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds, routinely in the US we use CS gas in law enforcement, so what does that prove Cole?  My question is, who besides idiot neo conservatives have ever listed chemical agents as WMD’s?</p><p>The only time this weapon was used to any extent was in WW l and the death total from all sides was less then 78,000, hardly a mass killing weapon. Post World War l investigations about the use of chemical agents say that among other things more troops in on all sides were treated for VD then exposure to gas. Officers on both side down played any tactical use or effectiveness that the use of gas gave either side in the conflict.</p><p>The non use of chemical weapons in WW ll was not because everyone was afraid to be the first to use chemical weapons, it was because they simply have no military use. If the use of chemical weapons would have been of any value the Germans would have packed chemical chemical agents into their V-2’s, by that time they were clearly losing the war and knew that it was all over, but they didn’t. Why Cole?</p><p>In Vietnam we used CS (in grenade and crystal form}, CN and some old left over CR chemical agents and they were worthless.  The use of thermite bombs are far more effective o WMD then chemical agents and is still legal.</p><p>So Cole before the wingers started building a case for invading Iraq, could you show me where some internationally  body that the US is part of or even recognizes declared the  use of chemical agents as WMD’s or for that matter even listed any Biological Agents as WMD’s?</p><p>On China Cole you might be advised to go back and read my past posts. The Position you claim that I have, is in fact that of all the antebellums out their who want to keep spending more and more on worthless never to be used weapon systems/platforms like the FCS and F-22.</p><p>As far as Chinas ability to produce quality weapons/platforms/systems or whatever  they are at least 50 years behind the United States, if we stopped developing and building weapons now, which of course we are not. Maybe Cole you have eaten to much yellow cake, perhaps?</p><p>Lets see the FCS, oh yes, you lost on that one, whine away. I see you are telling me that China has replaced it lost AWACS, where can I find this information since it’s news to me?</p><p>On a bomber since I see the daily DoD contracts and also those in Commerce Business Daily I haven’t seen any RFQ’s or request to bid on such a project.  Cole you say the NG has a CONTRACT for something bomber-related, could you please share the source besides Aviation Week, which is hardly reliable and subject to posting speculation as fact.  Any manned combat platform plane after the F-35 right now is the product of to much PBR and Meth on the winger mind.</p><p>On the Seawold Cole. If you were up on the literature you would know that Seawolf was an extension of the Los Angeles Class and not a direct decedent of the Virginia Class boats.</p><p>The RQ-170, is still an unknown neither the AF or NG are talking, so anything you or anyone else, including Aviation Week, is saying is purely speculation. The air frame form the two pictures that have been shown appears to be quite similar to the half size X-47 that was tested a couple of years ago for the navy as proof of concept.</p><p>ALLONS,<br /> Byron Skinner</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Cole</title><link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/22/beating-the-low-signature-enemy/#comment-18014</link> <dc:creator>Cole</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:20:28 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12038#comment-18014</guid> <description>Oh it gets better. Did you know that FCS manned ground vehicles were wheeled? The NLOS-Cannon costs $6 billion for 18? The Chinese have no AWACS because of a crash back in 2006? Aviation Week sure seems to believe that NG has a contract for something bomber-related and we know they have a contract for UCAV. Lockheed was building RQ-170s for a few years it appears. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4339138.html&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/milita...&lt;/a&gt; Of course Byron thinks that because China is good at building Walmart products, that they are going to replace us as the preeminent world builder of high-tech military products. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh it gets better. Did you know that FCS manned ground vehicles were wheeled? The NLOS-Cannon costs $6 billion for 18? The Chinese have no AWACS because of a crash back in 2006? Aviation Week sure seems to believe that NG has a contract for something bomber-related and we know they have a contract for UCAV. Lockheed was building RQ-170s for a few years it appears.</p><p><a href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4339138.html" target="_blank">http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/milita…</a></p><p>Of course Byron thinks that because China is good at building Walmart products, that they are going to replace us as the preeminent world builder of high-tech military products.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: timetale</title><link>http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/12/22/beating-the-low-signature-enemy/#comment-18011</link> <dc:creator>timetale</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 27 Dec 2009 07:11:35 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=12038#comment-18011</guid> <description>It&#039;s hard to take Byron seriously when he makes novice errors such as saying Boeing makes F-16Ds and there&#039;s no NGB when this very website posted recently about such a development. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It’s hard to take Byron seriously when he makes novice errors such as saying Boeing makes F-16Ds and there’s no NGB when this very website posted recently about such a development.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using apc
Page Caching using apc (User agent is rejected)
Database Caching 1/5 queries in 0.006 seconds using apc
Object Caching 816/817 objects using apc
Content Delivery Network via images.dodbuzz.com

Served from: dodbuzz.com @ 2012-02-09 09:47:25 -->
