Archives by Date
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Bizarro
Blog Bidness
Bomb Squad
Chem-Bio
Cloak and Dagger
Comms
Cops and Robbers
Data Diving
Dissent Tech
Drones
FCS Watch
Gadgets and Gear
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
Info War
Iraq Diary
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
Medic!
Missiles
Money Money Money
Nukes
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Space
Strategery
Training and Sims
War Update
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Noah Shachtman | Contact | RSS

Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon

War is hell. But it’s worse when the Marines bring out their new urban combat weapon, the SMAW-NE. Which may be why they’re not talking about it, much.

This is a version of the standard USMC Shoulder Mounted Assault Weapon but with a new warhead. Described as NE - "Novel Explosive"- it is a thermobaric mixture which ignites the air, producing a shockwave of unparalleled destructive power, especially against buildings.

smaw-ne sequence.JPGA post-action report from Iraq describes the effect of the new weapon: "One unit disintegrated a large one-storey masonry type building with one round from 100 meters. They were extremely impressed." Elsewhere it is described by one Marine as "an awesome piece of ordnance."

It proved highly effective in the battle for Fallujah. This from the Marine Corps Gazette, July edition: "SMAW gunners became expert at determining which wall to shoot to cause the roof to collapse and crush the insurgents fortified inside interior rooms."

The NE round is supposed to be capable of going through a brick wall, but in practice gunners had to fire through a window or make a hole with an anti-tank rocket. Again, from the Marine Corps Gazette:

"Due to the lack of penetrating power of the NE round, we found that our assaultmen had to first fire a dual-purpose rocket in order to create a hole in the wall or building. This blast was immediately followed by an NE round that would incinerate the target or literally level the structure."

The rational for this approach was straightforward:

"Marines could employ blast weapons prior to entering houses that had become pillboxes, not homes. The economic cost of house replacement is not comparable to American lives...all battalions adopted blast techniques appropriate to entering a bunker, assuming you did not know if the bunker was manned."

The manufacturers, Talley, make bold use of its track record, with a brochure headlined Thermobaric Urban Destruction."

The SMAW-NE has only been procured by the USMC, though there are reports that some were 'borrowed' by other units. However, there are also proposals on the table that thousands of obsolete M-72 LAWs could be retrofitted with thermobaric warheads, making then into effective urban combat tools.

But in an era of precision bombs, where collateral damage is expected to be kept to a minimum, such massively brutal weapons have become highly controversial. These days, every civilian casualty means a few more “hearts and minds” are lost. Thermobaric weapons almost invariable lead to civilian deaths. The Soviet Union was heavily criticized for using thermobaric weapons in Afghanistan because they were held to constitute "disproportionate force," and similar criticisms were made when thermobarics were used in the Chechen conflict. According to Human Rights Watch, thermobaric weapons "kill and injure in a particularly brutal manner over a wide area. In urban settings it is very difficult to limit the effect of this weapon to combatants, and the nature of FAE explosions makes it virtually impossible for civilians to take shelter from their destructive effect."

So it’s understandable that the Marines have made so little noise about the use of the SMAW-NE in Fallujah. But keeping quiet about controversial weapons is a lousy strategy, no matter how effective those arms are. In the short term, it may save some bad press. In the long term, it’s a recipe for a scandal. Military leaders should debate human right advocates and the like first, and then publicly decide "we do/do not to use X". Otherwise when the media find do find out – as they always do -- not only do you get a level of hysteria but there is also the charge of “covering up.”

I'm undecided about thermobarics myself, but I think they should let the legal people sort out all these issues and clear things up. Otherwise you get claims of “chemical weapons” and “violating the Geneva Protocol.” Which doesn't really help anyone. The warfighter is left in doubt, and it hands propaganda to the bad guys. Just look at what happened it last week’s screaming over white phosphorous rounds.

-- David Hambling

Comments

"Military leaders should debate human right advocates and the like first, and then publicly decide "we do/do not to use X".

Good grief.

Posted by: W. Zimmerman at November 14, 2005 11:34 AM


There's a thermobaric warhead (either Russian or Bulgarian) for the RPG7 that is apparently equivalent to a 122mm artillery round.

Posted by: Alex at November 14, 2005 12:37 PM


I would think, that an explosive aimed from line-of-sight, that is man portable, would be far less likely to cause massive damage than, say, an artillery barrage, or an airstrike. Nothing controversial about the other two, so there shouldn't be anything controversial about this.

Posted by: Mycroft at November 14, 2005 01:11 PM


Good Morning David,

Are your refering to the "new' M-72A7's that were recently put on order with an Arizona companyfor the Marines?

If the pictures shown are in fact the M-72A7 it looks like a winner.

As for Civilian casualities in a war zone there are no none combants as we saw from Jordan yesterday.

When war starts human rights negotiations have failed and U.S. soldiers and Marines have the same rights to stay alive as "civilians" do.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
"Stewart's Platoon"

Posted by: Byron Skinner at November 14, 2005 01:50 PM


I don't have much to say. Only that this new weapon that should not be taken lightly.

Posted by: Jocelyne Rains at November 14, 2005 03:59 PM


Personally I think this weapon looks like a winner to me. Like any other weapon there are placing it works well and places it would be a just aweful.

In the case of Fallujah everyone I know that went said they never once saw a noncombatant in the city. So while leaving a house is not good, its better than sending in Marines to fight it out. On the other hand, if you just use it wherever you feel like it you are going to cause all kind of problems. But these 'jarheads' are smart kids and I think for the most part they know when and what to use. Lets give them the tools, and let the officers figure out when they should use them.

Posted by: The Cenobyte at November 14, 2005 04:11 PM


The more we sanatize war, the more we lesson the impact of war on our enemy and yes their civilian populations colateral damage, the more we will have perpetual never ending wars. War is hell war is brutal people die bad things happen unfortunatley at times it is a nessecary evil. However keeping war hellish makes the threat of war all the more powerfull and therfore avoiding war. Rare bloody ruthless wars are better and less costley in the long run that many perpetual wars with rules and laws that just drag out the final results. By going out of our way with no receprication on the other side to honor that or this rule of law only encourages a enemy not to follow the laws and get the minor advantage such gives thier is no consequiences.

Analogy: It is not a very scary thing to fight a big guy with boxing gloves and all the rules of boxing. However it is horrifying to get in the ring with a big guy bare knuckle NO Rules No holds barred.

Keeping war as hellish as possible is the only the best deterent to war. Not pacifist ideals of utopia, that only end in loss or perpetual endless mini wars when mixed with human nature.

My Utopia is when the our enemies fear us so much we no longer have to fight them. Otherwise we will always be having to disprove the "paper tiger" theory in endless challenges.

Posted by: C-Low at November 14, 2005 04:28 PM


I'm with C-Low and Skinner here. It is bad business to rule ANYTHING out (yes- that includes all the horrors of the Thirty Years War) in a fight, as demonstrated by the increasing contempt terrorists are showing for U.S.-run "detention facilities".
The alternative may be to end up a virtuous loser. We must ask ourselves, would we rather be standing tall at the end of the fight, or remembered as honorable, but soft-headed, has-beens? I for one would rather see my nation vilified, but nonetheless sovereign, than suffer defeat because we have lost our ruthlessness.

Posted by: TheMasterTimekeeper at November 14, 2005 05:15 PM


Those "hearts and minds" are anti-American, so who cares. No big loss. I'd rather see anti-American civilians die than American troops.

Also, if the price for a country to enter into war with America is higher because we have more "massively brutal weapons", then all the better. The more they have to think twice (or thrice) before getting into conflicts, the better.

But to say that using these weapons is wrong, because they MIGHT cause civilian casualties? Please. We're using them against people who obviously don't value our civilians, indeed on September 11th they saw our civilians as TARGETS. So I don't hold any sympathy there.

Force is the authority from which all other authority is derived. To intentionally water down our force authority because the huggy-feelies of the world don't like the APPLICATION of that authority is wrong, and in the long run will only hurt our ability to assert our authority without being required to resort to force.

Posted by: R at November 14, 2005 05:16 PM


As an addendum to the above, I might remind everyone that chemical weapons were not used during the Second World War due to the fact that both sides reatained them and were willing to use them in retaliation in kind. We would do well to remember this lesson; Al Quaida has shown little interest in playing by any rules at all.

Posted by: TheMasterTimekeeper at November 14, 2005 05:17 PM


A buddy of mine with IInd Mar Div out of Camp Lejeune returned from Iraq, and he 'acquired' one of these weapons from another platoon before going into Fallujah. He swears by these them. The buildings there are akin to bunkers, and nothing short of a ma deuce will do anything other than chip away at the walls. Terrorists know they can take over a house and fire on Marine's in unprotected positions with little fear of return fire. Even pinpoint 203 rounds and standard anti-armor rounds did little more than ring the ears of hardenned fighters hopped up on narcotics like hash, opium, or khat. Lob one of these "smawnees" into a window, and you save time, bullets, and Marines. The insurgents adapted, and you're seeing fewer houses getting taken over by them. So you'll see fewer smawnees getting popped through front doors. In short, this is a non issue already. Incidentally, pre-smawnee the answer was to call in a tank to level the building. A tank round stands a good chance of going through a few houses. The smawnee takes out the house it's in. Far better choice IMHO.

Posted by: Andrew Krause at November 14, 2005 08:11 PM


In extremis, the ancient "means vs. ends" dilemma boils down to, "When survival is at stake, anything goes." If Islamic terrorists wore uniforms, respected non-combatants, subscribed in any way to the so-called "laws of war" (rather than, say, beheading trios of elementary schoolgirls to discourage educating females), then --possibly-- more self-restraint in weaponry might prove justified. But powerful armament is inherently deadly and (yes) ghastly in operation: Think Hamburg's victims of Allied white-phosphorus bombings in 1945, faced with drowning or burning alive. If war cannot be prevented, then prosecute it relentlessly, avoiding non-combatant casualties to the extent possible, but never at the expense of your own fighters' lives. Anyone reading of super-heated firestorms boiling down the elevator shafts of our Trade Towers will understand that America's enemies care nothing for our scruples... and to the extent we pull our punches, we prolong the conflict, inflicting worse "collateral damage" on more people. Tell it to the Marines, whose lives are at stake and --treasonous jerks like Durbin and Kerry aside-- in their own interest make every effort to win battles without mindlessly flattening everything in sight. By all means, use whatever ordnance is most effective. If Al Qaeda objects on humanitarian grounds, issue 'em clown costumes before we all die laughing.

Posted by: John Blake at November 14, 2005 08:42 PM


Y'know, for a while, I've been worried about the quality of debate here in the comments. Too many wave-the-flag (or burn-the-flag) diabtribes. Too many all caps screamers.

But these smart, brutally honest observations are a real pleasure to read. Nice one, everyone.

nms

Posted by: Noah Shachtman at November 14, 2005 08:47 PM


Look, how many times do people have to say this?

American thermobaric weapons are NOT FAEs. The Russians called FAEs thermobarics as a marketing trick, but ours are very different. We should have called them enhanced blast or something to differentiate them.

They're basically high explosives with some of the explosives replaced with other bits (I heard aluminum nitrate--hobby rocket fuel--once, but I haven't researched it much).

One big difference between the two is that our thermobarics aren't all that effective out in the open, where FAEs are. However, a FAE is hard to get inside a building, whereas our thermobarics, since they stay solid until they go boom, are easy to get where you want them.

Posted by: Big D at November 14, 2005 09:00 PM


I think its because it really IS sensible:

The alternative has been artilery and air strikes, which are far WORSE. I'd worry about large hyperbaric weapons, but something designed to blow up a whole house FROM the inside seems far more proportionate than the alternatives.

Personally, I think the whole war is immoral, and founded on a series of lies. But for those Marines stuck in the sand, and following legitimate orders, something like this seems a godsend: a weapon they can actually use effectively (without having to wait for fire support), and actually seems far more proportionate than the alternative.

Posted by: Nicholas Weaver at November 14, 2005 09:12 PM


My question is, how do we keep the enemy from getting their hands on them?

Posted by: Rand Simberg at November 15, 2005 12:17 AM


CW, thanks for the laugh. Do you really think any weapon will scare a suicide bomber? If it kills them, good, if it kills them fast, great, if it kills them in bunches, even better, but you can cross intimidating them off your to-do list. It ain't gonna happen.
No way to prove it , but I suspect the only thing a man sitting on 600 pounds of high explosives with a deadman switch fears it not getting to his target.

Posted by: Stehpinkeln at November 15, 2005 12:29 AM


do you know how demoralizing ineffective bunker weapons are? talk about a let down..
any infantryman that knows is sh*t would tell that this is a miracle weapon. It denies the coward enemy his rathole instantly.
hooah ya bastids and we got more where that came from!!!
ethics..human rights..you go hump your lunch around in 110 heat and then talk to me about picky choosy crap.

it's only an issue because it works for Americans.

so much for the corps crying about getting second rate stuff. shows theyre still in the game bigtime.

Posted by: playertwo at November 15, 2005 03:33 AM


The significant military advantage will always cause controversy in a propaganda driven media circus. Human rights are far too vocal and seem to have far too much influence on whatever is going on. Let us not forget this is a war not a sport with judges. Yes Human rights should be upheld but the soldiers are human beings and in Fallujah's case have to face a deadly enemy both military and civilian. If I didn't know who the hell I was fighting civvfy or otherwise then I would be grateful to have a weapon that allows me to take out all possible danger. The use of this weapon should be decided by the officers - that is their job and if the human rights people want to do it put them on the front line. I'd like to see how they treat the human race after a smiling boy of 10 walks up to them and then delivers to 200lb blast destroying their friends.

Posted by: Desideratum at November 15, 2005 07:47 AM



There have been some interesting comments, but nobody picked up on my main point - that the development and use of SMAW-NE and similar devices is being done on the quiet and that public discussion has been avoided.

Whenever the legal/ethical status of a given weapon system might be questioned, surely some public debate is needed. Anything that could undermine support at home, or alienate third parties, is dangerous. Some may feel that it doesn't make any difference, but I have to disagree: propaganda is what drives recruitment for the anti-US cause.

There are a huge number of new technologies now being developed under classified programs, and no such discussion takes place. This is something which is described in more detail in my book, Weapons Grade, which lifts the lid on a few such items.

Thermobaric weapons will be used by insurgents and terrorists, and I hope to expand on this threat in a future posting.

The approach of "taking the gloves off" is a slippering slope. For example: insurgents from a certain town in Iraq carry out an attack. Devastating reprisals are carried out, on the basis that any inhabitants who are not terrorists are supporters of terrorists who did nothing to stop them, and the ferocity of the response will make anyone else think twice before supporting the insurgency.

Some people might support this type of action; but this is exactly what Sassam Hussein is being tried for.
(And yes, I know the Brits did it first in Mesopotamia, and with chemical weapons. Doesn't make it a good idea).

Posted by: David Hambling at November 15, 2005 09:45 AM


I'd like to address the reports of "thermobaric" RPG-7 rounds equivalent to 122mm worth of artillery.
Are they kidding? It sounds like a teensy little overgeneralization. As we've read above, FAEs and the like are extremely useful against soft targets and enclosed areas.
Armored vehicles and structures, which react just as poorly to direct arty hits as anything else, can generally ignore the effects of FAE/thermobaric attacks, especially when "buttoned up". Thus I hardly think it honest to say these weapons give the average RPG power equivalent to tube artillery.

Posted by: TrustButVerify at November 15, 2005 10:23 AM


So let's really think perpendicularly here. Military issue small arms ammo is a lead core fully covered by copper or some other substance. No soft point or hollow point. This is in accord with the 'no dumdum' policy. However, it often happens that a person shot with a fully jacketed bullet has to be hit more than once to put them out of action as this bullet design minimizes internal damage and frequently results in the person bleeding bleeding to death slowly from multiple impacts. It's possible that a hollowpoint/softpoint bullet design might actually be the more humane alternative as it is more likely to stop the target with fewer shots. To my mind, if it's okay for law enforcement use, it ought to be okay for military use.

Posted by: JSAllison at November 15, 2005 12:05 PM



"I'd like to address the reports of "thermobaric" RPG-7 rounds equivalent to 122mm worth of artillery. Are they kidding? "

It's actually less impressive than it sounds - if you look at the payload of the (thin walled) thermobaric round and compare it to the (thick walled) HE road, the values are not that different anyway. What you don't get is the shrapnel, which is what does the antipersonnel damage.

You cannot directly compare the explosive effects of condensed vs thermobaric explosives, because it's a matter of high overpressure/short duration vs low overpressure/long duration. But generally speaking against structures, thermobarics are highly destructive - unless they're tailored not to be.

Posted by: David Hambling at November 15, 2005 12:17 PM


David, I think you've got a point about discussing weapon morality *before* deployment, not after their discovery. It makes sense from both a pragmatic standpoint (avoiding cover-up charges and public outcry) as well as a moral one. ('kill first, ask questions later' is a poor national policy)

But that being said, the US armed forces develops a boatload of new weaponry on a consistent basis. Exposing each and every one of them to a public debate would be silly, time consuming, and wasteful. The military doesn't need a consensus every time it redesigns a sidearm or modifies a projectile casing. So that means that there's a vague line somewhere demarcating what does and does not need to be discussed. I think small scale thermobarics are close enough to that line to be understandably passed over.

I assume that the marines 'keeping quiet' isn't a policy decision, but simply another cutting edge military technology that isn't discussed a greatdeal in the public. You make a very good point in the broad sense, in that there are things things we should be discussing, but aren't. (ie, RNEP)

To toss my two cents into the thermobaric debate ensuing: This specifically doesn't look to be too much of a problem. The shoulder fired aspect of this weapon simultaneously limits its destructive strength, as well as guarantees accuracy towards a carefully chosen target. It unquestionably beats out artillery/guided bombs, and is probably better or equivilant to simply ridling a structure with bullets. The mechanisms of a thermobaric explosion look to have limited effectiveness outside of confined spaces -- one can't say the same about more conventional fragment-based explosions.


--Christopher Karel

Posted by: Christopher Karel at November 15, 2005 12:22 PM


"Whenever the legal/ethical status of a given weapon system might be questioned, surely some public debate is needed."

Not necessarily, I think. Often new technology comes hand-in-hand with new tactics in an effort to give US troops the element of surprise, which consistently leads to safer, more effective operations (for our guys, that is.) Should the US have publically discussed the capabilities, use and tactics of the F-117A Nighthawk or the B-2 Spirit before sending them into Baghdad? Should the NRO start having "how much is too much?" discussions about the resolution of their orbiting cameras? When it comes to making war on those who would stand against the US, every advantage we can give our fighting men and women can be translated into lives saved on the ground; that means some soldiers get to come home to their families that might otherwise have not.

I agree that this is an issue worthy of public discussion, but if you accept that sometimes open combat is inevitable, laying all of our cards out on the table before the bullets even begin flying isn't necessarily the best strategy.

Posted by: Jober at November 15, 2005 01:51 PM


Good Morning Mr. Karel,

You make many points that I whole heartly agree with but I must take execption with your thoughts regarding the public debate on new weapons. The transparent nature of defense that is emerging with use of the Internet and sites like Defense Tech is healthy both for the DoD/Military and the general public at large.

History will judge society as a whole for the conduct of our military not the temperory actors who serve. The military reflects societies values not the values of organizations that isolate themselves from the society that they are serving.

Defense Tech and the other Blogs like it are having an effect on how the United States Military conducts itself. The job is far, far for being done but of those 5.5 million visitors to this site in the past twelve months have been many decision makers and or their staffs.

Look no farther the last weeks Senate vote of 98 to 8 to keep the C-17's in production when even Boeing it's contractor wanted to close down the line and put its resources into more profitable work, like the F/A-22. The C-17 has been championed on the blogs and in direct contact to Senators not in the E-Ring of the Pentagon.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
"Stewart's Platoon"

Posted by: Byron Skinner at November 15, 2005 02:05 PM


I am for any thing that in the long run will save the lives of U.S Troops. I also think that anyone who is against the use of the SMAW-NE or any other military hardware because they think it is too brutal and that it might hurt civilians even though they can save American lives aren’t Americans their terrorist and should be kicked out of this country I love so much.

Posted by: Robert T at November 15, 2005 02:25 PM


For the record, I'm also against the war. I marched against it twice here in New York. While there are clear red state vs blue state issues involved in the war, many of the reasons I disliked the war was that I foresaw it as being unwinnable because the Powell Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine) was not being followed. As many of the posters in this thread have commented, overwhelming force does intimidate future opponents.

However, this weapon only antagonizes them because American troops are unable to take advantage of the newly "pacified" area. How overwhelming is it when insurgents KNOW that the Americans, having leveled a few houses in the neighborhood with their fancy new weapon, are going to leave shortly?

Chew on this a bit -- we could have won this war in Iraq but Bush and his buddies decided we could go in with a 166 civilian to 1 soldier ratio instead of the 40 to 1 ratio we had in Bosnia.

Weapons like this are pretty fancy -- even I'm intrigued by their usage but no matter how many robots, fancy nonlethal devices and weapons like this you throw into the fray our country cannot withstand a prolonged occupation that was poorly prepared for.

Posted by: Allan Benamer at November 15, 2005 02:26 PM


Interesting site - thanks, Rand, for the link!

1. SMAW-NE doesn't seem "brutal" or "barbaric." Dead by extreme SMAW-NE over-pressure is the same as dead by artillery barrage, is the same as dead by cruise missile, is the same as...etc. SMAW is more target-specific than other options which minimizes collateral damage/casualties.

2. Public debate is a good thing, but like all good things it can be taken to an extreme that is damaging, especially if the debate is un-/ill-informed. Debate over being in Iraq is good. Debate over how we are engaging the Iraqi citizens vs. the insurgents is good. But debating particulars - bringing down buildings by using SMAW-NE vs. HE rounds - is engaging in intellectual wheel-spinning, especially if one isn't conversant with the modern battlefield, it's pressures and requirements. If the weapon and it's use don't violate The Rules, where is the debate?

3. Public debate. Another example of non-debate: there has been little *public* debate on the US military's decision to stick with the .223 full-jacket round used by the M-16 and *most* US long military arms, when there are very valid reasons to adopt the 7.62mm full-jacket round. The reason: the US public hopes (and prays) that the "experts" in this matter make the right decision. Also, there is almost *always* debate within the military systems, Congressional sub-committees and the procurement processes.

4. Saddam is being tried for massive crimes against humanity - the use of gas and other agents to kill large numbers of people. To equate his actions with our military's - in Iraq or Afghanistan - is intellectually and morally bankrupt. The number of Americans that have died in these countries is large - the number that died so that we can minimize civilian casualties is significant. It would have saved a lot of American lives if we used FAEs on Falluja or Obeidi - and we would have been wrong if we had done so.

5. Any weapon can and will be used by terrorists, unless there is some reason that *they* recognize as legit that prohibits it. A desire to aquire weapons is very different than the ability to make them - like weapons-quality nukes and NBC weapons. If they could make 'em, they would have used 'em by now.

6. The possibility of terrorists aquiring a few SMAW-NEs isn't strategically important, if taken in the context that they have virtually unlimited access to equally powerful conventional weapons that can achieve similar results.

Posted by: PizzaHog at November 15, 2005 02:43 PM


The USA should develop more effective nuclear weapons. At a bare minimum, both Bagdhad and Fallujah should have been destroyed at the outset of the war. This would have demonstrated to Al Qa-Ida that their efforts were futile and would have simultaneously saved literally THOUSANDS of American lives.

Our ongoing failure to effectively utilize our excellent nuclear capability is what has cost us dearly in Iraq, and if it is not fixed, it will cost us many more American lives as we take the war on terror to new countries.

Posted by: James S Watson at November 15, 2005 02:47 PM


Who said war is civilized? If I were a non-combatant, I sure as hell would take my prayer rug and boogie down the road. BUT, the best way to win a war is to not let it happen. Make the world KNOW that the US IS the best, and that when the Marines, Navy, Air Force and Army show up; any enemies' 'cojones' shrivel to mustard seed size.
Oh yeah....we can be hurt but we can make them hurt worse. Yes, we need to fight 'limited' wars, not all-out destruction or de-population of a city. If we have the technology that will lessen the risks of US casualties, so much the better.
But the US NEEDS to make war so horrific for the other side, that the next time someone wants to play with the "bigs", they'll think REAL long and hard about it.
The last fight I got into was in high school with some idiot that just wanted to pick a fight. I didn't feel obligated to tell him I had a brown belt in Tae Kwon Do. He brought a bunch of his friends to see me get my butt kicked. He wound up with a broken nose and fractured forearm. No one ever picked a fight with me again. The 'fight' lasted about 45 seconds and he never touched me.
Any policy that says we need to lay all our cards out on the table is treasonous, at best. We NEED to maintain a strong military prescence, now and forever. I was told as a kid,"don't start any fights, but make sure you finish them." Sounds reasonable to me. I won't go into Vietnam anymore,by choice. THAT one's over.
Bill Daniel
"The Lieutenant"

Posted by: Bill Daniel at November 15, 2005 03:10 PM


Uhh... Just a clarification to a few of the posters? Just because Bush kept saying 911-Saddam-Iraq-911-Iraq-911-Iraq, doesn't mean that Iraq had anything to do with it. In fact admitted itel confirms they did not and abandoning the mission in Afganistan let the real villans of 911 escape.

So please, let's try to keep the facts as facts, ok?

Posted by: Richard Smith at November 15, 2005 03:25 PM


again the americans shock me

Posted by: anti at November 15, 2005 03:39 PM



Gee, an enhanced fuel-air explosive - the enhancement basically being that the packaging and distribution are well optimized (i.e. small round, large explosive spread).

Yawn.

Posted by: Charlie at November 15, 2005 03:51 PM


is there a such thing as a non-brutal "weapon". I mean come on we don't fight wars with pillows people.

Posted by: Eric McWilliams at November 15, 2005 03:53 PM


Obviously we need to send in the human shields again. Just because it would make shooting this thing more fun.

Posted by: Gerard at November 15, 2005 03:54 PM


"I'm undecided about thermobarics myself, but I think they should let the legal people sort out all these issues and clear things up."

My son just got back from Iraq, and his comment was that "If we lose, I'm blaming the JAG." The troops over there have to be conversant with an ROE of 6 pages, single spaced. An IED goes off,
and 60 yards away, a single guy pops up and starts running off. Nope, can't shoot him, he may just be running off to the bathroom.

He did say that he liked working with the Iraqi troops though, since their ROE seemed to be "Shoot anybody you feel like."

email is human readable - aloud.

Posted by: bud at November 15, 2005 04:16 PM


Some of the comments on this site verge on the psychotic. I wonder why these people are so bitter. The last time I checked Iraq, Vietnam, and Panama never attacked the US. We invaded their countries unprovoked. One comment even says "My Utopia is when the our enemies fear us so much we no longer have to fight them", that sounds like tyranny through terror. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and will turn the world against us.

Putting this much firepower in a handheld device is not only an invitation to accidents and abuse but it will only be a matter of time before terrorists and militias copy them. Wait until they are used in booby-traps and car bombs. You've let a genie out of a bottle.

It is strange that so much focus is put on protecting soldiers at the expense of civilians. If you don't want to get hurt then don't enlist.

Posted by: George at November 15, 2005 04:20 PM


as awful as war is, i would still like to see a video of this weapon in action.

Posted by: khy at November 15, 2005 04:27 PM


Dear America,

What we need to do is mod this weapon so it will liquify the Iraqi civilians and convert them directly into oil that we can capture somehow into oil drums. This would be great for your Hummers and their voracious appetite for foreign energy sources.

We should take all money away from alternative, renewable and domestic fuel research and funnel it into this human oil conversion idea.

We Care,

The Military Industrial Complex


P.S. Remember, those who aren't fighting in Iraq and are fervently supporting and working on alternative energy in the United States are COWARDS. The real HEROS are those who are out there on the front lines controlling the Middle East oil for us with rocket fire.

Posted by: Cowicide at November 15, 2005 04:55 PM


Mr. Skinner,

You bring forth a valid point regarding open discussion. I would personally agree that debte by *knowledgeable* people can benefit both the military and the public. But I don't think that the military has any moral or pragmatic obligation to encourage such debate in most matters. Other times, when pushing the bounderies of an acceptable level of force or means to an end, the military should (in a moral and non-legal sense) get the information out to encourage debate *before* they're actually used in the field. And while your example of the C-17's is a solid example that the public can provide decent oversight, it's really not the best cure. If pentagon officials aren't procuring the best equipment for our troops due to contractor profit concerns, the answer shouldn't lie with more public debate, but with better officials. Points 2 & 3 by PizzaHog are along the lines of my thinking.

Bud,

I find your (son's) comment regarding the Iraqi military to be especially disconcerting given the just announced issue of Iraqi jailors torturing and starving prisoners. It is entirely possible (Probable?) that the US rules of engagement are too strict. But it's far preferrable to unnecessarily killing innocent civilians. And the rules were likely designed to err 'on the safe side', rather than having to deal with the moral and strategic setbacks of an abundance of noncombatant casualties. We had plent of that in Vietnam, and it didn't seem to bring us any closer to victory. A "Shoot anything you feel like" RoE is ridiculous. We're better than that. It may be easier to memorize, but that doesn't make it right.


--Christopher Karel

Posted by: Christopher Karel at November 15, 2005 05:17 PM


Folks, there is a reason why we elect public officials. It is because we entrust with them the responsibility to look after our best interests.

Encouraging public debate about weapons on the drawing board is a poor idea because it 1) gives away the element of surprise (you've all heard of the internet by now, right?) and 2) is based on the public's "feelings," a haphazard science, when it should really be about scientific fact and battlfield effectiveness.

Come on people, let's give our guys the tools to get this job done so they can come home.

Posted by: Andrew at November 15, 2005 05:19 PM


wow - you people are tards

Posted by: John Bon at November 15, 2005 05:20 PM


Almost 3 years after the USA invaded Iraq, deposed the government, installed your own administrators and began destroying infrastructure - you're still there, destroying infrastructure with weapons like this new thermobaric one.

Your own actions generate your opposition. Go home and let Iraq heal.

Posted by: Howard Sux at November 15, 2005 05:26 PM


I see the blame America first crowd is still around. Instead of posting here they should be checking out the history books but that wouldn't matter as it seems they would rather the US suffer an attack before we take care of business rather than taking it to the enemy on their soil. No doubt that group would be the first to whine about not being properly defended.

Debating a weapon before its use??? I can just see it now, Truman calling up the press corps and saying we have this new weapon that could end WWII but we're not sure if we want to use it or see hundreds of thousands more military die in the Pacific. We have become too soft.

Posted by: cssamo at November 15, 2005 05:35 PM


> Encouraging public debate ... is a poor idea because [it] is
> based on the public's "feelings," a haphazard science

Yeah, don't you hate it when public "feelings" get in the way? Like how they spurred the civl rights movement? The American revolution, etc.?

Yah... the will of the public should just be ignored or better yet, the government and industrial military complex should just manufacture consent and so we can all agree on everything... without those pesky, human "feelings" getting in the way.

Hitler would be proud.

Posted by: Cowicide at November 15, 2005 05:43 PM


"Marines could employ blast weapons prior to entering houses that had become pillboxes, not homes. The economic cost of house replacement is not comparable to American lives...all battalions adopted blast techniques appropriate to entering a bunker, assuming you did not know if the bunker was manned."

Have you seen the pictures? How they are going to enter a house such as the one illustrated on the pictures LOL. Something does not seem right based on what the weapon can do and the argument.

Posted by: Paul at November 15, 2005 05:45 PM


Good munitions end the lives of people who are trying to kill us and our way of life. If they dont like it they should get rid of islamic fascist and stay the hell out of the United States! Open your fuckin 7/11 in your own country

Posted by: Dennis at November 15, 2005 06:01 PM


I'd like to be able to forward selected issues to colleagues w/o going through the save to doc process. Thank you.

Posted by: Michael Leap at November 15, 2005 06:08 PM


Let's not forget that they were well-informed in Fallujah that the U.S. would be clearing the city of insurgents. If the USMC is taking over my town, I'm getting the hell out! They even went in and took over a 3-block area a month or so before, so they knew what was coming.

I'm certainly not going to stick around and wait for my babies to die...

Posted by: Roman at November 15, 2005 06:09 PM


War is simple... the sooner you kill all of the bad guys, the sooner everyone else stops dying.
Weapons that help the end to come sooner, are fine with me.
Semper Fi!

Posted by: John H at November 15, 2005 06:09 PM


Sounds like a great weapon that every GI should use several times a day with moslem terrorists. Your use of the word "brutal" in the article makes me feel that you are sympathetic with the enemies of the US Govt. and are perhaps a democrat or a wuss.

You should review the footage of various hostages having their heads hacked off with a knife. That is "brutal" and a fundamental element of Islam.

Posted by: Joe Earl at November 15, 2005 06:14 PM


You liberal assholes should all denounce American citizenship, gather your feelings and your rights and show the loving people of Islamic terrorism what beautifull people you are. Hopefully you will get in the way of one of these "terrible"weapons" and survive to tell us how inhuman these are. I dont see your fuckhead liberal assholes weeping over our soldiers who get blown to hell. How about the beautifull people of Islam? Ahhhhhhhh drilling holes through the knee caps of Americans doesnt kill innocent people, or I know, acid baths on the face only hurt for a few seconds befor the skin falls off your face. And lets not forget 9/11. If it was "god forbid" a building full of children you liberal fucks would blame it on the US for causing the terrorist oop's I mean the opressed people for causing a economical depession for there acts. I understand you crackheads have freedom because of people like me and others on here were willing to give our lives for you, but please, for the love of Pete call your local PETA group and bitch I am shure there are some beautifull people killing cats for fur coats as we speak. Good grief, get a life.

Posted by: Dennis at November 15, 2005 06:15 PM


Better to blow up the bad guys and save our troops. Build them, use them, God Bless our troops!

Posted by: gordon at November 15, 2005 06:18 PM


David Hambling,

Am I not correct in that weapons procurements ARE made transparent to the public via the budget process? Was this weapon part of the military budget somewhere?

Posted by: Allan Benamer at November 15, 2005 06:20 PM


"The USA should develop more effective nuclear weapons."

Well, thats a pretty silly idea. The whole reason we stopped developing 'more effective nuclear weapons' is because it just encouraged everybody else to do the same. It might have been convienent in your eyes to just 'nuke' Baghdad, but if you make enough other people nervous about getting nuked, your simply up the chances of getting nuked first yourself.

Oh, yeah, and it would have been a terrible, terrible, idea. It wouldn't have ended the war, it would have simply guarenteed a civil war by effectively destroying the only possible center of government.

Posted by: david depman at November 15, 2005 06:21 PM


We have all seen far too many of our military personnel killed or injured because they had to go into buildings and dig these little Islamic Jihadists pig butts out of their little rat holes. As the father of two U.S. Marines, I believe we should do everything possible to protect our military personnel, and I don’t think we need to be checking with the media before we do so. Tell GS to bill me for two of them…..

Posted by: Gene Miller at November 15, 2005 06:21 PM


I don't care one bit about public debate. War is fought by the Military. If this weapon saves lives of our troops now, then use it now. Let the bleeding hearts debate it later. It is not contriversial or inhumane or anything new. It goes BOOM and kills the enemy. End of debate. Use it and God Bless the Marines, its about time they get the equipment they deserve to get the job done. How many Marines should we let die while soccer moms and anti-war protestors rangle over wether we should use a weapon that works when they would swoon at our failures. I don't get this at all.

Posted by: jeremy nerstad at November 15, 2005 06:24 PM


"You liberal assholes should all denounce American citizenship"

Why? Because you are a crackhead?

"I understand you crackheads have freedom because of people like me"

Sorry, our freedom doesn't depend on homeless dick sucking crackhead male prostitues like you.

Posted by: david depman at November 15, 2005 06:25 PM


The original issue that was brought up was concerning the nocealed nature in which this weapon was introduced to the Marines. I can personally say that these things have been in the hands of Marines since the start af the War in Iraq. I was a sergeant in charge of a platoon that had SMAW-NE attachments from the start of the war till I left roughly 8 months later.

These rounds were very effective in getting the job done when we needed it to. Why send an entire squad to clear a building when you can end it with one round? These rockets saved lives no question about that.

On the subject of civilian casualties, unless a civilian is being held hostage, they will have sufficiently vacated the area before a rocket is sent down-range. I say this becuase there is a significant amount of time during situational assessment, manuevering, and suppresive fire prior to a SMAW being fired.

Finally, the issue of hostages and Marine ROE, at least while I was there, hostages were not considered a factor of limiting engagement. That is, if you see a hostage, it doesn't matter. You do what you have to do to coninue the momentum of the attack.

I hope this helps from a factual perspective

Posted by: Ryan at November 15, 2005 06:27 PM


O.K. people. Lets look at this thing in all reality. We've lost 2000 G.I.'s over in the big sand pit. Looks like terrorism is here to stay. Put it in proper perspective. People die, military and civilian. We are over there to give them a hint terrorism will not be tolerated. People here at home die from smoking or lung cancer to the tune of about 400,000 each year.Put a dead 30 year old next to military vet of the same age, but military action, tell me the difference. It causes pain for both family's and extended familys. Wives, girlfriends loved ones and for what? 5 minutes worth of taste? How does one go about tasting smoke? In 58 years I have yet been unable to figure that one out. We lose 50,000 people a year to auto accidents. For what cause? All are preventable deaths, but in their own personal world they choose to kill themselves slowly. And one day it is over. A cancer patient is gone. So, in perspective don't shove your anti war sign in my face while smoking a cigarette. Cause you'll bite the big one. Some of those people are a bunch of pogues. Boy I feel better.

Posted by: Bob Bruno at November 15, 2005 06:30 PM


Seems to me if it helps me and my squad come home UNperforated, and doesn't have the effect of 16in 2ton shells of a battleship, the more the merrier.

In a MOUT situation, merde ocurs spontaniously! IT'S WAR. It ain't nice, clean, nor neat. If we get the bad guys in bags, or behind barbed wire, then it's over.

This SMAW-NE round has a very limited application. What's the difference between it and chucking a satchel charge in? How about the "wonderful" flamethrower? Which would you prefer as an "innocent bystander"? How about the one tasked to use it. This is far less damaging than a flame thrower, (esp to the one using it), and the satchel charge.

Seems to me lots of folks would like to see me or mine come home to Moma in a bag.

If not for us, "they" would be coming for you sometime in the not to distant future.

Smell what you're selling. It smacks of surrender to those who would like to see you dead or living as a new convert to Islam.

Appeasement doesn't work, ask the Chezch's, Poland, France, etc.

Don't worry. There's enough here in the USofA to finish this. If we don't, we'll be fighting in downtown, USA. I wonder what the peacenik's will say then?

Later...

Posted by: Jim Foster at November 15, 2005 06:31 PM


Well, Noah, so much for the smart, brutally honest commentary. It was good while it lasted.

Oh, and I'd be remiss in the shoddy comments arena if I didn't nitpick the fact that you misspelled "Diatribes". =)


--Christopher Karel

Posted by: Christopher Karel at November 15, 2005 06:32 PM


Recall that President Johnson bent to the outcry about using tear gas to clear caves in Viet Nam.Resulting in more US and enemy casualties.Public discussion about the Marines innovative use of this explosive is about as irresposible as anything I have heard so far this week.

Posted by: Robert T. Medley at November 15, 2005 06:32 PM


Recall that President Johnson bent to the outcry about using tear gas to clear caves in Viet Nam.Resulting in more US and enemy casualties.Public discussion about the Marines innovative use of this explosive is about as irresposible as anything I have heard so far this week.

Posted by: Robert T. Medley at November 15, 2005 06:33 PM


Happy Birthday Marines, Semper Fi and Thank You.

Posted by: TSG at November 15, 2005 06:34 PM


I agree with the "Good Grief" comment. Debate the enemy on whether we use a weapon or not? I suppose the Marine Corps rifle squad will now consist of 14 men, one of them a lawyer.

Posted by: John K. Bednar at November 15, 2005 06:38 PM


As much as I like to see this weapon, and think that public debate is not needed on this, I have one thing to say counter to a supporter here. Actually two things. They concern the atomic blasts that leveled two cities in advanced. People focus on that way too much, and fail to consider the fact that we actually boiled a river. We firebombed tokyo so much that it was no longer a worthwile target. Doesn't anyone ever wonder why the capitol was not bombed instead? Secondly, they had offered surrender on pretty much the same terms as we eventually accepted them after the bombs. A very convincing argument might be made that the bombs were more for the benifit of stalin and the soviets than actually winning the war. Just a thought.

Posted by: Gunner at November 15, 2005 06:49 PM


This looks to me like an effective piece of ordinance, and an impressive one too. Of course we should use it. As for colateral damage, well, this is war. And in war, colateral damage is, or should be, expected. As far as the "Human Rights" groups are concerned, why the HELL aren't they complaining and marching and nagging at the governments of Syria and Iran, that allow terrorists, with NO REGARD for human life, let alone Human Rights, to operate from within their borders? Stop trying to kill our servicemen and women by tying their hands. The day I give a damn about what these elitist fools think, is the day I see them take this fight to the true defilers of Human Rights.

Posted by: Rob Doyle at November 15, 2005 06:53 PM


I'd like to find an enemy we've fought that cared about human rights.

Posted by: Mike C at November 15, 2005 06:58 PM


"'You liberal assholes should all denounce American citizenship'
Why? Because you are a crackhead?

'I understand you crackheads have freedom because of people like me'

Sorry, our freedom doesn't depend on homeless dick sucking crackhead male prostitues like you."


Shut up. High school graduation is all you need to worry about for now, so don't stress yourself out too much by arguing with other peoples' opinions over a weapon that will do nothing but help our troops in Iraq. You've got a lot of growing up to do.

Posted by: Rob G. at November 15, 2005 07:04 PM


Wow.

"Our ongoing failure to effectively utilize our excellent nuclear capability is what has cost us dearly in Iraq..."

"War is simple... the sooner you kill all of the bad guys, the sooner everyone else stops dying..."

Some of you folks are scary.

If I (by some seriously strange set of events) found myself in Iraq faced by a fortified building full of people shooting at me, I would be extremely glad to have the weapon in question available and would not hesitate to use it. I'm fairly sure most of the posters here would agree.

How this connects to the pair of quotes seen above though, is a little more complex. Of course the soldiers in Iraq would love to have these weapons, and probably should have them, just as they are armed with every other modern item of destruction we can provide them with. It's the attitudes of the people back home (and by extension, the attitudes our soldiers take with them to the field) that are truly destructive.

This whole massively oversimplified us vs. them mentality, that we are the 'good guys' and they are the bad guys, as perpetuated by Bush and assorted hawks is what has turned the last four years into a bloodbath.

There is no moral justification for taking the lives of non-combatants, regardless of their attitudes towards you. Furthermore, doing so will only prolong and escalate the conflict, as demonstrated previously in Afghanistan, Palestine and countless other locations around the world.

If from this you draw the conclusion that conventional armies cannot possibly pacify an enemy that uses guerilla tactics in a hostile country, congratulations. You just learned the truth that U.S. politicians and military commanders have been unable to grasp since Vietnam. If you've maneouvered yourself into a position where the only way to 'win' is to extinguish the life of every human being that may oppose you, you've already lost.

Posted by: Mike at November 15, 2005 07:11 PM


Great new weapon.

I am all for it. Lets all go terrorist hunting with that.

Keep up the progress, get it to the field FAST.

Posted by: Sid Gylnn at November 15, 2005 07:33 PM


OORAH!

Posted by: Brett I. at November 15, 2005 07:42 PM


"There is no moral justification for taking the lives of non-combatants" I believe thats what you said Mike. Tell that to the vicitims of 9-11, the Cole,London,Jordan. If the defense of this country were left up to you Mike, everyones ass would be pointing west five times a day.

Posted by: John Shannon at November 15, 2005 07:50 PM


I understand what lots of you are saying, but the fact remains that world over, a lot more people cheer when Americans die *now* than they did five years ago. That's Bush's ultimate legacy.

Rant about power and control all you want, but that's the real direction America is headed in thanks to Bush and his regime - a country of people despised by humanity.

Posted by: Scratchy at November 15, 2005 08:05 PM


This whole discussion has gotten WAY out of hand, but let me address a few things. I'm a Marine who was on the front lines in Fallujah (Nov. 2004) so I think I know a little about this subject.

First, weapons (especially those like the SMAW rocket) aren't employed at will. If your rifle even discharges accidentally you'll have to report to an officer for some sort of punishment or at least a verbal thrashing. Engaging a target in Iraq is one of the most complicated and frustrating things a Marine has to do. Shooting at free will does NOT happen. Sometimes you can't even return fire when you have visual confirmation of a threat. The Rules of Engagement are extremely strict.

Second, the city of Fallujah had a population of approx. 300,000 while Saddam ruled. When I was there during the assault it was a ghost town, literally. Walking through the streets, I saw all the pamphlets alerting residents of the upcoming operation and urging them to leave. Nearly all of them did. The only exceptions were those who wanted to fight.
Hearing all the rumors of major civilian casualties used to infuriate me. I physically patrolled through and saw the entire northern sector (residential district north of Hwy. 10) and saw nothing of the sort. As much as some of you bleeding heart liberals want to believe Al-Jazeera and their reports, we did not use chemical weapons and bomb civilians by the hundreds. It was a hard-fought battle between U.S. forces and insurgents. End of story.

Finally, I spent the better part of a year (including most of the major holidays) in that rat-hole and NOT ONCE did I see an oil well or refinery, so don't tell me that I was over there " controlling the Middle East oil for us with rocket fire." If you have a problem with our president or our reasons for being in Iraq, that's fine. It's your opinion and this is a free country (thanks to our military, ahem). But the troops aren't over there filling up barrels with crude, they're fighting and dying. If you have a beef with the President, write him a letter, don't take it out the men and women doing their jobs.

With that said, I'll leave the rest to Colonel Jessup (Jack Nicholson, A Few Good Men)

"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. . . And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."

Posted by: DevlDawg at November 15, 2005 08:15 PM


wow..... we need to be careful and not let this weapon get into the hands of people with cruel intentions.

Posted by: miscblogger at November 15, 2005 08:23 PM


As an American citizen, I frankly could care less what the rest of the world thinks of us. We have NEVER been appreciated by the rest of the world. Except, of course, when we are killing the enemies their highly enlightened societies have allowed to flourish within them. In regards to more people cheering now than 5 years ago when Americans die, I would have to say that is unfortunate. But again, I don't care. Nor should you. The impact of their hatred towards us is really negligible. And finally, as far as not being able to win a war against enemies using Guerilla tactics in a foreign and hostile environment, wrong again. We DID defeat hostile Guerilla fighters in the South Pacific during WWII. The FACT isn't that we CAN'T defeat them. The FACT is that, unfortunately, those that DO NOT go to war no longer have the backbone to see a war through to the end. Mike, no soldier, Marine, Seaman, Airman, or Coast Guardsman that goes to war WANTS to kill non-combatants. Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorists the word over DO want to kill non-combatants. Realize the enemy for what they are. Do not Denigrate our troops while romanticizing the goals of a group of homicidal sociopaths.
T

Posted by: Rob Doyle at November 15, 2005 08:29 PM


Once the iraqis start defending their own sorry asses then they can complain about civilian casualties. Until then, since they're relying on OUR blood, sweat, and treasure they need to sit down, STFU and quit griping when we let loose whatever damn ordinance we please.

Hasn't anyone ever seen footage from the last world war? I'll take increased civilian casualties over our boys dying anyday. If they find it unacceptable, then get their own asses on the street and do the work so we can go home.

Posted by: P at November 15, 2005 08:38 PM


DevilDawg, Semper Fi Brother! Job well done!

Posted by: Rob Doyle at November 15, 2005 08:51 PM


You can clearly tell that the above few comments are clearly from those who are die hard war supporters. The cost of war far exceeds the totality of the conflict, regardless of what is at stake - everyone loses in a war. The very idea of going in to a country, mucking about with their economy, military and just about everything else and then saying "let them defend themselves" now that we have completely f*cked everything up is just stupid.

The american government (not it's people), have been sticking their fingers any pie they can get, the more foreign the "pie" or nation, the more support for the cause they can arouse. The ultimate goal of the American gov't is to rule supremely. This weapon can be equated as a very mild form of a nuclear bomb, it starts off as something small and tactile but later grows to something horrendous and utterly disgusting.

If America was at war with a European country, say England, I wonder if these xenphobic commentors would continue to make their remarks.

Posted by: Junked at November 15, 2005 09:16 PM


Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

By Steven E. Jones

Department of Physics and Astronomy

Brigham Young University

Provo, UT 84604


http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Posted by: Reality at November 15, 2005 10:18 PM


How many of these puppies would I need to order to take down a building the size of the white house?

Posted by: Dave at November 15, 2005 10:24 PM


IT'S ALL ACADEMIC, ALL OF IT.!!! ANY U.S. SOLDIER, SAILOR, AIRMEN OR ESPECIALLY MARINES WILL DO AS ORDERED OR FACE THE CONSEQUENCES. YOU SPEND YOUR TIME AND OBEY ORDERS, IF YOU LIKE IT YOU STAY IN AND IF YOU DON'T YOU GET OUT WHEN IT'S TIME, HOPEFULLY ALIVE AND WELL. IT'S EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO TRY AND SANITIZE WAR. WAR MEANS DEATH, AND DESTRUCTION. YOU HAVE TO LEAVE YOUR MORALS AND CIVILIAN IDEAS AT THE MAIN GATE UPON ENTERING AND PICK THEM UP ALONG WITH YOUR DISCHARGE PAPERS UPON LEAVING.

Posted by: L BROUSSARD SR. at November 15, 2005 10:28 PM


First, when will the pacifists ever learn sometimes war unfortunately is sometimes a neccesary evil and yes it is evil. I am very sorry noncombatants are dying but that is a price that has to be paid for peace in the long run.
Secondly as "Chesty" would say "can you kill people with it and save Marine lives at the same time then use it" (after a demonstration of the M60)

Posted by: Jack at November 15, 2005 10:28 PM


Quote: "First, when will the pacifists ever learn sometimes war unfortunately is sometimes a neccesary evil and yes it is evil."

I agree. So how many of these puppies do I need to remove the psychopathic parasites from the white house? Hypothetically speaking.

911 was in inside job.

Posted by: Dave at November 15, 2005 10:31 PM


This guy - John Blake at November 14, 2005 08:42 PM Got it right! Just like Gen. Sherman got it right when he was asked about his burning of the south. If war is too clean and only the soldiers die, the nations will never tire of it. And do not read into this that civillians should be targeted - no, all means should be taken to protect life - WHEN POSSIBLE. In most ground wars, the civilians are the first to leave - if allowed to do so, unlike Stalingrad of WWII. But if it comes to war, all means must be taken to win that war, anything less is a recipe for defeat.

Posted by: Jim Wagner at November 15, 2005 10:36 PM


WHY ARE WE DISCUSSING THIS HERE? LET'S FILE THIS ARTICLE UNDER CLASSIFIED SO NO BLEEDING HEART LIBERALS OR DEMOCRATS CAN TRY TO STOP THIS ROUNDS USE. LET THE TROOPS USE THEM AND GET THIS OVER SOON SO NO MORE MARINES WILL LOSE THEIR LIVES.

Posted by: JAMES MEADOWS at November 15, 2005 10:46 PM


The object of warfare is to kill people and break things. This weapon does both at the same time. And rather effectively.

And if it's brutal, then perhaps insurgents will think twice before hooking up that Suicide Belt or IED - which kills far more innocents than a delibrately aimed thermobaric weapon.

Anything to bring victory and end this conflict.

I say kudos to the USMC.

Posted by: Matt Garrett at November 15, 2005 10:53 PM


This comes from a Marine who has been in a confect(Vet Nam) and if we ever learn that news is never nice to us then to heck with them!!!! Marines do as told and are dam good at what they are trained to do and that is to protect Americans right to do as they want so GET-R-DONE Marines do what works and to hell with the bleading hearts sitting on there asses doing nothing.

Posted by: Richard Hardin at November 15, 2005 10:56 PM


This comment specifically addresses the "little fanfare" the Marine Corps has made concerning this weapon. Please show me a weapon or weapons system which the Marine Corps has shouted from the rooftops about. The only thing we (yes I am one of them) constantly praise and talk about is the individual Marine. The information you have been able to obtain is freely available to the public - the magazine "The Marine Corps Gazette" from which you quote extensively can be found at your better newstands. This was not the first article to appear about this weapon. Nor was procurement money obtained through anything but a very public manner. Your attempt to equate it with chemical weapons is misguided. Its use is not banned by any convention to which we are a party (nor for that matter is white phosphorous - a projectile type which is used much more frequently for its screening capabilities than for its lethality). Finally, as has already been explained, this weapon presents a much more accurate means to take down a house/bunker (although this does not always happen - dependent upon the construction of the target) than what would have usually been used - an artillery barrage, or an airstrike.

Semper Fi

Posted by: Al at November 15, 2005 11:12 PM


Yay! another overkill device for the idiots to "blow stuff up with". Good job military industrial complex! The knuckle draggers wont be able to sleep tonight, whilst visions of SMAW-NE and sugar plums dance in their heads.

War is for defending your borders, not for fun and games with new toys. Bad, very bad children! To your rooms and no more artillery rounds after dinner.

Posted by: Giagantic at November 15, 2005 11:13 PM


just nuke there asses and bring our troops to the next battlefield

Posted by: jeremiah bihary at November 15, 2005 11:15 PM


cold steel draws warm blood!!

Posted by: danbo at November 15, 2005 11:16 PM


All I gotta say is, where can I get one of these?! This is bad ass.

Posted by: jordo! at November 15, 2005 11:18 PM


I saw this round in action it was the best thing we had in mout it beat the hell out of going into a building that regular 5.56 didnt penetrate and finding that everyone was still alive in there shooting us to pieces. But then they took them from us claiming it was to inhuman so we went back to the old fashion way of heavy casualties and room by room intense white knuckle fighting. Thanks for Nothing to anyone who is trying to get rid of this round i hope its worth your fellow military members lives.

Posted by: Sgt. Hebert at November 15, 2005 11:18 PM


Meh. U.S. Forces don't have the stuff to carry out protracted wars against hard targets anymore.
And Iraq wouldn't have been considered a hard target twenty five years ago!
Even during WW2 it required overwhelming numbers (usually 20-to-1) and the help of other nations, and that was just to murder German civilians. The U.S. is lucky the Germans surrendered (which turned out to be a big mistake), and that they had traitors in their high ranks, otherwise the Allies would likely have been forced into a ceasefire.
If Germany had taken the ruthless approach of the Allies, and had used their tons of stockpiled VX gas, they would have wiped out the entire Allied infantry in Europe. Eventually the Germans would have mastered intercontinental rocket systems, and I'm sure the Americans would complain about how unfair it would all be.

Will the U.S. win based on its ruthless thuggish behavior? No. For the simple reason that it IS a paper tiger, filled to the brim with fools, flatterers, and mental and emotional cripples who still value their lives more than their delusions. And that is the description of its imperial warhawks, supposedly the people who will stomp on humanity's throat. Forget about trying to be world's beat cop; we can't even keep our economy on an even keel.

Posted by: Steve Pile at November 15, 2005 11:22 PM


"There is no moral justification for taking the lives of non-combatants" I believe thats what you said Mike. Tell that to the vicitims of 9-11, the Cole,London,Jordan. If the defense of this country were left up to you Mike, everyones ass would be pointing west five times a day.

Posted by: John Shannon at November 15, 2005 07:50 PM"

Why is it John, that 911 is always brought up with Iraq. Those are 2 different wars. Iraq isnt full of terrorist, what they have are gurilla fighters. Those are two entirely different enemies. Im a marine myself in Iraq, and sir, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. So do us all a favor, and if you have yet to go to Iraq, and be shot at on a daily basis, shut the hell up and quit telling me what you think you know. Tool.

Posted by: Col. James Gates at November 15, 2005 11:43 PM


One for each squad!

Then use them on certain college campuses

Posted by: Keith at November 15, 2005 11:49 PM


" just nuke there asses and bring our troops to the next battlefield

Posted by: jeremiah bihary at November 15, 2005 11:15 PM"
-------------------------------------

Any of you geniuses wonder what the hell we are doing in Fallujah in the first place?!!? Why are you so high on killing in a war based on lies? Al Qaeda is a farce, those guys were funded by our CIA. Iraqis had nothing to do with 911. Nothing. The marines are there to steal, ahem, "secure", the oil for Israel.

Why do you consider these civilians legit targets? If someone forced your health and education system down to poverty levels, then came in force to your town, tortured your population, maimed and/or killed your women, children with indiscriminate bombing....then would you not defend yourself? Of course, that's allowed, right?

Having weapons like these is probably great to boost your impotent, empty lives. Have you ever wondered why we have to kill these civilians while we have no way of saving our own people in New Orleans?

We are wrong to be there. We are wrong to use these weapons on civilians. We are bullies. I hate to see how we have to answer to God for our crimes.

Posted by: Alan Cekorich at November 15, 2005 11:50 PM


Brilliant Savages we be.

Posted by: Patrick Sullivan at November 15, 2005 11:52 PM


Kill 'em all. And the Democrats, too. Everybody but you and me... Well I do wonder about you sometimes.

Posted by: Dale E. Moore at November 15, 2005 11:54 PM


Some of you sound like success stories from our happy public school systems where everyone needs a smiley face because if we encourage you to succeed you will be successful...

unfortunately, the terrorists don't go to schools like that. They go to schools that teach them that we are the 'Great Satan' and it is God's will for them to kill us. I wish it wasn't so. I wish we could 'talk it all out'... but how does that work when as you try your best negotiation, love on 'em, give 'em your best technology so they can have nuclear power plants, give them food, medicine, you name it, and they stare back at you thinking about how they can cut your legs out from under you so you can be as low as them in life...

The people who are our enemy will not be satisfied until we eat dust with them in 18th century style mud houses with the plumbing and electrical wire ripped out of the walls, with our women wrapped up in little tents, and pretend that it all pleases Allah... when really it pleases them that we have become like them... the ultimate act of worship.

How do you negotiate with that? It's not until they wonder if their culture/society can survive that they MIGHT listen... wanting them to hear you, trying to "see it from their perspective" is not going to make it so... doesn't even make you a better person...

Sad as it is... the stakes are too high, our boys need our best. We've got to stop being squeemish, this isn't Star Trek and 'put it on stun'. It is a prideful and foolish man that says his right to know and debate openly in public these things is more important than the young man's life standing in the desert, with sweat pooring down his face, wishing he didn't have to kill anybody else today, because even though he was trained for it and it seems exciting and maybe even fun at first, you can't undo it and it's terribly real and there are bullets whizzing past his head and shit where's the other guy that's got that SMAW-NE thing, and damn it hurry up! Those fuckers are shooting at us!

Public debate will be B.S. until the public can debate from an informed position, and unless there is a shift towards honor and truth telling in our culture on both sides of the issues at hand, I doubt any public debate will profit anyone.

Posted by: cari at November 16, 2005 12:01 AM


David Depman,

Did my kind words piss you off? ahhhhhhhhh little boy,let me wipe your tears with an aloe based kleenex so I dont mess up you soft facial skin hughug kisskiss, do you feel better now? How hard did you hit those keys to type in your message? I bet your little hands hurt from your built up anger, anyone else wanna baby this little bitch? LOL

Posted by: Dennis at November 16, 2005 12:04 AM


Col. Gates, if your really a colonel and not an irate 19 year old with a Cheetos and Xbox addiction, the truth of the matter is that the Trade Tower attacks, Jordan, and London (Cole was probably an actual "terrorist" attack)were the work of their respective governments, save perhaps the Jordan bombing, which could have been a Mossad operation (like in the Trade Tower attacks, the Israelis were warned ahead of time to evacuate and in Jordan they DID). Who benefits from those attacks? Besides the Cole incident, only the people who support Israel expansion and wars against "Anti-Semites" benefited in any way from the incidents.
Who did it? The people you slavishly serve and worship.

Posted by: Steve Pile at November 16, 2005 12:09 AM


Fellow service men,

Goodday, Thanks for the fellow hard core no shit takein blood thirsty Marines on this site. You Devil Dawgs make me the proudest SOB on earth! If you served between 1990 and 1998 and have gone through S/S school at Stone Bay range Camp Lejeune NC 28542 I may know you personally.I was the assistant instructor at the school side by side with Gunny Morris. I was the 6'5 bastard covered in tatoo's if that rings a bell but do to the harsh words of David Depman I have to keep my name a mystery in fear for my life LOL!!!!!!! The sad thing about forums is that people who have no fucking clue about what our military goes through think they know more than us. They dont know what it means to have to follow an order. they dont know that the saying is true (first to go, last to know) for you assholes out there who think you know something about combat let me fill you in. There is a thing called mission accomplishment that the Marine Corps is built on, we dont give 2 shits about what you liberal fucks think about your lost fucking cause. Orders are given, orders are followed. You may not agree with it but shit, we follow a thing called the UCMJ we have orders and have to follow rules of engagement. Partly due to you liberal assholes as I am seeing on this post getting permission to defend ones own life is like the worst case of sand ass you could get.(You guys in the middle east know what I mean)So please, either post something to support our men & wemon or please, go get a expresso and save a fucking tree somewhere.

Posted by: Dennis at November 16, 2005 12:28 AM


Should any of you choose to pause and reflect on why the rest of the world looks on in horror at the unilateral policies prosecuted by United States, and why the US is alienating would-be allies, I would suggest a read through the postings on this page should be sufficient.

Characterised by factual inaccuracy and an incapacity to hold that another's viewpoint may be just as valid as your own, I truly despair for the future of the US and the rest of the world if this 'discussion' should prove to be an indication of the majority view of the US populace.

Posted by: ConcernedCitizenOfTheWorld at November 16, 2005 12:32 AM


There is no "pleasant" or "humane" way to kill your enemy. The goal remains the same. And like every other war before, civilians that get caught up and mixed in with the enemy usually get killed. Thats why they say War is Hell.
In God we trust but thru superior firepower we can sleep well at night.
Now lets get on with it, get it over and done with, and get the forces home.

Posted by: Mike at November 16, 2005 12:32 AM


Being a former Marine, I will certainly reply that whatever I could get my hands on to seek out, close with and destroy the enemy always works for me. Audie Murphy wasn't issued the .50 caliber he had to use in a tight but he was damn thankful that it became available I'm sure. Morality issues seldom came into play whether in a foxhole in Belleau Wood or going house to house in Hue City because a Marine's job is to kill as many of those bastards in front of him as he can and the enemy can be damn thankful that there are any pamphlets delivered at all giving them ample warning that death, real pain and true suffering is most certainly coming his way. I also don't think anybody who is using an IED with arty rounds is really too worried about "overkill" either. My only real complaint would be if this weapon were to somehow be convertible to utilize some kind of NBC capability because that's a different Pandora's box altogether. To all my Marine bro's gettin' it on---stay low and quick and come back home in one piece. Semper Fi,

Posted by: W. J. Wright at November 16, 2005 12:41 AM


Thank the U.S.A. and the USMC for speaking the facts. I am completely reassured by the intelligent comments blooming like WP of truth. A few small voices that may have to answer for thier selfish public comment can don the Emperor's New Clothes of false liberal belief and grandstand with infantile perspective. It's called sedition. I know and have known generations of USMC personnel. The outlook of Marines in WW2 was irrepressable. Let's go ahead with the certainty that Marine confidence, morale & determination will create a world untenable for armed oppsition and others closer to home.

Wade MC

Posted by: Wade MC at November 16, 2005 12:45 AM


Lets just use the weapons we have to and bring our troops home safely and not in body bags.I am a viet vet and what do we have to show from that mess. A granite wall with names of many that died in vain....and now we are starting another list from a new conflict. If this is a war than fight it and be finished instead of having our troops die in vain

Posted by: Franko at November 16, 2005 12:54 AM


you all are mad about the war in one way or another...right? you either are mad that it is going on or mad that people are mad that it is going on, grow some balls and realize that this is life. we had to fight to become America and we have to fight to stay America! I would rather go to someone elses house and F*ck sh!t up then have them over at my place doin the same. Im a Marine for life. OOOORRRRAAAAAHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Wadsworth at November 16, 2005 01:05 AM


Again American facist demonstrate thier wilingness to use illegal weapons in an illegal war. The illegal invaders being killed by the ilegal insurgents, poetic justice!

Posted by: magic at November 16, 2005 01:08 AM


As a former Marine officer many years ago, I was told/taught to use the right weapon in the right situation. I don't call for a daisy cutter for a sniper shooting at my unit from a CAP village. But I would call in a daisy cutter on an active regimental base camp.

Public debate about weapons is done at the policy level, not the tactical level. The policy boys, usually civilians, tell us military types to use which weapons in which type of wars. The military types work out the protocols, ROE, for the weapons available in the theater of operations.

Since Bush has decided that we are in nation building mode instead of crush the enemy at all cost mode (remember the scene on the aircraft carrier where he said all major military operations are completed because we won the "destroy the enemy" phase of the Iraqi War), we can only use the weapons that don't kill more of the civilians we are suppose to be protecting than the bad guys.

From the article, it sounds like the protocol for the use of this SMAW-NE weapon is as follows:
If you are taking fire from multiple weapons or crew served weapons from a building/bunker, use the SMAW-NE to remove threat.
If you are taking sniper fire from one or two weapons from a multi-story building and you watch a mama-san (sorry, wrong war) an Iraqi mother herding her children to safety in the same building, you don't fire a SMAW-NE through the door behind her. You call up your own sniper team to take out the enemy snipers. If you are a savvy officer or staff NCO, you know you are suppose to use your best judgment where to draw the line between using each weapon at your disposal.

For you Attention Deficient Hyper-Active types, you don't get to kill civilians just because you are too stupid to know which war you are fighting.

Even the civilian types get it wrong sometimes. For example, US civilians thought it a great idea to deploy the neutron bomb in Europe because it would destroy Soviet armored forces without destroying civilian infrastructure. The Europeans hated the idea because it reduced the horrors of nuclear warfare and made it more likely that nuclear weapons would be used in their own backyard. As it turned out, the Europeans read the Soviet psyche better than the US did.

Posted by: Conan the Younger at November 16, 2005 01:08 AM


Also, if the price for a country to enter into war with America is higher because we have more "massively brutal weapons", then all the better. The more they have to think twice (or thrice) before getting into conflicts, the better.

Uh, if I recall, the Iraqis where all just sitting at home having dinner when the US kicked in the door, killed a lot of soldiers (and civilians), deposed the government, annouced martial law, installed a puppet government. And then were shocked that people started riding around in pickup trucks shooting at them.
Yes, I'm sure the world would be a better place for a little more thinking.
The difference between a tool of liberation, and a tool of terror is the intent. And when the US are standing in a sovereign country they have invaded using those tools, it looks remarkably like a terror campaign to suppress a population.

Posted by: scott at November 16, 2005 01:23 AM


war is hell

Posted by: soldier at November 16, 2005 01:30 AM


Kinda gives new meaning to the phrase , kill em all, let GOD sort em out.
Or, kill everyone, GOD will know his own.

Posted by: stewball at November 16, 2005 01:39 AM


God Bless America, and save it while you are at it. God Bless our troops. Because here in Iraq we are losing many misinformed young men and women just like I have been in the past. God will you do something about the “God fearing” President. While you people debate on whether we should be using a HE or overpressure weapon young men and women are here IN Iraq dying because the American people would rather fight each other about "morally correct weapons" but watch the news that we watch everyday at the chow hall in Iraq. Bush lied to take us all here and we should not be here in the first place. Quit debating over the shit that doesn't matter and get acting about the things that do. Start holding people that lie to you accountable for their actions. My fellow countrymen never stop amazing me with the futility of there moronic discussions. But never will some people get to the root of what is the real problem. Politicians play a game of divide and conquer and you people play right into it.

A young soldier was telling me about his experience before we deployed. He was at the DMV turning in a statement of non use on his vehicle. The lady at the counter was talking to him about going to Iraq of course. “Well God bless you.” “Thank you” the soldier replies. “Well I think we should just bomb the all and be done with it” the lady says. The soldier replies “well ma’am we couldn’t just go and do that because there are women and children in Iraq that are innocent just like you and me.” The lady quips “well I don’t want you defending me.” Have we evolved into such a sinister bunch? I hope not. Just remember while Bush gets on TV and makes quick remarks about War on Terror and Iraq and tries to tie the two together through misleading ambiguous speech. Bush and Cheney have both admitted on National TV that there are NO connections between Saddam and 911. Nope couldn’t prove it but even the lily liberals towed the line to get us here. All in all liberals suck they own as much stock in the military industrial complex as conservatives and they hate the Constitution. Conservatives suck because they hold contempt for the very thing they are supposed to uphold but they also hate the Constitution. And while you may Champion Reps over Dems because of taxes or whatever, I don’t make six figures a year and my taxes are way up. All of my taxes are up property, state income, and federal income. Wake up America the American dream and your freedom's are being stolen from you while I am here in Iraq and you debate about the shit that really doesn't matter. WAKE UP.

Posted by: GuyinIraq at November 16, 2005 01:41 AM


I don't understand the fuss. Haven't we used Thermobarics in Afghanistan? War has never been pretty or it's weapons,but they are used to achieve the ultimate goal of victory. And if that means using these so called "BRUTAL" weapons to protect our soldiers,Then we have to be "BRUTAL"!

Posted by: Jerome at November 16, 2005 01:47 AM


The Marines have something that puts them on an
even footing with Iraqi Ambush Insurgents, and that's a bad thing!!??? JMJ!! who's side are
these nitwits on. We should give them a leg up
cause Winning isn't playing fair!!?? Screw the
Insurgents. If they take shots at US Troops or
they are ambushing Marines from somebody's house,
Somebody better grow a brain and defend themselves from the Insurgents putting those same people at risk. The cerebral types have way
too much to say. The "Lawyers" should shoulder a
weapon, go on patrol,dig some metal out of their
butts and then, see if their opinions are the same. Otherwise take the advice of Cheech and Chong to Chris Schenkel, "Don't say nothin!!"

Posted by: Tpr. Bloodhound at November 16, 2005 02:06 AM


Hmmm, a half second thermobaric death. Or being stitched head to toe by 7.62 and writhing in pain for the next four hours until finally retiring??? Fellas there is nothing good about any death whatsoever...Fact is until we get the Star trek phaser gun what death is best for both parties is the QUICKEST one. I do not worry much about the moment of death, it is the hours before it that worry me. I had also rather die a brutal instant death over a gutshot anyday. Besides it aint about how good you look as a corpse...A side note worth thinking about though: When the enemies of America has the opportunity to choose we did it is usually torture...Sad how good weapons can bring all this negative publicity when the truth is everyone seems to not see a problem with hurling infintismal lead missles by the hordes tearing ripping and utterly destroying wounding an maiming for life all in its path...BUT god forbid we vaporize those who would destroy us by any means at all possible?????

Posted by: Todd at November 16, 2005 02:18 AM


have we forgotten war is hell and people will suffer. It is not intended to be painlees or kind, that is why it should be avoided. But if it can't there can be no second guessing or hesitation.

Posted by: Tink at November 16, 2005 02:35 AM


I think we should take every military in the world,, and set them in Montana. Then give them their choice of a sword, or a boar spear,, then say to them,, "Go at it FELLAS!"

Then,, after they have slaughtered each other for sport,, we could make use of our B-52's , by carpet bombing the survivors.

Posted by: ra_balke at November 16, 2005 02:41 AM


if you don't think weapons are sold in an open market you're wrong. this will find it's way into the "enemys" hand.

Posted by: robert berencreuz at November 16, 2005 03:29 AM



► Do you have the guts to read all of this? Or... will it hurt your brain too much?

What some of you don't realize is we are trying to save YOUR God damn lives and make America great again as it was before Bush came in and dragged our good name through the mud. The more Iraqi civilians are killed and the more the USA allows torture, the more we lose hearts and minds... and the more we lose hearts and minds, the more the UNITED STATES recruits insurgents and terrorists... and WE recruit not only in Iraq, but all over the World. This is a vicious cycle that will NEVER stop with the INSANE Bush administration "strategy". The same strategy that happens to make a crapload of money for corrupt companies related to them (Halliburton, etc.).

Look, the less we research alternative, renewable domestic energy... the more we will need to kill and be killed to control oil distribution in the Middle East. We'll have to do this to keep our voracious American energy needs maintained.

If you think this battle in Iraq is just about protecting the American way of life... then you are either brainwashed, not very well-read or both at this point. The terrorists have made it very clear that the only reason they attacked the United States was because we occupy their lands. The overwhelming majority of those doing battle right now could give a rat's ass how we live in the West as long as we don't occupy their lands. You are fed a lie that the Middle East (at large) is out to stop Americans from having sex or listening to Black Sabbath. The sad fact is... we occupy the Middle East to help keep control of the oil and they do not want us there.

Yes, there are some terrorists (a small minority) that simply hate the West no matter what we do and we need to root them out, capture and/or KILL THEM. But, that would be a hell of a lot easier if we weren't causing so much ill will and less cooperation throughout the world with our idiotic, poor strategy occupation of Iraq. If we won more hearts and minds around the world, it would be FAR more difficult to find places to hide from us after terrorist attacks like 911, etc. because people that love us would rat the scum out instead of looking the other way or even harboring them.

If attacking Iraq was a humanitarian mission then why the HELL didn't we go into the Congo and stop GENOCIDE as it was happening around the same time?!!! Because there was no money in it for the Bush administration cronies, that why. I'm sorry if your pansy ass can't cope with this sick, sad, evil fact. I'm sorry if this wrecks your mind. I'm sorry if this challenges all of your brainwashing... but you need to know the truth about why the USA is in Iraq because these lies you are being fed is hurting America.

Oh, and Bush trying to rewrite history and say that everyone (Democrats, etc.) who supported the Iraq war had all the same information as he did was a LIE. A despicable, obvious lie. Many of us that supported the war only did so because we believed Bush administration lies. Oh, and Bush now lies and says that there was a report that shows they did nothing to screw with pre-war intelligence... haha... ok, brainwashed... I have a challenge for you... If you fvcks are so brave... I DARE YOU... I fvcking DARE YOU to go and find out just WHO did this report. I'll warn you, what you'll find out will hurt your brain. It's like a criminal investigating himself... guess what he'll find? That he's "not guilty" of anything... that's what he'll find.

What we need to do is kill off terrorism by giving them NOTHING TO DO. If the United States spent just a FRACTION of money on domestic energy research instead of the MASSIVE amount of money we spend blowing up brown people... we would not NEED Middle East occupation. The vicious cycle will be BROKEN.

Now shut the fvck up and let us save your lives.

- Cowicide (Extreme Moderate & VERY PROUD American)

Posted by: Cowicide at November 16, 2005 03:47 AM


Wow. How novel--lets keep building bigger bombs and killing more people in this endless cycle called Human History. If there is one thing humans have proven during our brief stint on this planet it is we do not deserve it. NONE of US. Keep building the bombs. Keep justifying the killing. It doesn't solve a damn thing. Us vs. Them vs. Them vs. Us.

Perhaps Mother Nature will take care of all of us one day and no one will have to worry about building the next great bomb.

Liberal. Conservative. Muslim. Christian. Whatever. It is so sad as human beings we all can't wake up in the morning and take in the awe that is sunrise. The awe that is life. Why have we all become so damn desensitized and subhuman?

Posted by: Dr. Strangelove at November 16, 2005 04:05 AM


I was a SMAW gunner during my enlistment from 94 to 98. I have spent 6 months in Kuwait from Jan to Jul of 98 because of Saddam. BTDT.
With that being said, if the round in question means saving my fellow Marines, I am all for it. I have fired both live rounds currently in use and I see their potential. However, that was seven years ago. The face of battle has changed, as it changes so must we. Our secondary motto is/was Semper Gumby.. Always Flexible. We adapt to the situation. To defeat the threats of today, we must employ the weapons of today. We wanted a Flechette round so bad becaue we knew what it could do and why. Did we get it? nope.
To my brothers in Aco 1/5 wpns... I'm with you every step.

Cpl Andrew, BM A Co. 1/5 0351 Gunner.

Posted by: Bryan Andrew at November 16, 2005 04:35 AM


who proffits from all of this,and why arnt the shit stirring politicians out there fighting,Ill tell you why,because they are laughing all the way to the bank,while mugs like you and me provide them with cannon fodder in the form of ourselves and our offspring,as well as pay many taxes to fund new methods of destruction,In short,go kill yourselves ,while we sit off ,and you can pay us too,SUCKERs
when a human dies they litterally make a killing,and ordanance proffits soar,like class a drugs,they kill you ,and the price keeps going up,hey but arnt they illegal to keep the prices high,,

Posted by: minky moo at November 16, 2005 04:45 AM


I think guys that you are all out of your mind!
What makes you think that when you go to occupy a suvereign country to steal their goods to run your engines,you have got the right to call them terrorist,just beacause their ideas or interests are opposing of yours.Before you think that you are entitled to use these kind of weaponst think of that fact that your army is the only one who ever deployed nuclear weapon at war.Would be better to think that the world has started to rebel against your actions!!Go home and clean up in front of your house first than give lessons to the others.Do not dare to call your mission humanitary mission.Your politicians are crooks and ruthless killers,killers whom are killing they own for they pockets...

Posted by: casey ryback at November 16, 2005 04:53 AM


"American Lives" are worth more than other lives?

Amazing. Simply Amazing. Has every single American overlooked the fascism in their country, or what ..

Posted by: jay vaughan at November 16, 2005 04:54 AM


This place has a high proportion of fascist idiots and apologists for wholesale terror.

The war on terror is the war on terra, and is being fought for oil and resources against the people of the world.

You boys and your toys live in a moral vacumn.

100 000 killed in gulf war3.
1 000 000 killed in gulf [not]war2
150 000 killed in gulf war1.

And you armed, supported politically and advised the Iraq gov. right up until the last possible moment. Your own gov. employees made $millions from the deal.

And yet ...

You think killing american citizens oppossed to the war is a more just solution than analyzing the total lies and greed that promotes bushes imperilalist aggression?

You are devorced from reality.

Reality will not allow this.

America is heading for a big fall, and the rest of the world await with baited breath and hope in their weary bloody hearts.

Posted by: jackslucid at November 16, 2005 04:55 AM


After reading through these posts I can see where this is a very worthy topic for debate. It causes me to wonder though, how effective would ANY of our forces be at doing their ASSIGNED duties were they required to hesitate until their actions, methods or equipment choices passed muster of the debate teams??
I do agree 110% with the comments by Guyiniraq, along with the sentiments of the others who are actually there and daily putting their ass on the line so that old farts like us can sit comfortably in our homes spouting our oppinions.
While I do not agree with our involvment in governing other countries (when we can't even govern ourselves) The simple fact of the matter is, Agree or not, like it or not, There ARE Americans in combat situations on a daily basis in a very HOSTILE enviroment,None of these people are there because they woke up one morning and had the thought, Hey , I think I will just hop over to this sespool and play alittle war today. These people are there due to the fact that they , for what ever reason took on the task of defending this country(against All enemies both foreign and domestic)Plain and simple they are there doing the dirtiest job on earth so that in the near future we won't have to take on the task in our front yards. As long as these few brave men and women are doing that job. No one, absolutly NO ONE has the right to do or say anything that can even remotly be construed as detrimental to their mission, this including every American citizen from the Pres. on down to the homeless guy at the shelter.
As a Nam Vet I remember some of the Hanoi Jane crowd squawking about how we were conducting the war there. I also remember the effect it had on the moral of many of the guys when they came home to have people spit on them, I was called a baby burner by a group of college students on my first leave home (From Scotland)thats right, I was in the Navy. some of those students were kids I grew up with and went to high school with. The difference in them and me was that their families had enough money to send them off to school, My family has a strong history of military service and sense of Honor,I also volenteered for duty on pbrs&swifts in the delta. The point I am getting at is, YES we should have strong, informed debate about matters that affect our lives, but I think that we have , for the most part become a nation of soft asses who are happy to let "Somebody else worrie about the problems" We OWE our troops better than that! They are there defending YOU and ME, our nation, We OWE it to them and all who served before them to make this a nation worth defending. The place to start doing that is to start holding these politicians accountable for their actions and all the dirty little deeds they are pulling on the people of this country!
I know, this is supposed to be a new global economy and the begining of a new world order, and I'm sure that all the huggy feelies around are just tickled pink about it. I wonder how they will feel when they look out their window one morning to find all the troops with the blue helmets going through their neighborhood rounding up all the "subversives"? The longer we hold on to the attitude that "Oh, that could never happen here" the closer and more probable the time will come when we are all saying "OH SHIT!!!!! it has happened HERE!. Don't think it is so? Talk to someone who survived the Blitz in London.
A very wise gentleman taught me long ago that there is only one effective way to combat terrorists, You must terrorize them into complete and utter submission, otherwise you only serve to fuel their cause! Right wrong or indifferent it holds true.
It is high time we stopped pissing around with these ragheads and let our troops do their job. As far as I am concerned, any body else in the world that doesn't like it can Kiss OFF Lest we send our troops to visit YOU next!!
I may have stepped on some toes here, or possibly offended a couple of bleeding hearts, but I have an idea that my fellow Patriots understand where I am coming from,,, as for the rest of you ,,, Well, you matter less than a piss ant to us, and your oppinions even less!
Just my Oppinion, To me, all the raghead lives in the world are not worth even one drop of Marine Blood! However, even one raghead drop of blood is worth a million times more than the lives of all the politicians and Oil Barrons put together. SEMPER FI Brothers and Sisters, Keep up the Good fight and come home soon!

Posted by: bones river rat at November 16, 2005 05:04 AM


I found Cowicides comments to be somewhat biased, after clicking on his profile I discovered just how bitter it is.
Personally, whether this war was justified or not(And I still believe it was/is) is immaterial at this point. What matters is that our Marines, soldiers, etc. are in harms way and if there is ANY weapon system available to give them an advantage it would be criminal not to deploy it.

Posted by: zonabill at November 16, 2005 05:22 AM


No question in my mind if the new thermoberic device should be used if it helps save just one American life. The big danger lies in keeping this device out of the hand of potentially hostile forces through illegal arms trade or enemy capture. Perhaps integrating the device with a digital arming code and basic failsafe devices deployed previously in similar unconventional devices may be in order. Thermoberic devices are under development and will not go away so protocal for their use must be established.

Posted by: Night Eagle at November 16, 2005 05:32 AM


Don`t need and do not want anymore wars.But if we have anything that can be used by our kids to do thier job. I`m for it,100%.I remember when we went from C`s to Long Rats,we all thought that was the greatest thing.Humping the gun in a Force Recon team,meant I could carry more ammo.More bullets,lighter beans just wonederful. SF

Posted by: RUBEN at November 16, 2005 05:56 AM


I would far rather that American soldiers die during operations than Iraqi citizens. The soldiers signed up for this. If the cost of war is too high for the U.S. then it is quite simple. Don't go to war. 11/9 (Notice the U.K. date) he was an invitation to come over and get involved in an unwinnable war.

The U.S. would have been far better to concentrate on intelligent responses to terrorism. The 'Yee Haa' response is unworthy of the people in New York, a lot of whom will probably be appalled at the descision to lie to the U.S. people in the case for going to war. When most of the world is against you when even after you have been attacked in a vicious way, your case is probably very poor.

I have no problem with wars being fought when the justification is there, I don't mind weapons that kill effectively.

For those of you who would love to dismiss my comments on the 'You don't know what it was like' basis. I live in London, and work about 1/2 mile from where a couple of the bombs went of on 7th July. I felt angry with the people who did it. I also felt angry with the U.K. and U.S. governments for their incompentence when dealing with terrorism.

Posted by: Michael at November 16, 2005 06:06 AM


I have a son and a nephew who are both Army Infantry. Hooah! If this weapon keeps them and their buddies alive while they dispatch Islamic Terrorists.............give it to them and let them use it. If the Marines or Army are coming to town to clear it of Jihaddies anyone in their right mind not involved (ie. civilians) will clear out. The rules of engagement are pretty simple. Don't shoot at our troops and our troops won't use the weapons given to them. In the mean time use what you have to get the job done and get home safe.

Posted by: Dan Hughes at November 16, 2005 06:15 AM


If it kills more people and better, like all good Americans I'm all for it.

But nobody else is allowed to have them, that would be terrorism.

Posted by: Arrogant American at November 16, 2005 06:17 AM


We should anex all the countries that wish to become part of the United States and NUKE the rest of those muthaz. Might makes right baby! Then we can bring all the boys home and make them police to control the nation with an iron fist. If you don't like it then you get kicked out into the toxic wastlands.

It all is to much for my brain. Forget thinking, I am going to church.

PRAISE THE LORD

Posted by: the heretic at November 16, 2005 06:26 AM


What happens when you put a powerful weapon in the hands of savages? Total destruction of everything in sight. It is good however that recruiting for the military services is down. People are finally getting smart.

Posted by: Joseph at November 16, 2005 06:32 AM


We have gotten rid of all those sissy Geneva Conventions and International Bans on Torture. There is no reason we shouldn't just Nuke the Towel Heads. Nuke the whole lot of them.

Then we can sleep safer in our beds and not live in cowering terror all the time.

Besides they have our oil, and they were selling it for the wrong kind of money. They can sell the oil but they can only sell it for American Dollars of course. How the hell can we run the world if people start selling their oil for other currencies. That's like, pretending that oil was theirs in the first place. It aint. That oil is American Oil, or it soon will be.

Posted by: Arrogant American at November 16, 2005 06:38 AM


I believe that the more power you can prove you have, the less you're enticed to use it. The only caveat is having a morally/ethically stable person in charge of when and how it's used. I can trust the guys pulling the trigger to make the right decision, I'm just not so sure they'll have the ability to exercise that decision.

Posted by: Todd at November 16, 2005 06:45 AM


Heretic nobody wants to be a part of the USA, except Mexico, and they are moving in already. So we don't have to bother with annexing anybody, we can just get on with using these Nukes we've had sitting around, going to waste all these years.

Anyaway, it the Armageddon, and we are supposed to do it. Thats what my uncle says. Uncle George that is.

Posted by: Arrogant American at November 16, 2005 06:45 AM


I noticed that several entrants in this forum evidently are happy that so many americans are dieing because "They signed up for it" I can only wish that some day You might find yourself in MY crosshairs. All I can say is that any spinless COWARD can sit in an office 1/2 mile from a bomb blast and deride their government and rightfully so, Just keep in mind that your right to do that was paid for by the Blood of young armed forces troops (Both American as well as English) and as I mentioned before neither YOU nor anyone else on this planet has the right to say even one miserable utterance against them.
Why don't you take a short jaunt down to your local Pub, find one of your local disabled veteran Royal Marines and tell him and his mates that you value a bunch of ragheads over people like him! Unless you feel THAT convinced that you are right and the rest of us are wrong, I would suggest that you consider taking up residence in Iraq, I'm sure the "Insurgents would welcome another sniveling COWARD into their midst!
As I mentioned earlier, It is my contension that whether we like it or not WE ARE AT WAR and WE OWE it to our troops to support them in any and every way possible to the compleation of their mission, otherwise WE are not worthy of their efforts!!
In closing, I would like to pose a question, How many of you contribute on a regular basis to the U.S.O.??? If you haven't now is a good time,,think about it???

Posted by: bones river rat at November 16, 2005 06:50 AM


Who Would Jesus Bomb?
Jesus, save yourself from the gory gloryseekers, who use your name in death.
Allah, the same goes for you.

Posted by: realist at November 16, 2005 06:52 AM


I got it. We can do away with these cool tech weapons and just give the marines nets. YEAH! We could capture those SAND NIGGAZ and then torture them to death. Maybe bring them back to America so every house hold has an Arab to torture and spit on. That will teach those women and children too blow up my twins. "Spit on the brown guy little Julie" "good girl"

Posted by: the heretic at November 16, 2005 07:03 AM


For all those squawking about not being opposed to a war as long as it is justified,,,I would ask, How the hell does the aspect of justfication have anything to do with war???
War is the result of the failure of justification!

Posted by: bones river rat at November 16, 2005 07:12 AM


"Uncle George"... that's cute. You really don't have a clue, do you Arrogant?

Posted by: Jack at November 16, 2005 07:23 AM


Don't see a problem here. Blind them , blast them, burn them - worked at Tarawa and it apparently still works today. Much more simple and efficient than a precision guided weapon (missile/bomb) - but wait - last time I checked, a direct fire weapon in the hands of US Marine is a precision weapon.

Posted by: Rich at November 16, 2005 07:24 AM


War is voilent and destructive, but for those on the front line involved in carrying out the "dirty work", it is imperative that he or she be given the "best" in order that they can survive and accomplish their assignment.

It is a kill or be killed situation, if it were otherwise, it would proablly be called "power puff football".

Semper Fi!

Posted by: J. Love (USMC ret.) at November 16, 2005 07:31 AM


With the technology the United States has, there isn't one reason why we should have lost one soldier and the sad part about it is that the war isn't being fought to keep our freedom in the United States. This war has grown into nothing having to do with the U.S. and our freedom and our soldiers are getting killed. If the government were truly trying to get terrorists, it could have been done by special forces which just shows this war has some political agenda we don't know about. It would be nice if our government supplied our soldiers with the weapons they need. I bet if they (government officials) were made to go over there and fight, they'd have the best, greatest and latest equipment which should be given to all of our soldiers. Our soldiers should have whatever technology they need to get the job done and protect them.

Posted by: Wendy at November 16, 2005 07:33 AM


I want to see more weapons like this,more often,and I want one for the kids to play with,I dont want to have to say to my kids NO!,I want to give them the best,newer better weapons,more available to more of the free world,I want my kids taught how to destroy things properly,I think schools should start teaching them how to kill early,at the age of 13 they should all have m16s ,and if theyre good they should get a SMAW on their 18th,I was gonna say 16,but that would be irresponsible cos theyre too young,I didnt get my first minigun till I was 21 !! ,,these days theyre spoilt !!!

Posted by: ste fargher at November 16, 2005 07:39 AM


After reading cowicides entries I think it might do us all well to look at it again.
I think he is hitting alot closer to home than even he knows, In doing so he is treading close to some very dangerous waters. The war in the middle east is "justifiable", But not for the reasons that the public has been told. To delve any deeper into that area would run the risk of coming up MIA one morning. Suffice to say that there are some very evil people in this world, Much more so than Hitler, Tojo, Saddam, Charley Manson,and all the rest could ever hope to be, No I'm not referring to our "elected politicians" Those clowns are just a bunch of puppets on a string.
There are a few still around who are aware of the true agenda behind all the mess. If the general populace knew what was really going on in their own back yard it would cause total chaos! (As there will be a loss of a few sheep to apease the wolves, best not alarm the entire heard from their slumber lest we lose many more to pandimonium)

Posted by: bones river rat at November 16, 2005 07:42 AM


Mr. Depman,

I see no reason to "debate" these issues with liberals like you. First you have no idea of what is really happening in the field and therefore are just whining. I have read a lot of comments here that I agree with, some that I don't and I have "TRIED" to discuss these issues with people like you. What I have found is that you and others like you are just ignorant of the real truth. Being ignorant isn't a bad thing, I'm ignorant of certain things, I would not attempt to debate brain surgery with a brain surgeon because I'm ignorant of that issue. I am not stupid though, if I REALLY thought there was an issue to be debated I would study and learn, THEN discuss the issue. What makes you and others stupid is that you absolutely REFUSE to learn anything. You would rather wallow in your ignorance and write letters that only prove to others that you are. You are NOT intelligent, as you presume yourself to be. I will not discuss the issue of whether the SWAM-NE is good or bad, though I think it is great, what I will address is your extremely limited knowledge on the subject of war. I am just an average guy, work everyday at a job I like. I am a Vietnam Vet whose belief is that people like you cost thousands of American lives there and continue to try to kill Americans in Iraq. You celebrate everytime an American dies, throw a party when we lose yet another war. People like you have weakened America to the point that people like Bin Laden are no longer afraid to attack us. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that we HAVE to win this war? I just don't understand your philosophy, these people (terrorist)are not going to lay down their weapons if we lay down ours, they will only use that moment to attack us. I think it was Abraham Lincoln that said "It is better to remain silent and be considered a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt". You may be a "hero" in your circles Mr. Depman but to true Americans, those of us who have fought and lost friends, you are nothing but a traitor. Again Abraham Lincoln said during the Civil War (paraphrased) "Those who speak or act in a manner that hurts the morale of American troops should be hanged". I fully agree with Mr. Lincoln.

Posted by: Echo4Sierra at November 16, 2005 07:42 AM


You God damned tree huggers are amazing. Leave America to the highly-trained motivated young Marines and you can hug your tree and bash Bush all you want.

I can't believe how much time you half-fags spend reading "our" comments when you wouldn't find me dead on the "How you can save a fucking tree" comment page.

If you can read this thank a teacher....If you can read this in English thank a Marine!!!

Semper Fi Devil Dogs, tree hugging is the opinion of less than half of Americans....The election showed us that!!!!!!

Posted by: Sgt. A USMC at November 16, 2005 07:43 AM


Yeah, I agree. These weapons are awesome. Nothing like crushing Iraqi women and children under rubble to start the day. It's not necessarily American soldiers' lives vs. Iraqi houses and civilians, you know. There's always the "don't kill people and get the fuck out of their house" option.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward at November 16, 2005 07:48 AM


Looks like a Bazooka to me.

Been there. Done that.
(Beautiful French Indo-China Nov.'68 til Apr.'70)

Posted by: CodyK9 at November 16, 2005 07:52 AM


I enjoy starting and ending the day crushing people under rubble. Also, screw the trees too. Haven't scientists figured out a way we can live with out the blasted things. If I have one more fit of hay fever I will burn the things down myself. They can all be NUKED with the women and children of the god hated, freedom hating 3rd world. I am white, christian, adult, male who comes from a wealthy back ground and I am just simply better than most of them. BURN EM'

Is there any way I can get one of these weapons? Doesn't Walmart carry'em for hunting yet?

the heretic

Posted by: the heretic at November 16, 2005 07:58 AM


I am not at all impressed with the terrible weapons of death used by American war criminals in the illegal war against the innocent Iraqi people. For death comes to use all sooner or later. What impresses me though is the stupidity of young American men and women who unneccesarily fight, get wounded and die as proxy soldiers for big oil and Israel. Every American soldier who was and is in Iraq today has had some exposure to DU aerosols. Sooner or later many if not all will succumb to this extremely deadly poison. An early death is a given for those who foolishly ventured to fight in Iraq. American soldiers showed no mercy nor will they receive mercy as the minute quantities of radiation eat away at their bodies. DU is the great leveler.

Posted by: grim reaper at November 16, 2005 07:59 AM


the U.S.marines are pretty damn good but not as good as our British Royal marines,even if one of our guys has no weapon at all he can destroy enemy positions using things that people have left lying about,and then make off into the desert like he didnt exist,you see Britain is better than anyone else,because we are British,and thats a fact,In fact everyone wants to be British,even Johhny Arab,but thats where we British draw the line,it simply wont do,so we dont mind our American chums mucking in ,in the middle east,by bumping off these backward ,sheeps eye munching ,rag headed desert mongrels you're doing us British a big favour,anyway you speak our language,I think you deserve to be made into honourary British citizens,and seeing as though our Queen owns your federal reserve bank,and our Prime minister gets on well with George W ,we might as well all be British,then everone else will have to follow suit,it makes sense to be British,because Britain is the best place on the planet,and London is the best place in Britain.

Posted by: mike doyle at November 16, 2005 08:00 AM


I enjoy starting and ending the day crushing people under rubble. Also, screw the trees too. Haven't scientists figured out a way we can live with out the blasted things. If I have one more fit of hay fever I will burn the things down myself. They can all be NUKED with the women and children of the god hated, freedom hating 3rd world. I am white, christian, adult, male who comes from a wealthy back ground and I am just simply better than most of them. BURN EM'

Is there any way I can get one of these weapons? Doesn't Walmart carry'em for hunting yet?

the heretic

Posted by: the heretic at November 16, 2005 08:02 AM


I agree with Sgt A USMC, being a former marine I think that we should send every last one of these so called anti war / tree hugging liberals over to Iraq and Afganistan and put them on the front line and see how long they stick to those passive ideals.
Give our Marines the tools to get the job done or just give them the location and they will improvise over come and adapt to any situation.

Happy Birthdday Marines...
Semper Fi!!!!!

Posted by: Old Devil Dog at November 16, 2005 08:09 AM


Looks like a great weapon to me. I was in Vietnam and as far as I am concerned the best weapon was Napalm, it always made me feel good to feel the heat. So if they can't use Napalm, then I guess this will work. And to Old Devil Dog, Semper Fi!!! and I am with you, send the peace lovers over and see what progress they can make from the front lines. Our Marines and all the services are doing a great job over there. I commend them for carrying on our great tradition.

Posted by: Bob Kelly at November 16, 2005 08:18 AM


My initial thought is, it looks like an impressive new tool; one that can help keep Marines and soldiers alive. First and foremost, I believe that to be the ultimate end result that we are looking for.
I can add this from my own experience, no American serviceman goes into theatre with the intent to kill innocents. In fact, I have personnally witnessed servicemen and women risk their necks to provide medical care for a local civilian after a terrorist attack. While we were still fighting an enemy who was hiding inside a concrete building, a medic raced across a street and without any cover pulled a wounded child and a wounded man out of the line of fire. I can not believe that my brothers at arms would chance killing innocents unless it were absolutely necessary to the survival of themselves, and I believe that most commanders would weigh that choice hard before they make that call.
So, when considering the knowledge and creativity of the leadership of the United States military, I have no misgivings about sending them to war with this tool. I only wish that we had this weapon available while I was there. If so, I would still be there fighting alongside my comrades instead of sitting here in a wheelchair going to funerals and responding to some chatter on a damn message board.

Posted by: Joshua Hays at November 16, 2005 08:18 AM


Dear 'bones',

I realise that you are a bit angry about attacks on your belief that the lives of soldiers are more important than those of civilians. Contrary to what you wrote, I am not happy that 'so many americans are dieing'. Every time I hear about a soldier dieing I feel sympathy for their family. I also feel sympathy for the families of the civilians in Iraq who are killed. Given the choice of which should die is a stange thing to think about. Most people posting on this site seem to have no concern for the civilians who have little choice in the matter. I argue that it is far better for a small number of soldiers to die doing a job that you obviously believe in, than for a large number of innocent civilians. The argument that there are no innocent civilians in war is a poor one. Just as you say it is easy to talk about things while I am safe, it is easy for people to talk about collatoral damage while they are safe. Would they be happier about their families dieing if it was only collatoral damage?

You use the term ragheads. If you are refering to terrorists, I would suggest you take a trip to Ireland or Oklahoma and see if the IRA, and Protestant terrorist or Tim McVeagh (sp?) wore as you call it rags on their head. If you are refering to anyone of middle eastern descent, then I can make no argument against you. I would argue your words are the only argument I need.

You also mention the veterans. I have a lot of respect for the men and women who worked and fought to keep the world safe from tyranny. I value the sacrifice made by members of my family and my wife's. You might like to know that there are a lot of veterans who do not share your views about the war. Take a quick look at http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php and see what they have to say.

You owe it to your troops to do the best you can to bring them home as soon as reasonably possible. I have no problem with activity to remove the scourge of terrorism on our planet. But calling it a war yet not going to congress suggests that the US administration did not feel they had a good case.

What exactly is the mission of the troops? Wasn't it the neutralisation of the WMD threat that Saddam so obviously posed. Or is it the well thought out plan for combatting terrorism by engaging in the wonderful business of urban warfare.

Posted by: Michael at November 16, 2005 08:18 AM


What comes around....goes around. g

Posted by: g at November 16, 2005 08:21 AM


Get Permission to save our beloved Military Lives.
Get real. I can't believe after everything we have been fighting for, this new weapon is a big surprise. Get over it. Our MEN AND WOMEN are over there trying to save lives and HONOR our Commander In Chief's requests. You need to not forget what started this war. How they destroyed lives of innocent Americans. To many People are forgetting that. I say Good Luck and Carry on.

Posted by: Kimberly at November 16, 2005 08:23 AM


Truly pathetic when someone says we should check with lawyers first. People are getting to the point where they believe an Iraqi civilians life is worth more than an American Military life. THIS IS RIDICULOUS!!! If we can save American lives by using this weapon then this is a positive thing. When we have to talk to lawyers first during a war this is a negative thing. The reasons for being in this war is irrelevant at this point and for the purposes of this discussion. Use ANY weapon that can save AMERICAN lives......

Posted by: Tom at November 16, 2005 08:32 AM


ok and what about the possibility of these weapons falling into enemy hands ?
i would say that this possibility would be enough reason to not use it in iraq.

also i was against the war from the moment it became clear that bush wanted to attack iraq.
it was because i already knew that iraq would be a shooting gallery for foreign terrorists.
saddam actually kept them out of iraq but bush kicked open the doors for them.
if even i a 20 year old dutchman knew this then i am certain the bush administration knew it aswell.

its always sad to see soldiers fighting a pointless war they can never hope to win.

Posted by: andries at November 16, 2005 08:38 AM


To Mike Doyle:

I have nothing against the British, and I have worked directly with the British Royal Marines, but I would never...ever...make the mistake of saying anyone is better than United States Marines. As far as everyone wanting to be like the British...name 5 great American movies...name me the current fashion trends in America....name me 5 people in political positions in America....My point exactly. I can't name you any of that for Britian so who wants to be who??. Oh yeah, and we brush our teeth.

With that said, thank you guys for all your support in Iraq and don't take advantage of all we have done for you.

Posted by: Sgt. A USMC at November 16, 2005 08:44 AM


You ask people to care about AMERICAN lives. It is precisely because of these attitudes that people like me project our anger about the lies and actions of the US administration onto the US soldiers.

I accept that by expressing a preference over who should die if given a choice is a bit tasteless. Perhaps it would make it less tasteless if I also said that I regard a US soldiers life as worth more than any terrorist, anyone who supports terrorism, or anyone expressing a view that killing heaps of people including those 'ragheads' is a good thing.

Posted by: Michael at November 16, 2005 08:44 AM


Well I was in the Civil War and back then we Mariners didn't need no stinking fuel-air-bomb to kill a dirty reb. I would march right up to him and bite his face off. That's all needed was my legs and my chompers. Leave that pansy crap to the enemy. HOO-HOO ka chew

And to you Brits. Check the Score Board mates. Last time I checked we kicked your butts out of our country. Not to mention the fact that we seem to be coming around every twenty years or so to save your fish and chip eatin lives. So go have some tea and leave the fightin' to the real men.

HOOTER-HO,

Mariners!

Semper-Fimper

Posted by: the heretic at November 16, 2005 08:46 AM


"You ask people to care about AMERICAN lives. It is precisely because of these attitudes that people like me project our anger about the lies and actions of the US administration onto the US soldiers.

I accept that by expressing a preference over who should die if given a choice is a bit tasteless. Perhaps it would make it less tasteless if I also said that I regard a US soldiers life as worth more than any terrorist, anyone who supports terrorism, or anyone expressing a view that killing heaps of people including those 'ragheads' is a good thing."

I NEVER said killing heaps of people was good and I never used the raghead word. What I meant was using a weapon that can save ONE American life is WELL WORTH using.

I think projecting YOUR anger on the troops is exactly the problem we are having today. You may not agree with the war, you may not like Bush or the way our government is run. BUT, the soldiers are doing what they are told. They believe as we did during Vietnam that we doing our patriotic duty and came home and had rocks thrown at us, etc. Blame the administration, the government NOT the soldiers. If you are really upset write your congressmen(women), senators etc. These Army, Air Force, Marines, Navy, National Guard, Reserves men and women are the reason we can sit on the Internet and complain. Something EVERYONE on this discussion should remember!

Posted by: Tom at November 16, 2005 09:02 AM


Hi Tom,

Thanks for your reply. Sorry if you thought I was accusing you of using the term raghead. I wasn't clear about it, but I was actually responding to what 'bones' wrote at 06:50 AM.

I have no problem with using a weapon that will save the life of any soldier against any other solider or terrorist, but not at the expense of civilian castualties on either side.

For the record I am neither American or British (although I hope to become a british citizen someday). I come from a country who doesn't support the war in Iraq, although we have troops in Afghanistan, and have been doing work in Iraq to help the rebuilding.

Posted by: Michael at November 16, 2005 09:13 AM


The ists are trying to take over the world and we have to ask permission to shoot. The military lost officers in VN because of stupidity. Have the Marines turned into a bunch of wimps? Tell the world and the UN to go to the HOT place.Either that or become an anti-Christ muslim!
I'm a Vet.

Posted by: Nick at November 16, 2005 10:02 AM


To all the service men and weman on this page thanks for the hard work an Sacrafice you make every day..........As for every one else who has a problem with them. Why dont you try walking in there shoes for just one day. Then you will change your tune and have a little respect for YOUR service men and weman.

Posted by: PFC Runnels USMC at November 16, 2005 10:36 AM


Hey Mikey Boy, get over the civilian casualties crap. With war comes Casulties. There were over 30,000 civilian casuaties in the liberation of the Frenchies in WW II. The amount occuring today is in proportion with the modern day equivelant weaponry used. (aka better precision, less collateral damage)
But I digress. You didn't hear the frenchies bitch one bit about civillian casualties when we liberated their sorry asses, as shouldn't, and neither should the people of any other country in which American blood has been shed for for thier freedoms, which should cover pretty much most of the European continent.

This a War on Terrism now, Civillian casulties happen. We had ours on 9/11, Spain and England had theirs also, so don't ask me to weep for the people who are accidental victims of combat, unlike our civiilian casualties.

Whatever it takes get it done with as little loss to American troops as possible. If new weapons help, more power to them.

Semper Fi Fellow dogs

Posted by: Wild Snide at November 16, 2005 10:44 AM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.