Return-Path: <sentto-279987-1637-998649222-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com> Delivered-To: fc@all.net Received: from 204.181.12.215 by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Fri, 24 Aug 2001 03:35:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 17363 invoked by uid 510); 24 Aug 2001 10:33:54 -0000 Received: from n16.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.66) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 24 Aug 2001 10:33:54 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-1637-998649222-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.4.53] by mo.egroups.com with NNFMP; 24 Aug 2001 10:33:42 -0000 X-Sender: david.alexander@bookham.com X-Apparently-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 24 Aug 2001 10:33:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 15362 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2001 10:33:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 Aug 2001 10:33:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mimesweeper.bookham.com) (195.166.17.164) by mta1 with SMTP; 24 Aug 2001 10:33:41 -0000 Received: from alpha.bookham.com (unverified) by mimesweeper.bookham.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.1.5) with ESMTP id <Tc0a80102ac5590bce87a@mimesweeper.bookham.com> for <iwar@yahoogroups.com>; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 11:28:39 +0100 Received: by alpha.bookham.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <P2HZCKH5>; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 11:31:05 +0100 Message-ID: <86F477BCF025D411912F00508BACC30A02DC195C@alpha.bookham.com> To: 'iwar submissions' <iwar@yahoogroups.com> X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) From: David Alexander <david.alexander@bookham.com> Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 11:31:00 +0100 Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Subject: [iwar] re: fog of war Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >I am NOT trying to nitpick, play a semantic game or otherwise, more to start a small snowball rolling ... but: > >A USA tank was destroyed in a well-publicized incident, bringing to many Americans a new definition for 'friendly fire.' > >This single (publicized) incident amplifies the problems due to appreciable IW responses to 'the fog of war.' > >How can IWAR better serve its cause, in delineating when to BACK OFF from reliance on IWAR? Or conversely, when can humans agree, and through what means, >that all the technology in the world may be insufficient to conclusively decide to KILL or observe in some more reliable (traditional) fashion? > >Lest one think that this is only one occurrence, a similar situation caused the deaths of 4 missionaries in a small plane only months ago, over Peru. (or >Columbia? my fault) Let me say that, as an ex RAF pilot I am qualified to comment on this. I have been shot at by my own sides' ground troops in the Falklands ! Friendly fire is by no means a new phenomenon. The reporting of it is. Since time immemorial soldiers have inadvertently been killing their own side. The fact is that the friendly numbers killed has dropped dramatically as technology and procedures improve. The amount of 'blue on blue' bombing conducted in WWII by the US alone was staggering, especially in Normandy after D Day. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it is acceptable, far from it, just that it is not the big deal that some people make it out to be. As with all things, you conduct a pareto analysis to work out where the best place to apply your (always limited) resources is, and right now more lives can be saved by working on other aspects of IWAR than IFF (Identification Friend or Foe). I think the level of blue on blue has reduced almost to the point where we are into the realms of the human error - no matter how good the technology, simple blokes like me will still find creative ways, when under immense pressure, to scr*w it up. just my 2c David Alexander M.INSTIS Global Client-Server, Communications & Infrastructure Manager Bookham Technology plc DDI: 01235 837823 Mobile: 0779 988 1284 David.Alexander@Bookham.com ======================================================================= This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use, forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or services. ======================================================================= Any questions about Bookham's E-Mail service should be directed to postmaster@bookham.com. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Get VeriSign's FREE GUIDE: "Securing Your Web Site for Business." Learn about using SSL for serious online security. Click Here! http://us.click.yahoo.com/KYe3qC/I56CAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ------------------ http://all.net/ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-09-29 21:08:40 PDT