AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
It was beyond intercepting. The alarms in Kuwait City never sounded. Meaning it wasn't even detected. So no one saw it coming and didn't know about it until it hit.
Extending the range of anti-ship missile.
- Thread starter lilzz
- Start date
It was beyond intercepting. The alarms in Kuwait City never sounded. Meaning it wasn't even detected. So no one saw it coming and didn't know about it until it hit.
No one saw it coming because no one was looking for it. Why would anyone waste precious military capital defending something that has zero military value like a sea side mall after hours.
This begs the question: what was the intent of the attacker that fired the weapon? To degrade the enemies' military capability? If it was, then the defender did a very good job of denying targeting information of the attacker and making it waste one of the few offensive weapons in its arsenal.
If that missile was heading for something with military value, like a carrier, warship, airbase, etc. it would have been detected, tracked, identified, and intercepted long before it poses a threat. This would mean that the defender's first line of defense, denying targeting information of the enemy has failed.
Increasing the range of an anti-ship missile without adequate over the horizon targeting capability is a waste of resources. Its like having a sniper rifle that has the capability to kill targets 2 miles away and not have the scope. That range capability is useless, and you are using assets to support it. Instead of carrying that heavy 60 lbs sniper rifle whose ability you can't use, why not just carry a 6 lbs assault rifle? You can use that extra weight advantage by carrying more useful items, like a bullet proof vest.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
This was the height of the war. I doubt no one was on alert with whatever sensors on or what's the point of having defenses like the Patriot. I was watching TV live when it happened. They were saying no alarms sounded to notify the people of Kuwait City to take shelter. I don't see how that will expend resources to have sensors on to detect and sound the sirens. What I heard, The Iraqis couldn't use it to hit the US navy since the Seersucker was short in range so they just aimed it over the water towards Kuwait City.
Of course not, it's certainly not as if there was a war happening at the same time...
An old military adage states that if you defend everywhere you are strong nowhere.
As a military commander, you have to make the choice of which of your assets are worth defending and which ones are not. This is also tempered by the probability of a target being attack. And if attack, what are the consequences (will it endanger your mission). With this in mind no one could have thought about defending a sea side mall from a missile attack. Why would an enemy waste their few offensive assets on such an attack? If that missile was headed for something with a remotely military value, it would have long been intercepted. The ones that landed remotely near the troop concentrations were ID.
Everything happens in context, especially in war.
There is also a danger of learning the "wrong lessons". Like this quote.
A whole in what? US anti-air defenses? If you really think that a single obsolete missile has a chance of getting through an Aegis defense, even in confined waters, based on this incident, then prepare to be surprise in the next war.
The other paradigm shift is that the US military is now so dominant that any infliction casualties of casualties, regardless to the cost of the attackers is seen as a "victory". It would be like celebrating the last sortie of the Japanese battleship Yamato because it shot down 12 US aircraft, and ignore the fact that the ship was lost in the process.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
It was the height of the war. Kuwait was the main staging area for the invasion. I think naturally if you're using someone elses country to launch an invasion, you're going to make promises to assure the country will be defended. So you can pretty much say as many sensors were operational in order to defend the country and your own personel. A Seersucker got through without being detected so there was a huge hole somewhere.
If I am a military commander, regardless of what your argument is, a missile with a potential WMD heading towards a civilian area will always be TOP PRIORITY, or you're going to weigh the consequences for the rest of your career (whatever is going to be left of it) not to mention your conscience.
Again, as IDont said loook at the context. We now know that the Iraqis had NO WMDs. It is quite possible that that fact was taken into account. However that is going down too many rabbit holes and through too many looking-glasses, if you know what I mean.
This situation is very similar to the case of the INS Hanit. It is either a case of human or technical failure. In both cases, human failure would actually be less damning to the military organizations that were involved. However, the truth of what actually happened is concealed because of the implications. Even if the US detected the missle they still essentially allowed it to land on an unwarned Kuwait City.
I however tend to agree with IDont. It seems to me more likely that the US radars detected the incoming Seersucker, it was determined the that it would land in the ocean and the commander in charge decided not to fire and waste a Patriot. However the calculations were off and the missle landed on the shoreline.