*A term of art from the artillery. Harassment and Interdiction Fires.

Back in the day, when you could just kill people and break things without a note from a lawyer, they were pre-planned, but to the enemy, random, fires at known gathering points, road junctions, Main Supply Routes, assembly areas, etc - to keep the bad guy nervous that the world around him might start exploding at any minute.

Not really relevant to today's operating environment, right? But, it *is*

The UAVs we fly over Afghanistan and Pakistan looking for targets of opportunity are a form of H&I fires, if you really want to parse it finely. We just have better sensors and fire control now.

I call the post that because it's random things posted by me and people I've given posting privileges to that particular topic. It's also an open trackback, so if (Don Surber uses it this way a lot) someone has a post they're proud of, but it really isn't either Castle kind of stuff, or topical to a particular post, I've basically given blanket permission to use that post for that purpose. Another term of art that might be appropriate is "Free Fire Zone".

« Secure this line!

---

I was hoping that Jill Carroll's video was coerced, and not a Stockholm Syndrome problem. Good for her! Thanks for linking that article, Fuzz.

by AFSister on April 1, 2006 7:58 AM

---

Love the new banner John

Very...bright...and blinding.... lol :)

Heading to Pea Ridge Battlefield today.

Did I mention that I made it to the Trail of Tears commemoration ceremony they had there by the Lodge about 2 weeks ago?

Keep meaning to E-mail you the details but I know you've been slammed.

by BloodSPite on April 1, 2006 8:37 AM

---

I like that "classic MLRS". Ya gonna get one for Fourth of July use?

by Eric Wilner on April 1, 2006 9:47 AM

---

Headline News: Brit hack vindicated
Pentagon failed to heed warnings, wasted $65 billion, four years.

I see today’s NYT carries a story on the great missile defense fraud that the US public has never been warned about.

I warned four years ago in the Independent that the contractors were cooking the technical books and the system was unworkable.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20020301/ai_n12595546

The cover-up was investigated by various agencies but the Pentagon once again showed its bizarre penchant for taking the side of companies that defraud it.
But now, the head of the Government Accounting Office investigation says the contractors were indeed guilty and his agency covered it up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/washington/02missile.html?hp&ex=1143954000&en=dc40dbf934a6530c&ei=5094&partner=homepage

The NYT story also contains the first mention in the “MSM” of the fact that ballistic missile defence doesn’t work AT ALL. Having built the white elephant at a cost of hundreds of billions, they are now immediately looking to replace it.

I wrote four years ago:
"Decoys are the Achilles' heel of missile defence," says Michael Levi, who studies the problem for the Federation of American Scientists...
...This cheap and simple countermeasure, he says, cannot be defeated with today's technology.
The only response would be to shoot at all of the objects, but, says (Philip) Coyle (former head of the Pentagon's Office of Operational Test and Evaluation), "the system is really designed to launch one missile at a time".

Today’s NYT says: “Meanwhile, the military has quietly begun looking for a better interception method. One alternative under study is a shotgun approach that would try to smash all enemy targets in space, whether warheads or decoys.”

Hey John, any chance I could get one of those neat Pentagon consulting jobs? If they’d listened four years ago they would’ve saved about $65 billion and might be on the way to a working system by now.

More news: Interviewed about his dramatic vindication, British investigative journalist Owen Dyer said: “Naturally my first response was to go and brag about it at the Castle. I hope they don’t notice my mistake in calling Trent Lott ‘Senate minority leader’.”

by OD on April 1, 2006 11:47 AM

---

Great banner, by the way. Is that revolver a metaphor for OIF?

by OD on April 1, 2006 11:51 AM

---

I am appalled at people picking on Jill Carroll. You have no idea what you would do to live until you are in that situation.

Oh, Owen, it's so good to see you out here! I've missed you! kisses....Maggie

by Maggie on April 1, 2006 12:24 PM

---

Maggie, hope you're not including me in the "picking," as that was certainly not my intent.

by Fuzzybear Lioness on April 1, 2006 1:18 PM

---

Definitely not FBL! I was referring to the conservative radio people mentioned in the article. For example, Jay Severin and Michael Graham. Both have suggested or entertained callers comments that have asserted that the whole kidnapping was faked, etc.

by Maggie on April 1, 2006 1:41 PM

---

For those people who *do* criticize Carroll for having buckled under the pressure, I have a simple idea; to whit-
Hold them hostage for three months in seclusion, bragging all the while about the various and sundry people you've killed in their same circumstance...
Repeatedly drag a sharpening stone along the edge of the sword you say will be used to decapitate them when you feel like it...
Offer them freedom if they will tape a short propaganda video that everyone will know is coerced and fake...
...I would take the deal and I think anyone who reads this would do the same. Those who deny it should be put to the test above, eh? ;)

by Neffi on April 1, 2006 2:38 PM

---

OMG, you put the Chief's girlfriend back up!

My eyes! My eyes!

Get it off!

by Maggie on April 1, 2006 4:24 PM

---

Kisses to you too Maggie.

That muscle-woman has to go.

by OD on April 1, 2006 4:33 PM

---

Oh yeah Neff, specially when the Damascus Steel is being finely honed in front of you.

by Boquisucio on April 1, 2006 5:03 PM

---

So.............Owen.............do they celebrate April Fools Day across the pond?

by Maggie on April 1, 2006 5:23 PM

---

Oh yes, I'm sure it goes back to the Middle Ages at least. In fact its origins are probably pre-Christian.

The French have it too. They call it Poisson d'Avril (April Fish). Not sure why.

by OD on April 1, 2006 5:27 PM

---

When, exactly, did Congresswoman Nancy "Botox" Pelosi get promoted to Senator. Even Kalifornians are[n't] that stupid.

Wait...they elected Boxer and Feinstein. I take it back. They are that stupid.

by Heartless Libertarian on April 1, 2006 5:53 PM

---

Here's an update on the FLAPEX over my website, updated 01 April 2006.

by Rob on April 1, 2006 7:28 PM

---

OK April Fool's Day is over and the scary woman is gone! I'm happy.

by Maggie on April 1, 2006 11:29 PM

---

Maggie - she's still there. There's just three banners. She could pop up on you any time...

by John of Argghhh! on April 2, 2006 3:18 AM

---

Are you threatening me? Is this because I threw out an April Fool's Day comment at Owen blowing him kisses? That was just a little mean......you're really mean.

by Maggie on April 2, 2006 7:33 AM

---

Oh for pity's sake, Princess Crabby - we know you're round-heeled for the sailors...

Until some other bright and shiny service comes along.

Anyway, you're *probably* safe from Bills GF until next year.

*Probably*

by John of Argghhh! on April 2, 2006 7:40 AM

---

Looks like Rob took it in the gut.

by AFSister on April 2, 2006 10:56 AM

---

Oh come on Owen! Christ. If we held any other military project(nuclear submarines, ballistic missiles, SAM, the Manhattan project) or civillian project(like lasers, cyclotrons and other particle accelerators) to this standard you seem to have about inefficiency and progress we'd be stuck with nothing but bloody matches, tallow candles, and horse drawn buggies.

ANyone who is serious about nuclear proliferation and bags on ABMD is a pogue. Look at the Pope's banishment of the crossbow---it went nowhere and the crossbow stuck around for another 2 centuries, at least. Weapons go away when they become tremendously ineffective. ABMD is in its infancy(thanks to the liberal democrats/Labour-ites in Britain who called it infantile sci-fi dreaming, and put all their faith into a useless piece of paper that called for nucs to be gone by 2000) and mistakes will be made IN ANY SYSTEMS INFANCY.

Christ, if we all got this upset over wasted money there wouldn't be anything. How much money has been wasted on the Nanny-State/War on Poverty? Should we get rid of that too?

But if I've misunderstood you Owen, sorry.

by ry on April 2, 2006 2:26 PM

---

:) I got you guys good...the "final outcome" post on my "blogging scandal" was, after all, dated April 1st.

The "scandal" as it were is still pending resolution, but in reality there was no mast on Friday, I did not get a stripe knocked off, and I'm still a submariner (me...a skimmer...they'll get my dolphins when they pry my cold dead fingers from around them!! :)

April Fool's Day was a success for this sailor...GOTCHA!

by Rob on April 2, 2006 4:08 PM

---

You cannot be serious Ry. I know there's a tendency to blame foreigners when things go wrong, but my God what a stretch to blame British liberals for the failures of ABMD.

I'm not talking about mistakes, but about deliberate fraud. The contractors knew that they could never meet the goals DoD had set for them. Therefore they massaged the data to keep the contract on track.

Nor am I talking about a system that is behind schedule, or facing teething problems. I'm talking about a system that cannot work for reasons of basic physics, barring some unforeseen quantum leap in technology.

The Manhattan Project took not much more than two years. The missile defence advocates have already had more than twenty.

I don't understand you any more than I do the Pentagon, who also seem determined to let these companies off the hook. The test interceptions that you've heard about were essentially faked. That doesn't bother you?

by OD on April 2, 2006 6:05 PM

---

I've stayed out of this one, but I'm with you as far as this, Owen. The Pentagon (regardless of *who* sits in the White House) does seem to let big companies get away with murder, and I don't understand why.

CDR Salamander thinks that it's partly to do with the revolving door problem of retired flag officers going to work for those guys and wants extend the "can't work for a contractor" window from two years to five.

I just want to see individuals held civilly and criminally accountable - and give the investors an interest in good corporate governance through fines big enough to impact dividends.

I wanna see some perp walks and drained bank accounts.

Changing the subject... I fear your rhetorical style Owen has had a (to me) amusing impact on your comment sig: OD = Owen Droppings...

And I *did* resist the urge, in response to your intial burst on this, to resist noting that Brit Hacks in the MSM can, like broken clocks, be right twice a day...

Unless it's a 24 hour clock, of course.

8^)

by John of Argghhh! on April 2, 2006 6:20 PM

---

Balls.
How much in 2006 money and how much of a priority was Manhattan in comparison---and let's not forget that Slizard and other physicist had done alot of the basic work before hand, or the fact that they built 3 cities to support Manhattan(Los Alamos and the two Pu/Ur refinement/enrichment plants). Have we done anything remotely close to that for this in scale of commitment or cost of all that infrastructure?

Let's also not forget the COTS(Cheap Off The Shelf) mentality that was implemented, you know, because we wanted it to be compatible with Windows on other workstations.

And I don't know where you get your twenty years Mr. Dwyer. "Star Wars" got shelved for a long time because of the people with exactly the mind set I put forward. London papers had a field day making fun of Reagan over that Owen, and you know it well.

Yes, the tests were rigged. I know that, and not by reading you here(AFP does good work on this, as does AFS(American Federation of Scientists, who've been opposed to ABMD from the beginning).). But, the seeker head works fine. ANd how is this NOT like Polaris which was deployed when it didn't work?! We put the fate of the world on deterence with a missile that didn't work for crying out loud. Or how the F-14 tests had the deck stacked in its favor. BUsiness as usual Owen. And all of these systems eventually got the kinks worked out. Polaris eventually worked and formed a leg of the MAD triad. The F-14 continued to have teething problems, but was workable.
You have to look at the whole mosaic Owen. You can't forget the political component to all of this. If they didn't hedge, didn't massage(and there's lots of that in empirical research I can assure you--I've got a list as long as my arm of people cheating to get and keep NIH or DOE grants, and I have a list just as long of journalists who cover up for that too), you don't think that political opponents wouldn't jump on that to try and kill it(like the USN's attack plane the A-12)? Where would that leave us, eh? Come on Owen, I'm a bloody amatuer and *I* can see it at work because I'm willing to look at the mosaic AND vertically at the subject at hand.

I also call BS on the 'physically impossible' front. And how do SAM and point AD work then if it's bloody impossible? It isn't. Just like a pilotless airplane or ballistic missile, while experts claimed were impossible during ww2, aren't. If memory serves the problem is getting the thing out of the silo but not being able to track it terminally(isn't that what the joint Japanese/US tests showed?).

I get you Owen. Like Hackworth and Marcinko and Joe Galloway you're all about the guy at the sharp end. Fine. That's an honrable and valid view point I get it and understand it. But sometimes you guys need to go back and read Jerry Pournelle's 'The Strategy of Technology' and get some perspective.

THe labourites was fair crit of Labour, not a slam of foreignors(and how can you say that after what I said in relation to the Iranian missile the other day?) or liberals in general--that was specific as not all Labour or Democrats are liberal. Until Blair sidded with Bush Labour was predominately against something like ABMD, or various factions within Labour(just like here in the US, where factions of the Democrats go appoplectic over the subject). I am not smoking crack on this one. You wanna slam DD(X)(whatever they're calling it now) or the LCS I'll back you on those, because of the cost over runs AND the fact that it doesn't look like they'll do anywhere's close to what they were designed for, but ABMD I'm agin' you Own.

by ry on April 3, 2006 11:44 AM

---

I'm with Cdr Salamander, then. The revolving door mentality is unbelievable.
Did you know that the Pentagon's Inspector General, Joseph Schmitz, the guy who's supposed to keep contracts clean, has just announced he's quitting to help run the parent company of the contractor Blackwater Security?
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1072776&C=america

The picture is even worse when you look at Pentagon civilian staff. Rummy's war cabinet of 2003 was drawn 100% from arms manufacturers, and 'defence consultants'. Secretaries of the Navy, Air Force, personnel, procurement, you name it. The list reads like the combined boards of McDonnell Douglas, General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin.

The only exception was the secretary of the Army, and he came from Enron(!), which then had huge Army service contracts.

They badly need a rule that stops them jumping straight into defence industry jobs, or there'll be plenty more of this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/30/AR2006033001970.html

by OD on April 4, 2006 11:48 AM

---

“How much in 2006 money and how much of a priority was Manhattan in comparison---and let's not forget that Slizard and other physicist had done alot of the basic work before hand...”

That’s the point Ry. The Manhattan project was known to be doable because of this previous work. ABMD is known by most scientists to be unworkable. The only ones who say it’s feasible are the ones relying on it for their mortgage payments.

“I also call BS on the 'physically impossible' front. And how do SAM and point AD work then if it's bloody impossible? It isn't. Just like a pilotless airplane or ballistic missile, while experts claimed were impossible during ww2, aren't. If memory serves the problem is getting the thing out of the silo but not being able to track it terminally(isn't that what the joint Japanese/US tests showed?).”

When any missile can deploy multiple warheads or decoys, by definition it’s impossible for single kill vehicle to stop them all. The best decoy of all, of course, is another live warhead.
Instead of arguing with me about it, pick on the Pentagon:
“Meanwhile, the military has quietly begun looking for a better interception method. One alternative under study is a shotgun approach that would try to smash all enemy targets in space, whether warheads or decoys.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/washington/02missile.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

“But, the seeker head works fine.”

The seeker head can spot incoming MIRVs and MARVs and can also spot incoming decoys. What it can’t do is distinguish between them. They are all single-pixel dots at ranges where it has time to react. An ICBM can deploy a large number of decoys because even inflatable ones will work in space. Since there’s only one kill vehicle, any missile with decoys or multiple re-entry vehicles – ie any modern missile – is going to get past it.
And that’s just one missile...quite a comedown from the Reagan-era plan to stop several thousand missiles.

“And I don't know where you get your twenty years Mr. Dwyer. "Star Wars" got shelved for a long time because of the people with exactly the mind set I put forward. London papers had a field day making fun of Reagan over that Owen, and you know it well.”

Star Wars got shelved because it didn’t work. It rapidly became obvious to all that there was no prospect of stopping a major ICBM strike by a large power. Now the project is back with vastly more modest goals – stopping one missile – but the same outrageous price tag. And it’s still not delivering.

“...sometimes you guys need to go back and read Jerry Pournelle's 'The Strategy of Technology' and get some perspective.”

I’ll take a look. I used to read Jerry Pournelle’s sci-fi books when I was a kid. But I was turned off when his hero Colonel Falkenberg, a mercenary, eliminated a client’s political opposition by inviting tens of thousands of opposition supporters to a stadium and massacring them all. It was then that I realised Pournelle is a bit of a fascist.

by OD on April 4, 2006 12:18 PM

---

"It was then that I realised Pournelle is a bit of a fascist."
Well, at least you didn't call him a drunk. To be honest, I haven't read much of his fiction.

"The seeker head can spot incoming MIRVs and MARVs and can also spot incoming decoys."
Baby steps Owen. First you crawl, then you walk, then you run. This first iteration is a proof of concept enterprise.
ANd there are ways of doing this. LIke look down, shoot down(if only moonbats would stop panty twisting about 'militarising space.'). You nail the rocket before it reaches apogee(when stuff is most likely deployed) or before it goes exo-atmospheric and you cut down dramatically on the number of targets you have to hit---and you don't actually have to be big to do it(ain't friction grand?).
Then there's the ABL system(gots output problems and particulates in the air disrupt the beam). That's doable from NEO.
A bunch of scientists(FAS being the most pre-eminent of the crowd) allowed political ideology to trump reason. They've always been against this, and they've always had they're panties in a twist about this. They're 'political realists' who like the status quo(sorta) and think of anything that takes away anyone elses MAD capability is inherently destabilizing. They're playing partisan politics on this(here's Jeff Lewis's site as an example of what I'm talking about. He's totally committed to arms reduction---if only it's done thru treaties that is).

Me, I want a world where the nuclear menace is gone while I accept that the measure/counter-measure cycle turns perpetually. I'll accept the uncertainty of this type of system as a deterent all its own(John, you've done staff studies, right? Uncertainty drives decision makers crackers, no?).

"Now the project is back with vastly more modest goals – stopping one missile – but the same outrageous price tag." Politics. Bush et al could get this thru, by fudging numbers to keep people from crying 'the national debt!'
It comes down to a question of necessity. Is it necessary to end the threat of nuclear war? To me that is yes and the only viable way is to make ICBM useless(regardless of cost, 'cause TANSTAAFL). If we get one everyone else will want one too(and you can bet some industrial espionage will take place to make that happen).
Take care of yourself Owen.

by ry on April 4, 2006 12:38 PM

---

Just for record here - *I'm* a Beltway Bandit...

by John of Argghhh! on April 4, 2006 1:45 PM

---

"*I'm* a Beltway Bandit..."
Hey, put that Hairy Eyeball away. You're scaring me.

by ry on April 4, 2006 7:27 PM

---

In furtherance of my disagreement of the Esteemed Mr. Dwyer, I offer this. If ABMD is so undoable why is the PRC intent on having a system? Why did the PRC complain so vehemently about the US building such a system if it was known to be utterly impossible?

I also haul out things like the Israeil 'Arrow' and the American 'Patriot' systems---each has an anti-ballistic capability. And let's not forget the recent upgrade of AEGIS.

Or the THEL. Yeah, that sucker is supposed to be able to knock down battlefield missiles. Tests seem to indicate it works so-so, it has a focusing and power output problem. It has been used to knock down mortar and artillery shells in limited testing though. So, are nations going to start deploying supra-expensive mortar rounds and arty shells to defeat this too? Cost matters. Making the enemy spend billions to make a single missile means he can't build a buttload of them, you know.
And AEGIS ships being deployed to Japan to create a limited ABMD system against DPRK attacks---plus Japan considering dumping billions into a joint US/Japan system---doesn't seem to say or even support the contention that there's consensus that it's impossible.

Also, Owen, I'm a chemist. That makes me a scientist. I haven't seen anything that makes this impossible from a physical/technical standpoint(not anymore than the original heatseeking missiles developed at China Lake NWS were, even if the PbS seekers left much to be desired, as we found out in Vietnam(as I said, teething problems)). What I have seen is a bunch of journalists who make money off of controversy and scientists with their monetary life-lines tied to being 'anti-DARPA' or 'anti-Pentagon' banging a drum loudly that it's impossible. That isn't a slam on you Owen. Just a reminder that such mud slinging type questioning of motivations can easily turn into the 3 fingers and the thumb pointing right back at you. Of yet, I don't think that about you, but it could be.

by ry on April 4, 2006 8:45 PM

---

You take care too Ry.

John, if you're a Beltway bandit (I knew you were), maybe there's hope yet. I guess the breed is not completely cynical.

Later guys.

by OD on April 4, 2006 8:49 PM

---

Owen - I'm just a mid-level bandit. I haven't made it to the 20th Level, where you get taught the secret handshake and Admitted to the Mysteries... ;^)

by John of Argghhh! on April 4, 2006 9:15 PM

---

Up for one more round, eh?

Many countries have announced a desire to build an ABM system. The Soviets, as you know, actually went ahead and did it around Moscow.

But as you also know, those Galoshes never put out the US targeters in the slightest. There were dozens of ways to defeat them. For one thing, a single mid-orbit detonation would white out radar screens for 20-30 minutes. But the main technique was simply to add more offensive missiles. By Sandia's own estimate, a defensive missile costs seven times as much as an offensive one.

The real purpose of the Soviet system was to reassure Moscow elites that it was safe to play nuclear chicken with the US. And of course the Soviets had their own military-industrial complex, the metal-eaters' alliance as they called it. The project took on a life of its own. The same thing happened in the States, where ABMD was resurrected even after everyone admitted the dream of stopping a Russian strike was totally out of reach.

People like the odious Frank Gaffney are paid to dream up new excuses. That's why he suggested an Iranian EMP missile threat a few months back. Such a device would require a hydrogen bomb, of course, and also a missile capable of carrying that warhead six times further than any Iranian missile ever tested, but never mind reality. The beauty of the cooked-up Gaffney threat is that it allows one single warhead to potentially threaten America, thus justifying NMD which can only stop one warhead. Gaffney's pals (from the missile industry, funnily enough), chimed in to suggest that an EMP bomb, by causing power cuts, would somehow wipe out "over 90%" of Americans and cast the US back into the Stone Age.

There are many, many reasons why NMD doesn't work, but the simplest is: one kill vehicle, multiple targets in the threat cloud. More than one minus one equals some left over. Physics equations don't get much simpler than that.

The Arrow and the Patriot are shooting at missiles that don't even separate into stages, much less launch decoys and multiple warheads. And the closing speeds are far lower.

The man who convinced me of the system's unworkability was Theodore Postol, an MIT professor who had himself been a lead scientist on the 1960s Moscow targeting plan. He got hold of the cooked NMD flight test data from the whistleblower Nira Schwartz.

"What I have seen is a bunch of journalists who make money off of controversy and scientists with their monetary life-lines tied to being 'anti-DARPA' or 'anti-Pentagon' banging a drum loudly that it's impossible. That isn't a slam on you Owen."

Well, you can be sure no-one is paying me to argue with you here, so clearly my motives aren't purely financial.

But more to the point it amazes me that someone should suggest FAS and similar scientists make a living debunking NMD.

There's practically no money to be had in advocating peace, and there's no money for scientists who question weapons systems. All the financial incentives are to be found on the other side of the street, where $100 billion has so far been disbursed on missile defence, and a further $10 billion is handed out each year. It's the weaponeers who are in it for the money.

You must know deep down that all the money is sloshing around your side of this debate, not mine.

Anyway, gotta go, cya round, Ry.

by OD on April 4, 2006 9:51 PM

---

Ry- ya get points for fighting the fight, man. I haven't weighed in because I've seen the other, published stuff Owen has written on the subject and knew I wasn't going to spend the time trying to put together a refutation on the practical aspects of the program.

And I'm with Owen on tossing the bathwater - but I know I can't argue cogently on the baby, so to speak.

Been fun to watch, regardless.

by John of Argghhh! on April 4, 2006 10:24 PM

---

« Dismissed, Soldier!