How Technology Failed in Iraq

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Friday October 22, 2004 @06:03PM from the sand-gets-into-everything dept.

synthespian writes "US troops in Iraq were supposed to have a clear superiority in the battlefield because of sensors and networking devices such as aircraft- and satellite-mounted motion sensors, heat detectors, as well as image and communications eavesdroppers. On April 3, 2003, the task to take over a key Euphrates River bridge about 30 kilometers southwest of Baghdad turned into a bloody hell as 'between 25 and 30 tanks, plus 70 to 80 armored personnel carriers, artillery, and between 5,000 and 10,000 Iraqi soldiers coming from three directions. This mass of firepower and soldiers attacked a U.S. force of 1,000 soldiers supported by just 30 tanks and 14 Bradley fighting vehicles. (...) "'We got nothing until they slammed into us"''(...). Read more about this story and the troubles and challenges the US military is experiencing in networking troops from Technology Review."

2 of 942 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:Technology? TECHNOLOGY?? by thrash242 · 2004-10-22 21:03 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Only on Leftie Slashdot would this not be moderated dominately offtopic. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

But no, you people can't seem to pass up any opportunity to pimp your agenda.
Re:Know what your government is doing: Read books. by thrash242 · 2004-10-22 21:17 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I personally would have moderated it as offtopic, but I agree with flamebait.

Whether or not we should have gone over there has *nothing* to do with how or why technology failed. The original poster, in the subject and first sentence blatantly tossed away the topic and started into a tirade about how we shouldn't have gone into Iraq.

For that matter, none of your post has anything to do with the topic either.