Accidental Kuwait bombing... Any military people here?

[Jade]

Has anyone actually read the repots about this incident?

It's pretty damn disturbing.
I feel rather idiotic even making this thread b/c IF anyone actually replies it will likely be just a bunch of Jade bashing, but I had to put in my two cents.

I know that these sorts of things happen way more often than we realize and it just sort of scares me you know?
What if that had been one of my loved ones accidently killed?

This is what we have to rely on in wartime?

Don't get me wrong ... I have a HUGE respect for everyone in the military... I guess I am just trying to figure out if anyone... from a military standpoint has any position on why this happened. Do you think there was a certain level of irresponsibility or would you really attribute all of it to just a "casualty of peacetime?"

Honestly... even the term "accidental bombing"... that just doesn't sit right with me.

Someone help me understand? Thanks.

 

[KillerMuffin]

It actually happens alot more than the military admits darlin. It's called Friendly Fire and it's shot down alot of good men in its time.

 

[OUTSIDER]

I'm not having a go at the USA here but I think the UK lost more service men to friendly fire in desert storm than we did to Sadam, it was put down to the US practice of firing long range missiles from their planes where as UK pilot's tended to do a lot more low level stuff, like I said I'm not having a go at you guy's but thats how it got reported here at the time.

 

[Laurel]

I'm just waiting for everyone to start yelling for Bush's head the way they yelled for Clinton's after last year's ship bombing. Hypocrisy being the mode du jour, I'm sure I have a long, long time to wait.

 

[Laurel]

And while I'm rattling off at the mouth, where's the outrage over the submarine accident? Imagine if a military sub full of Clinton's donors hit a Japanese vessel and killed people. The screaming for hearings would be deafening.

I'm done now. Flame away.

*takes a deep breath*

 

[Blackbich]

I agree with you Laurel.

I also think there's alot more of this going on than our government is willing to admit to. I had two family members who were killed by 'friendly fire.' The family's STILL waiting on explanations and that occurred during World War II and the Korean War. If there was a way it could have been covered up, believe me, we wouldn't know anything about it.

 

[bluntforcemama]

Yes, well said Laurel.

 

[Weird Harold]

Has anyone actually read the repots about this incident?

...
I know that these sorts of things happen way more often than we realize and it just sort of scares me you know?
What if that had been one of my loved ones accidently killed?

This is what we have to rely on in wartime?

One report on the incident:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/kuwait010312.html

From the report:

The accident involved a U.S. Navy F/A-18 from the aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman. The jet was dropping bombs on a bombing range in northern Kuwait when the pilot mistakenly targeted vehicles on the range with a 500-pound gravity bomb, sources told ABCNEWS. The casualties were personnel who were in or around the vehicle
...
In these exercises, the military often uses burned-out vehicles as targets.

This does indeed sound like a case "friendly fire" due to Target mis-identification. From the wording of the report, it would seem that malfcuntion can be rules out and the bomb went where it was aimed.

The article goes on to list a long string of recent military accidents in the recent past. Those it lists are irrelevent. What they should have listed is the long string of incidents where Naval Aviators bombed the wrong target.

There is the problem they are having with protestors trying to shut down their island bombing range in Puerto Rico, and a long history of off target missions at their Fallon Nevada bombing ranges, and protests by local residents there.

I hate to disparage Naval Aviators, but The USAF and US Army also have several live fire ranges here in Nevada, and in southern California with far fewer incidents of bombs or shells falling outside of the range boundaries. Someone needs to figure out the flaw in Naval training that causes so many off-target bombings.

In defense of the pilot involved:

This was a training accident -- intended to teach him how to identify and bomb the right target as identified by the forward air controller he actually bombed. Obviously, he needed the training. Why this particular pilot was traing with a live 500 lb bomb I don't know, but it is a question that should be asked.

If you've ever looked out the window of an airliner, and tried to pick out your loved ones as they drove away from the airport, you have some idea of how difficult it can be to identify a specific vehicle from an aircraft. When you consider that an F/A-18 is moving about twice as fast as an airliner when it is on a bombing run, you can imagine how much more difficult identifying a specific vehicle can be.

I spent twenty-one years fixing the systems that allow pilots to deliver weapons accurately. I have a friend who is a retired USAF Colonel who flew P-51 Mustangs in Europe, F-86 Sabres in Korea and F-4 Phantoms in Vietnam, and many of the intervening types of fighters. Both of us probably have some bias in favor of Air Force pilots.

Still, in discussions about previous incidents of off-target naval aviators, my friend has opined that Naval aviators are too "gung-ho" and egotistical-- too "full of themselves" and individualistic to be good team players.

There is a lot I don't know about this particular incident. There may be maintenance factors that aren't apparent -- small errors in the navigational fix, miscalibrated aiming systems, a failure in the timing of the bomb release, etc.

However, based on my experience, my friend's expressed opinion of Naval Aviaotrs, and the historical record, this certainly sounds like another case of the Navy not being very good navigators or bombers.

Outsider said:

...I think the UK lost more service men to friendly fire in desert storm than we did to Sadam, it was put down to the US practice of firing long range missiles from their planes where as UK pilot's tended to do a lot more low level stuff...

If I remember correctly, all of the coalition forces lost more to "friendly fire" than to Saddam's forces. Of the cases I'm aware of, it was more due to target identification problems through night-vision systems than it was due to the ranges at weapon release. At least one case was Army Helicopters and a navigational error combined with mis-communication with the ground forces.

All friendly fire incidents are horrible. However, they are far fewer than was the case in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Better targeting systems, better communications, and better training have reduced friendly fire greatly. Realistically though, I can't forsee anything that will ever completely eliminate the problem.

An addendum: According to NBC Evening News, this was a night training mission which compounds th problems of identifying a specific vehicle.

[Edited by Weird Harold on 03-12-2001 at 05:47 PM]

 

[Handy-Andy]

Outsider said:

...I think the UK lost more service men to friendly fire in desert storm than we did to Sadam, it was put down to the US practice of firing long range missiles from their planes where as UK pilot's tended to do a lot more low level stuff...

If I remember correctly, all of the coalition forces lost more to "friendly fire" than to Saddam's forces. Of the cases I'm aware of, it was more due to target identification problems through night-vision systems than it was due to the ranges at weapon release. At least one case was Army Helicopters and a navigational error combined with mis-communication with the ground forces.

This one happened in daylight if I remember right . How it was reported here in the U.K. was that American pilot's were ordered not to fly below a certain height not even to recon the target .For this reason the pilot's missed the identifcation marks on the top of the vehicles and ended up hitting a couple of warrior armoured personel carrier's killing around 15 men .

My thought's are with the families of the dead .

[Edited by Handy-Andy on 03-12-2001 at 05:28 PM]

 

[Jade]

Well see that's exactly my point though...

I mean what about a "better safe than sorry" policy...

Accidently fired at the wrong target and "oops" someone dies?!! WTF?

It sort of reminds me of an excellent quote in "The Last Boyscout" ... something along the lines of:

"Oh! I see, so you accidently tripped on the floor and stuck your dick in my wife." (When he finds out his friend is screwing his wife and the guy says it wan accident.)

Just the fact that WH had to coin that term "off target bombings"... the mere reality that that EXISTS... I mean... Ahh!

 

[WriterDom]

I'm just waiting for everyone to start yelling for Bush's head the way they yelled for Clinton's after last year's ship bombing. Hypocrisy being the mode du jour, I'm sure I have a long, long time to wait.

I don't remember anyone yelling for Clinton's head.

 

[Vi]

Having lost my only brother to friendly fire in Desert Storm, my first thoughts and prayers go to the families of those lost. My second thoughts and even more prayers go to the pilot that did his job as he was instructed and ended up with a lifetime of guilt.
I have made my peace over the last 10 years and have never forgotten my brother, but I do not hold any person or persons responsable. That may seem like a cold thing to say, but my brother, as these soldiers were doing their jobs and became a statistic of war or wartime training. We can only hope that their deaths will save the lives of many others and that whatever the problem was, be corrected.
I spent a day last month, wearing one of my brothers Army shirts, the 10 year anniversary of his death. That day I cried for him again. I also cried for the men on the chopper that fired the rocket at what they thought were enemy vehicles.
My brothers helicopter was on the ground checking for survivours and weapons. The night scopes showed personel movement. They never knew what hit them.
The families of those killed in this bombing are going to go through a long and painful time. Many will never get over it, non will ever forget it, and some will use the memories of their loved ones to carry forward, as I have.
I find that some of my brothers hopes and dreams have become mine and I persue life with rich abandonment in his spirit.....and sometimes, I cry.

 

[Ally C]

I'm just waiting for everyone to start yelling for Bush's head the way they yelled for Clinton's after last year's ship bombing. Hypocrisy being the mode du jour, I'm sure I have a long, long time to wait.

I don't remember anyone yelling for Clinton's head.

I can. I think her name was Monica.

 

[Ally C]

Apologies ...

... that last post of mine is best ignored in the context of this thread. As for the accidental bombing, well I think it goes with the territory. Yes, it is a great tragedy, but given the vagaries of human error combined with high-tech war machines designed to destroy ... You get the picture, I'm sure.

 

[WriterDom]

And while I'm rattling off at the mouth, where's the outrage over the submarine accident?
*takes a deep breath*

You liberals are so mean spirited.

 

[Jade]

Vi

Thanks for sharing that story sweetie... it was very touching... so sorry to hear about that.

 

[Weird Harold]

Well see that's exactly my point though...

I mean what about a "better safe than sorry" policy...

Accidently fired at the wrong target and "oops" someone dies?!! WTF?
...
Just the fact that WH had to coin that term "off target bombings"... the mere reality that that EXISTS... I mean... Ahh!

I imagine that the first friendly fire incident happened when Og threw his rock into the bushes where he thought there was food and beaned Ugh by mistake. Off-target bombings have been with us since the first catupult malfunctioned and dropped a rock on the besiegers instead of the city walls. (That's not a term I coined BTW.)

Being a soldier is a lot safer today than it was in the past, but the very nature of the job is unsafe. When you are learning how to go about killing someone, sometimes people get killed. "Better safe than sorry" is just not a concept that is compatible with military training.

Don't get me wrong, Safety is one of the primary considerations in military training. But just as mountain climbers, skydivers, race car drivers and others know that death is one of the risks their activities expose them to, there are risks associated with just being around things designed with the express purpose of killing people.

The military has to accept the risk of friendly fire or other accidents in order to train. The consequences of turning untrained troops loose is far greater than the risks associated with training realistically.

Until we can do away with the need for armies and navies, there will be incidents of this kind. The investigation of this incident will hopefully provide ways to prevent the same sequence of events from happening again.

However, Murphy is alive and well, and his law will insure that something else will go wrong and some other sequence of events will result in another death to "friendly fire" or other accident.