How effective are hi-tech weapons in a low-tech war?

Question

I heard yesterday that it cost the U.S. $25,000 to outfit 1 U.S.soldier. That is personal gear only, not weapons. I also understand it cost $1.5 million for 1 cruise missle, $300,000 for 1 Humvee, etc, etc.
With all this investment in hi-tech weapons, we are losing a war to an enemy who piles a bunch of homemade explosives into a beatup jalopy.
Is it time we rethink our defense investments?

It's not just clothes. $3000 for a helmet, $7000 for a combat radio, $3000 for night vision glass, $5000 for body armor, and soforth.

Answer 1

You have one big misconception.
You are not losing a war. You are only presented with the impression that the US is losing a war- fuelled by two intermixed sources- the mass media (because bad news sells well, and good news is no news) and by leftist politicians (because they need to blame the war on Bush-and by extension all Republicans- so as to increase their chances in politics and prepare for the next election)

The cost of the weaponry is high. It also means that few soldiers get killed or seriously wounded. After several years of Iraq the US has fewer casualties than after a single small battle in WW2- try the Kasserine Pass if you need examples.

The insurgency could be handled easilly by introducing draconian measures. However, today Iraq is an allied country and no longer conquered territory, so it will take a little longer- provided the Washington politicians do not manage to surrender first

Answer 2

There are several reasons to keep investing money in "high tech" weapons. Yes roadside bombs or IEDs are causing massive losses to our troops but to stop funding or investing in R&D for new and better weapons is not the soluation. Currently there is no weapon or tool out there that is accurate in identifing an IED. So the troops are stuck with no option. But you had a choice of driving around town in a $5,000 truck with no armor and no weapons or a $300,000 humvee with light armor and a M-2 .50 machine gun on top which would you pick? I do agree that some weapons are not effective in a low tech war but that is more because the US does not want to cause to cause massive frendly casualities. If we played the same game that these terriorests played then lobbing a 1 million dollar missle or a driving a 40 million M1 tank into the house where the terriorests are hiding among children then yes the high tech weapons would be effictive but we do play that game (which is a good thing). I do agree that some low tech weapons are extreamly effective, currently all marines are equipted with a can of silly string. they shoot the string into a romm they are trying to clear and if th string fall to the ground then no trip wires if it gets caught then the room is bobby trapped.

Answer 3

No, It's not time to rethink our investments. although your statement is good, your pricing is off but brings up a good thought. It doesn't bring up a good point and I'll give you my opinion why. Our high tech weapons and tools for war is what makes us the # 1 military force in the world. These HTW's are in fact saving lives of civilians and our solder's alike. More so, when we can take out the whole tank and armored division of our enemy with just a toy plane (Drone) and 7 Apache Helicopters at 15 miles away in total darkness, this saves the life's of our troops and civilian casualties with pin point accurately. Instead of carpet bombing like we use to do, we now can drive a nail into the middle wall of a structure with smart bombs and laser guided missiles, sparing millions of dollars of collateral damage and lessens (not eliminate) the loss of life of civilians. Last, in order to win the fight, we have to be better than anyone else and the truth of matter is, our enemy has these HTW's and it's like fighting fire with fire but, you don't take a knife to a gun fight. and just fo the record, we are not loosing this fight in Iraq but we do need to regroup and come up with a different way. What we're doing isn't working and we're not using HTW's, our men and women are in the trenches kicking in doors. As resent as yesterday, 12/20/06 President Bush as much as said so at a confrence he held for the world to hear. He also said he's taking advise from both Republicans and Demrocrates alike to come up with a better way. What most people don't understand about war is the whole picture.fighting the right plan the first time doesn't always work and usually needs modified as the needs calls for it. This is a very good question and Happy Holidays to you and yours.

Answer 4

You are making several bad assumptions. First, we are not losing. We have won. Saddam is gone, the Iraqi people are free and have freely voted for a constitution and elected a government. The insurgency is dead. All of the violence now is between Sunni and Shia. This is religious fighting that has been going on for thousands of years and has nothing to do with us.

As for how effective our weapons are, we have had less than 3000 casualties in 3 years. That is the lowest rate of casualties in the history of the American military. So yes, our hi-tech weapons and armor are very effective.

Answer 5

Guerrilla warfare has always depended on surprise and attacks from an uncertain direction. If we KNEW that a vehicle was loaded with explosives or could locate in advance where IED's were buried in a road (as well as neutralizing all snipers), it would be far less expensive to defend against them and far fewer casualties would occur.
It is the nature of these rules of engagement that allows such low-tech weapons and easily-trained forces to frustrate a superior trained and armed enemy.
If we played by their rules, carpet-bombing an entire area from the air would be much safer and less costly. Flooding the buildings with poison gas would be less expensive and destructive as well. We know how to build a minefield as well.

Answer 6

If you make high tech weapons you must have the high tech strategy that would go with them. Besides, it all deals with training. When I was in the Army before they went to Iraq in 1990, the Army spent more time on maintenance than training. I know. That is why we are losing the war, but given time it will slowly change. You see, we will never win, cuz look at how long the palestines have been fighting.

Answer 7

If you want to control Baghdad Then you need to surround the City cut it of from food and water and as the people leave strip search them and place them in camps .In one month you go back in and kill everything breathing .Then bring in trucks to clear away the debris on the streets and do a house to house search in earnest to find hidden caches of weapons .Maintain a tight perimeter security check point around the city to insure no weapons go back in . This is labor intensive and the most difficult method but one that is sure to work .
Thats if we are serious about getting things under control .
All the high tech weapons are not going to locate and remove all the weapons in Baghdad .
These people have been preparing for war with one another for the entire time they have been alive . Metal detectors used to sweep the walls for weapons and explosive sniffing dogs to ferret out caches of explosives .
They must have tons of explosives hidden in Baghdad because I am sure we have not allowed truck loads into the city . I often wonder just who is in charge of our troops and the planners who have obviously no clue how to secure an area .
One house ,One block,One city ,its all the same .Remove the occupants search carefully for contraband and prevent the return of contraband to the location by searching all inbound supplies .



Or we could estimate the amount of contraband in the city and threaten to blow it up with a nuke if so many tons of weapons and ammo is not deposited by midnight on a given date .
Then nuke for good measure anyhow .

Answer 8

but the difference is they have been training sense they were 10 years old (and possibly younger) while american soldiers are trained when they are old enough to drive and drink! Just like someone who has a technological complicated weapon and is killed by someone with a slingshot. Skill is all thats important

Answer 9

look at vietnam. They beat the US armed forces and they started out with nothing but bamboo, and bows and arrows. later they got guns, but nothing like the american forces.
Wars arent won by equipment alone. A wars outcome is based on determination and drive. Most of the American solders dont believe in what they are fighting for. Everyone we are fighting are fighting for their homes and their lifestyles.... Who do you think has more drive?

Answer 10

The insurgency is in it's death throes. We are winning. Bring 'em on.