[lbo-talk] Grozny Versus Tskhinvali

moominek at aol.com moominek at aol.com
Wed Aug 20 00:32:55 PDT 2008


The new military commentaror worte:


>Tskhinvali was a rapid
attack on a city using somewhat unsophisticated weapons but using those weapons to cause maximum disorder to opposing forces, not to kill or demoralize a population.

I don't know, were you got your military expertise from. I served 3 yeras in east germany artillery, have been trained for guiding indirect fire of the standard systems (122-mm and 152-mm towed ore self propelled hovitzers, 130-mm-canons, 120-mm mortars, 122-mm MRLS (RM 21 ore czech RM-70)) in the so called reconaissance troup of a battery an have been deployed in the reconaissance troup of an anti-tank brigade (100-mm guns MT-12 and anti-tank guided rockets). Most of these systems were to be seen in the last weeks on TV, though I have to admit, that we not every time had the most modern soviet equipment. (We used optical-distance-measurement instead of laser, our soviet partner unit already had.)

Artillery fire is a military weapon, as precise, as the qualification of officers and soldiers, the orders of the leadership and the reconaissance allowing fore. Every time not weapons kill, but soldiers. (Tolstoy wrote about the battle of Borodino: Not Napoleon killed, but the soldiers killed each other. Not the state can kill, only soldiers can shoot ore kill with the bayonet. No officier is able to control the behavior of his soldiers in battle. They have it make their own decisions.)

But if you want to know, what brutal use of force is, compare the SIOP-his tory ore Kissingers plans for use of nuclear weapons in the Vietnam-Conflict, not to speak about the "well targeted" X-mas bombardments 1972. (Take http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/  for start). It is quite senseless, for my point of view, to look for "better" ore "more sophisticated" warefare. The soviet troops in Afghanistan used artillery, not B-1: Impressive difference in weapon systems. The difference on the ground is quite small.

To the point in question: Everybody with knowledge of the weapon knows, that the MLRS are horrible - in so far quite sophisticated - weapons aganist troops in free area ore lightly fortified. They are of less to no use against troops hiding in armour, deep in the ground ore in stable constructions. Attacking a city will result in civilian casualties, not in military disorder. So more civilian casualties,  if it is an small town with light, in parts rural-type and wooden structures - like Tsinvali.

Last remark because of Tahir: It is about getting from "here" to communism. O.K.. But that's for we have to have some idea about this quite different "here" - from Vladivostok to L.A., from Toronto to Cape Town.

Sebastian

________________________________________________________________________ AOL eMail auf Ihrem Handy! Ab sofort können Sie auch unterwegs Ihre AOL email abrufen. Registrieren Sie sich jetzt kostenlos.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list