Originally Posted by mmarsh

Damien and Perseus

I don't know if any of you are aware of the shock waves Jacques Chirac comments caused last year when he said if Iran were to use terrorism against Europe he would respond with Nuclear weapons.

I think that is the most effective type of missile shield, it certainly sent a chill up Iran's spine.

Well, that did work for the first fifty years that we had nuclear weapons.

Englander2, for 20 years the number one killer of us forces was friendly fire. Ok, that's not exactly true, but I don't see it as that much of a negative, we weren't killing more of our own troops on accident than we had been before, the enemy just wasn't getting nearly as many of our guys as they had in the past.

Damien, can you give me a link to that info... I'm very curious about that claim.

Weren't there more deaths due to friendly fire in Desert Shield and Desert Storm than the number of deaths due to enemy fire? Well I've got a wikipedia quote here, I will be the first to admit it probably isn't the most reliable, but I'll look more in depth tomorrow, I chose wiki because it is so much easier to find the info compared to other sources.

Gulf War casualty numbers are controversial. Coalition military deaths have been reported to be around 378, but the DoD reports that US forces suffered 147 battle-related and 235 non-battle-related deaths, plus one F/A-18 Hornet Navy Pilot, Scott Speicher listed as MIA.

While the death toll among Coalition forces engaging enemy combatants was very low, a substantial number of deaths were caused by accidental attacks from other allied units. Of the 147 American troops who died in battle, 24% were killed by friendly fire, a total of 35 service personnel. A further 11 died in detonations of allied munitions. Nine British service personnel were also killed in a friendly fire incident when a USAF A-10A Thunderbolt-II attacked a group of two Warrior IFVs.

Now, I wasn't using that as a negative, plus my claim would include training related deaths that happened in peace time. The British for instance claim that the casualty rate during Desert Storm was lower than the normal death rate due to training accidents. I am having more trouble finding a source for that. I was in no way calling our troops incompetent with that statement. My "friendly fire" claim also includes actions such as Operation Eagle Claw/Evening Light, the failed attempt to rescue our hostages in Tehran.

Thanks for that, I can understand where you are coming from now.

In most conflicts the majority of casualties are not from enemy fire or friendly fire but from disease and accidents. Numerous sources for this and I'll provide them if anyone is interested in following this up.

Originally Posted by Englander2

Some might find it a joke, for example, that British soldiers fighting alongside USA forces, have more fear of friendly-fire than they do of the enemy.

Source on that statement?
The Brits I have met and worked with have no "fear" of blue on blue.
Although every incident is sad, it is a risk you take when you go to war.

One of many.

To KJ,'s question about the source of my statement " British soldiers fighting alongside USA forces, have more fear of friendly-fire than they do of the enemy".
I live in a German town where many (retired) British soldiers chose to make their new home at the time England was suffering massive unemployment. Among my acquaintances are quite a number who were on active duty during the "First Gulf War". All those I have spoken with, agree on one point, modern combat-technology does not necessarily bring safety either to those using it, or to others fighting alongside and within range of its utilisation.
As you will probably know, because of our - British Official Secrets Act - it would be unwise to mention any names. This is especially the case for those still seeking assistance as a result of "after battle illnesses" where the cause is not yet known. These chaps are still not sure whether the problems, they now suffer from, were caused by weapons used, or are the result of pre-medication, which was supposed to reduce the effects of possible chemical weaponry.
It is however interesting to note, that similar illnesses are mentioned by some emigrants from Russia, who previously lived in areas neighbouring arms stockpiles in that country.

Originally Posted by Englander2

All those I have spoken with, agree on one point, modern combat-technology does not necessarily bring safety either to those using it, or to others fighting alongside and within range of its utilisation.

Ofcourse it´s not safe to fight a war..
People are trying to kill you.
Ever heard the term:"There is no such thing as friendly fire"?

As for the people living near Russian weapons stockpiles that became sick, maybe the Iraqis had Russian WMD that went aerosol when bombed by the coalition?
Just guessing my arse off here, just like you..

Posterior to KJ's very own words:
"Just guessing my arse off here, just like you.."
I was reminded of Colin Powell's proof to the UN, at the time Saddam Hussein was accused of processing WMD. Either the Secretary of State was deliberately misleading his so-called friends, or as is often the case in diplomacy and war, he was using a calculated guess (sometimes termed as strategy) in the hope that his suspicions would later be backed up by facts. The former would mean, that the government he represented was not trustworthy, the latter, that such bloody errors could also occur with regard to a shield against ballistic missiles. Especially in Poland, there is a great risk, (ask those who have been there by car), that when the defending projectiles are really needed, it will be found that parts are missing.
It might therefore be wise to observe and learn from the fate of - Scotty's (James Doohan), remains.

Originally Posted by KJ

Ofcourse it´s not safe to fight a war..
People are trying to kill you.
Ever heard the term:"There is no such thing as friendly fire"?

As for the people living near Russian weapons stockpiles that became sick, maybe the Iraqis had Russian WMD that went aerosol when bombed by the coalition?
Just guessing my arse off here, just like you..

KJ,

we just don't know.
There were so many potential and real hazards in the Soviet Union.

One person has married a girl from Chelyabinsk(a large industrial city in the Southern Urals). They didn't have any kids together. NONE of his wife's female classmates have kids!!!