Infrared can be mitigated if the engine is turned off which makes the vehicle the exact same temperature as the ambient temperature. The same thing goes for thermal imaging. Radar signatures on the trucks transporting any heavy weapons would be larger than the weapons themselves. Signal triangulation can only be used if we know the frequency and if they use the radios on the vehicles.

There are many work arounds that mitigate a lot of the enablers we use, particularly against low tech opponents. Much of our hardware is so many generations ahead of these opponents that they can almost be camouflaged in plain sight because our systems are designed to locate, track, and fight opponents that are at least within one generation technologically to us.

Is the information out there...sure. I would imagine the sheer volume of data that would have to be sifted through to pin point a target from the air with no on ground confirmation makes anything but the most obvious of targets very hard to prosecute in a timely manner. Then you have to take in civil considerations, units available, time tables, flight time, fuel capacity, anti air defense capabilities, and an extremely cumbersome chain of command that gets yanked back on their already very short leash any time they even come close to moving too far from their left or right limits...you get the picture.

Originally Posted by brinktk

Infrared can be mitigated if the engine is turned off which makes the vehicle the exact same temperature as the ambient temperature. The same thing goes for thermal imaging. Radar signatures on the trucks transporting any heavy weapons would be larger than the weapons themselves. Signal triangulation can only be used if we know the frequency and if they use the radios on the vehicles.

There are many work arounds that mitigate a lot of the enablers we use, particularly against low tech opponents. Much of our hardware is so many generations ahead of these opponents that they can almost be camouflaged in plain sight because our systems are designed to locate, track, and fight opponents that are at least within one generation technologically to us.

Is the information out there...sure. I would imagine the sheer volume of data that would have to be sifted through to pin point a target from the air with no on ground confirmation makes anything but the most obvious of targets very hard to prosecute in a timely manner. Then you have to take in civil considerations, units available, time tables, flight time, fuel capacity, anti air defense capabilities, and an extremely cumbersome chain of command that gets yanked back on their already very short leash any time they even come close to moving too far from their left or right limits...you get the picture.

This is a good summary of the problems associated with radar and infrared hardware location technology. Particularly about the trucks caring the heavy hardware having a larger radar profile than that of the weapons that are on them. That would basically make the hardware look like a big truck to Awaks radar. Plus the reaction time must be almost instantaneous, this doesn't lend itself to a lengthy approval process. That is why I mentioned if Turkey is indeed an ally this would be a perfect base for our aircraft some items like flight time, fuel cost would be cut to compared to flying fro carriers in the Gulf. Points well taken.

Maybe I am a complete crazy arse, but I think that in given certain situations, civilian casualties CAN be made.
Yes, it's hard for them, but as ISIS goes, these might die anyway.
ISIS doesn't care about them, but they know WE do, which is a weakness.
Overcoming this weakness, will in the end save FAR MORE people.

To me it is mere numbers.
Then again, I could be entirely crazy....

During WWIi the allies became less and less concerned with civilian casualties. In fact, it became a doctrine that civilians provided the labor force and support structure to the enemy armed forces and that made them a legitimate target. Part of this change of policy came about because it was finally realized that with the state of the art in bombing, a city was about the smallest target that could be expected to be hit. U.S. and British bombers were lucky if they could place their bombs within two miles of the target, so civilian workers became a target by default.
In the case of the Japanese, civilian population centers became targets in order to break the will of the Japanese government. It would take two atomic bombs for that to work.
In our current conflicts the adversary forces hug civilian populations, schools, mosques and other off -limits targets to gain safety.
This is a holy war, why?; because they say so. In that case the gloves should come off. If you want a population to stop fighting you, there is no better way to achieve that than killing them. War is about killing and it's not about much else.

Originally Posted by 1st Lt. Kirzillian

Maybe I am a complete crazy arse, but I think that in given certain situations, civilian casualties CAN be made.
Yes, it's hard for them, but as ISIS goes, these might die anyway.
ISIS doesn't care about them, but they know WE do, which is a weakness.
Overcoming this weakness, will in the end save FAR MORE people.

To me it is mere numbers.
Then again, I could be entirely crazy....

I would suggest that civilian casualties are expected, surely the only real requirement here is that genuine efforts are made to ensure civilian casualties are minimised.

Essentially there is a great difference between a bystander being killed during an operation and carpet bombing a city at rush hour and most people I believe are capable of making that distinction.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I would suggest that civilian casualties are expected, surely the only real requirement here is that genuine efforts are made to ensure civilian casualties are minimised.

I agree with what you say, however, like when some using civilians as a shield, we should not be forced weapons down.
On the contrary: we should act even more violent in that case, make them see it is of no use.
Or they will revert to that tactic every time, rendering us paralyzed.
Once they figure out that human shields no longer work, they will stop using this tactic, I think/hope.

Originally Posted by 1st Lt. Kirzillian

I agree with what you say, however, like when some using civilians as a shield, we should not be forced weapons down.
On the contrary: we should act even more violent in that case, make them see it is of no use.
Or they will revert to that tactic every time, rendering us paralyzed.
Once they figure out that human shields no longer work, they will stop using this tactic, I think/hope.

In insurgency warfare, this tactic will backfire big time.
I see my job as the protector of the innocent even if they belong to the enemy. It´s a problem, but it should never be solved by "Kill them all"

Originally Posted by Kesse81

In insurgency warfare, this tactic will backfire big time.
I see my job as the protector of the innocent even if they belong to the enemy. It´s a problem, but it should never be solved by "Kill them all"

Fair enough, I am more than willing to hear a solution from your side.
How would you solve terrorism?

Now, I am an extremely forward person, near brutally honest and open, and I am the type of man that grabs the bull by the horns.
I am a man that acts extreme, both to make an example, as well as to make a point.
But if you, Sir, give me an alternative, I am more than willing to adjust my way.

The best way to combat terrorism is to ensure that people in general don´t evolves into terrorists. It´s a police and intelligence task. To find them before they strike. But you will never be able to eradicate all terrorists. There will always be some idiot who has a twisted idea he pursues.

One thing is terrorists, another insurgent.

The Taliban, for example, are not terrorists. They may be called partisans or whatever you want. Those you fight most effectively with hearts and minds. The strongest and most legitimate warrior is the one with popular support. Remove this support and you remove the foundation and deliberate killing of civilians is not a good way to make friends.

Situations will occur where my survival depends on killing civilians, but then I´ll have my back against the wall with no other options.

Oh, don´t call me Sir. I´m an NCO - I work for a living.

Originally Posted by Remington 1858

During WWIi the allies became less and less concerned with civilian casualties. In fact, it became a doctrine that civilians provided the labor force and support structure to the enemy armed forces and that made them a legitimate target. Part of this change of policy came about because it was finally realized that with the state of the art in bombing, a city was about the smallest target that could be expected to be hit. U.S. and British bombers were lucky if they could place their bombs within two miles of the target, so civilian workers became a target by default.
In the case of the Japanese, civilian population centers became targets in order to break the will of the Japanese government. It would take two atomic bombs for that to work.
In our current conflicts the adversary forces hug civilian populations, schools, mosques and other off -limits targets to gain safety.
This is a holy war, why?; because they say so. In that case the gloves should come off. If you want a population to stop fighting you, there is no better way to achieve that than killing them. War is about killing and it's not about much else.

To this end the Nazi's imported > 10 million slaves to replace domestic laborers and Laborers abroad. The life expectancy of a Nazi slave was very low. They also spread their industry's out into the country side making the targets hard to find and hit. Germany production of war material continued to increase right up until 45. Although it would have increased at an even greater rate without the bombing. Between (500 - 1000) thousand Germans died as a result of the Allied bombing campaign. The majority were civilians living in major population centers. Although many key targets were hit: the Ruhr dams, the ball bearing plants, the Ploesti oil fields, Peenemude to name a few.