Satellite imagery was the reason for the SR-71 program to be discontinued. That and they had crazy maintenance, special types of fuel and materials to withstand the forces flying at those altitudes and speeds, and they just generally were not as useful anymore.
They did work, but, the US had to keep the game running with the Cold War.
Of course they worked. That wasn't my point. My point was that new technology made them less cost effective. Obsolete.
The problem with drones (the ones in service) is that transmission is lost a lot and they're basically big kites with IR cameras.
Which is why they're getting better. Development continues because they are less costly than a satellite or Blackbird. We can build new ones with design alterations quickly, especially as technology progressively makes them more capable. This also makes them more expendable as a lost drone may give the enemy a chance to reverse engineer and catch up to our technology. But it would also be obsolete by the time they could use anything gained as newer, better drones would be in operation.
Who ever said anything about SR-71 bombings?
Honestly, I don't remember and I can't find it now, apparently. Thought someone did. Either a post was edited or deleted, because I referenced AC-130s in response to something that is clearly not there anymore.
AC-130s are most certainly in the area.
They are, but, strikes are negated by Barry and others. Probably because, the targets are usually small and the guns would screw things up.
I'm not sure where the disagreement is supposed to be here.
Now, all of that aside, we need ground troops and land vehicles because of the terrorists' use of civilians as human shields. They operate in towns and do what gangs do: they offer "protection" in exchange for tribute in the form of supplies and shelter. Anyone attempting to turn in the Taliban/Al Qaeda is dealt with and so is their family. In order to remove these people from such areas, bombs must not be dropped. You have to go in on foot and take them out the old-fashioned way: looking down the barrel of your rifle and injecting them with hot lead from a distance.
Try to think of a viable way to put a small group of people in those towns and completely eradicating the Taliban controlling it. The best solutions would probably be to go in and fight the Taliban with the townspeople, which is of course, the SF's job.
This is what we're doing, is it not? I have a hard time believing any of us can come up with a better solution than the US military... They are the most powerful and successful fighting force humanity has ever seen.
The main problem I am seeing is that many taliban dress like civilians. It is extremely difficult to tell who is Al Qaeda and who isn't without being extremely street-wise about that region. It takes a sharp eye to watch the way people are walking (particularly who they get near and who they avoid), and to be honest, I don't know how many of the soldiers we have think of that. Since Taliban are known for killing suspected "traitors" and their families, normal civilians would tend to step lightly around them. For example, some people might give a taliban agent a wide birth, not wanting to cause harm to themselves or their family. And one should also pay close attention to the expressions of anyone who notices the troops. Body language is one way to tell them apart. Since different castes of society have different posture, a sniper or their spotter can observe crowds from a distance (when there arent any troops near them) to see who stands out. Soldiers in the Taliban strike me as being rather proud, so perhaps a sniper should watch for certain individuals strutting about like peacocks among the civilians?
That's a job for the spies (most espionage work is done by local civilians). The problem is that people are probably afraid of doing that. If the US tried getting troops in do that, they would stand out.
This is true.
Which is why I said a sniper or their spotter could do it. They would not have to get near the place they plan to observe
Makes sense and they do that when they can.
I'm really not trying to sound like a jerk, but I have never been in the military. My brother, father, and mother have been and I've had many friends in the military. I've watched a lot of video about the war because my dad went to Iraq in 2008 as a Gunnery Sergeant in the Marine Corps. I've read a lot about the most recent conflicts.
I don't know much and I don't claim to. But I also don't claim that I have any insight the military doesn't.
As far as addressing the OP's question which started this thread:
Now that the US government has this information, what do you think should be done? Spending money would just be exactly what they want and an attack on their soil may not help either.
I know they're going to use this information to continue on the path they've been walking for 12 years. More military action, more covert operations, more surveillance. More liberties stripped at home, more homeland security, more monitoring of citizens, etc.
What I personally think should be done is a retreat from the area and a removal of troops from most foreign bases. I believe we should keep our noses out of everyone else's business and take better care of our own people. We should stop meddling with the rest of the world unless they ask for it. This is all far too much to ask for, so I stick to reality.
