Word: techs
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1990-1999
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...civilian casualties within Iraq and Kuwait. Despite my informed consent as a citizen, a wave of queasiness hit me with the first air strikes against Baghdad. But then the euphoric opening days of the war made it seem as if America had perfected the neutron bomb in reverse: high-tech weaponry that only destroyed buildings, while leaving people miraculously unharmed. Even now, after more than a week of war, the cameras have yet to show a dead soldier. There is something tawdry about this Top Gun illusion of military action virtually devoid of unpleasant consequences...
There is no disputing that the allies' high-tech weapons chest is loaded with razzle-dazzle. But just what were those fancy guidance systems locking onto and those clever bombs blowing to smithereens? In some cases, it seems, nothing more than a cardboard shell gussied up to look like an Iraqi Scud launcher...
...conflict could add up more swiftly than any other war in American history. By one estimate, the price tag would be as much as $28 billion for a one-month campaign and $86 billion for a six-month siege of Saddam Hussein's forces. Experts say the high-tech combat already costs $500 million a day and may reach $1 billion if heavy fighting breaks out on the ground. At the height of the Vietnam War, which employed less sophisticated weaponry, U.S. military expenditures came to about $230 million a day in 1991 dollars...
Previous generations of pilots had spoken of a "bomber's moon." But that was in an era of what would now be considered low-tech conflict. Today the ideal condition for an air raid is a pitch-black night. Infrared devices and laser- guided bombs enable pilots to see and hit their targets through inky darkness; moonlight would serve only to make their planes more visible to antiaircraft gunners. Jan. 15 was the first of three moonless nights in Iraq and Kuwait. No good; the U.S. considered the deadline for using force to be midnight American Eastern Standard Time...
...theory is that Saddam Hussein genuinely believed the U.S. was bluffing. Another is that the Iraqi leader had little idea of the speed, stealth and power of a modern aerial and missile attack. Said a Bush adviser: "We weren't entirely sure how well some of this high-tech stuff would work in combat, so it's no wonder that Saddam might be surprised." Or perhaps Iraq simply lacked the technical ability to fend off such an offensive...