Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal Red Warrior's Journal: Terms of art: Catastrophic Success 22

Journal by Red Warrior
In the military, when you need to do something, you come up with "courses of action (COAs)". AKA, plan A, plan B, plan C, etc.

You choose one of these. As you move forward in firming up the plan, you create things called "branches" and "sequels".
A "branch" is what you exectue when you come to a "decision point" (a point at which...a decision must be made). For instance, the plan calls for neutralizing enemy artillery overlooking a town by H-Hour, so that infantry can go in and do clearing operations. At H-1 (one hour before the assault), there may be a decsion point - Has the artillery been neutralized? Yes- Continue origional plan. No - place a cordon force around the town, and have the bulk of forces bypass the town, leaving the clearing operations to follow-on forces. That is a branch.

A sequel is what you do if you have more success than you expected. If the townspeople welcome and cooperate with you, you set up a refugee center in the town, and establish a bridgehead further down, in order to facilitate movement of follow-on forces.

A "catastrophic success" is what happens when things go so well that you have overrun all your plans. There was no enemy artillery, the mayor gave you the keys to the city, and there was no-one at the bridge. In that case, you need to come to a stop, and figure out what to do next.

Not that this will stop the sound bites, I just though it might be of interest to know that the words mean something, and were used exactly correctly in the context they were uttered. I, OTOH, would have never uttered that sound bite in his position. It was the definition of "asking for it."

This discussion was created by Red Warrior (637634) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Terms of art: Catastrophic Success More

Terms of art: Catastrophic Success

Comments Filter:

  • "I want to remind you that Saddam Hussein had the capability of making weapons of mass destruction, and he could have passed that capability on."

    The capability of making nuclear weapons? No, and probably never with inspections.

    The capability of making biological weapons? No, and even if the cultures were hidden away somewhere, it would have taken at least five years to weaponize what they did have.

    The capability of making chemical weapons? Three fertilizer plants could concievably be re-worked for n

    • No, and even if the cultures were hidden away somewhere, it would have taken at least five years to weaponize what they did have.

      Er - "even if"? Considering the cultures were found, that's not exactly a big leap in the dark. (They didn't receive much attention because they weren't actually "weapons".)

      The idea of calling bio and chemical weapons "of mass destruction" is dishonest to begin with.

      I can think of a lot of Kurds who would disagree with you there. The ones who survived his chemical attack, th

      • the cultures were found

        They found a few grams of botox, but none of the anthrax we sold them in the 80s.

        Which do you think it was more likely: destroyed without paperwork or looted after the invasion?

        • They found a few grams of botox, but none of the anthrax we sold them in the 80s. Which do you think it was more likely: destroyed without paperwork or looted after the invasion?

          Botox or botulism? As to the disposition: unfortunately the former doesn't make sense (why destroy it as required - but then violate the ceasefire and UNSC resolution requirements by failing to document it? Why destroy it, yet conceal the botulism?) - which leaves the latter: the anthrax is now in the hands of, well, someone who w

          • why destroy it as required - but then violate the ceasefire and UNSC resolution requirements by failing to document it?

            That's really the question. Hussein has said himself, that he didn't want any trouble from the inspectors but he also didn't want Saudi Arabia and Iran to get proof that he was unarmed.

            We should have seen it coming. A failure to plan is a failure to plan, no matter how much military jargon it's dressed up in.

            • That's really the question. Hussein has said himself, that he didn't want any trouble from the inspectors but he also didn't want Saudi Arabia and Iran to get proof that he was unarmed.

              Hm. That doesn't hold much water, though - since Saudi and Iran seemed to lack WMDs already, there would be no "MAD" aspect, and he did still have the tanks and aircraft he'd used to fight Iran previously. Lacking WMDs certainly wouldn't make Iraq defenceless - not to mention that a fear of invasion by Saudi would seem rath

    • Whatever. Y'all can argue about that to your heart's content. I'm not interested in re-hashing those arguements. Though you are wrong. ;->

      However, if you don't think that Bio and chem weapons qualify as "weapons of mass destruction", I suggest you study up on them a little bit. Honor grad from the NBC (Nuke, Bio, Chem) Officer course a few years back. And to tell the truth, I'd rather a nuke hit a major US city than a serious Bio or Chem attack.

      • Agreed. Nukes makes death fast. Chem / bio make it slow (even the fastest still take a few hours to die from) and the worst take days.

        Cleanup from a nuke may make a site inhospitable to humans for longer than a chem / bio...

        jason
      • Look, if you've got huge quantities of nerve gas, and helicopters, and kurds holed up in refuge camps, then you can kill, what? 1000 at a time, max?

        Aum Shinrikyo had two dozen Ph.D.s, a crowded Tokyo subway at rush hour, and they only managed to knock off seven people. Mass destruction my ass.

        • It's been a while since the Tokyo subway incident so my memory may be faulty.

          Wasn't their method of delivery flawed? Puncture a few bottles then walk away -- letting the gas seep out slowly? That's not efficent. It's not just the gas that's dangerous, but a method to disperse it. Therefore, it is inappropriate to use Aum Shinrikyo as an argument against sarin being a WMD.

          Sarin not a WMD? Frankly, you don't know what your talking about.
        • I can only assume from the above, in all good faith, that you are not very familiar with the world of chemical and biological warfare. If you'd like, when I return to the states, I'll dig out and post the non-classified information I have on my computer at home.

          The fact that the asshats in Japan did it poorly (thank god), in no way changes the absolute awefulness of these classes of weapon.

          Anyway, we are now far afield from the point of my JE. Feel free to argue WMD with the other participants.

    • You mean the ones that didn't find the plans and the centrifuge parts buried under the rose bush?

      How about the research on congro crimean hemorrhagic fever?

      Maybe the samples in the scientist's fridge?

      The idea of calling bio and chemical weapons "of mass destruction" is dishonest to begin with.

      I hope that you're trolling.
    • You must be smoking some nice little "find a happy place" weed to be thinking that they had no capability, or that Bio / chem weapons are not mass destruction.

      jason

    • No, and probably never with inspections. ...but not under the inspections regime, and not in less than two years.

      Your opinion. Even your use of the term 'probably' suggests you are guessing. We've gone over this before, Kay disagreed with what you suggest. You are spouting opinions that is not supported by facts.

      The fact is that Iraq was deliberately uncooperative with inspections. Consistantly in violation of 1441 and in my opinion, after the events of 911 it was not unreasonable for the US to invad

      • You send 14 or even 100 inspectors, all without the cooperation of the local population, and then give me an area the size of California to hide a weapons program....hmmm...I'm thinking hiding it for decades wouldn't be a problem. There's plenty our own government is able to keep under wraps, and we're a much more open society.

        I'd also agree with the WMD comments. Having gone through training on Bio and Chem weapons, I would never wish this on my worst enemy. It is without a doubt the nastiest stuff we'

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot Top Deals

"If value corrupts then absolute value corrupts absolutely."

Close