taltom wrote:Accuracy (or more specifically "precision") is not the same as targeting.
Agreed, but would you also agree the U.S has the best hardware for this? And it's highly unlikely they just "slipped up".
taltom wrote:Hospitals in Afghanistan are not usually of outstandingly different architecture than any surrounding buildings. From the air, an array of Afghani buildings looks much like a spilled box of children's blocks of various sizes.
Are the missiles not GPS-guided?
taltom wrote:In the US, there are very obvious signs of a building's function, such as ambulances coming and going, huge lighted signs, and even decorative elements like huge crosses for those owned by religious orders. And they are prominently placed on extremely detailed maps. In Afghanistan, not so much. And buildings are often crammed closely together.
So you've got to be more careful then. Otherwise you don't actually believe in preserving civilian lives. You believe in a cost equation instead.
taltom wrote:So if a team is receiving fire from in or near a hospital, they may not know it's a hospital, or they may actually be taking fire from it. They must now identify the target, and that's often very difficult to do. Their air support can indeed drop a smart bomb with pinpoint precision, but the explosion is not so cooperative. The blast radius isn't predictable and the locally-acquired shrapnel could be almost anything, and go almost anywhere. "Surgical" strikes are nearly impossible in densely populated ares that have not been evacuated.
Don't blame the invaded for your invasion techniques.
taltom wrote:This is nowhere near a new problem for the military.
Right, we've seen the carpet bombing, the nuking of entire cities etc.