For Bet­ter De­ter­rence & Lesser Col­lat­eral Dam­age

The Ar­tillery needs large quan­ti­ties of PGMS for more ac­cu­rate tar­get­ing in fu­ture bat­tles. PGMS are in­creas­ingly gain­ing cur­rency to ac­cu­rately de­stroy crit­i­cal hard tar­gets quickly as well as to re­duce col­lat­eral dam­age. With a larger quan­tity of PGMS,


APRECISION-GUIDED MU­NI­TION (PGM) also termed as “smart mu­ni­tion”, is a guided mu­ni­tion in­tended to pre­cisely hit a spe­cific tar­get and to min­imise col­lat­eral dam­age. It is well known that the dam­age ef­fects of ex­plo­sive weapons fall off with dis­tance. Thus even mod­est im­prove­ments in ac­cu­racy en­able a tar­get to be ef­fec­tively at­tacked with fewer or smaller bombs. The cre­ation of pre­ci­sion-guided mu­ni­tions re­sulted in the re­nam­ing of older bombs as “grav­ity bombs”, “dumb bombs” or “iron bombs”.

Ad­van­tages of PGMs

Pre­ci­sion mu­ni­tions give a de­ci­sion-maker the con­fi­dence of con­tem­plat­ing the use of force in cir­cum­stances where col­lat­eral dam­age would be un­ac­cept­able or call into ques­tion the vi­a­bil­ity of con­tin­ued mil­i­tary ac­tion and hence may pre­clude the use of force as an op­tion. Thus pre­ci­sion tech­nolo­gies have been used to de­sign mu­ni­tions which could be em­ployed to over­come such in­hi­bi­tions.

In low in­ten­sity con­flict op­er­a­tions like counter-in­sur­gency and counter-ter­ror­ism and even in high in­ten­sity con­ven­tional con­flicts, at­ti­tudes to­wards own and en­emy causal­i­ties have changed. This has come about be­cause of neg­a­tive pub­lic­ity re­gard­ing the use of heavy weaponry which re­sults in a large num­ber of civil­ian causal­i­ties and which has se­ri­ous im­pli­ca­tions for pub­lic opin­ion and pol­icy. This is more so in demo­cratic coun­tries where the po­lit­i­cal leader- ship is of­ten at pains to ex­plain the ne­ces­sity of use of force. More­over, due to avail­abil­ity of ex­cel­lent com­mu­ni­ca­tions world­wide, it is not pos­si­ble to hide ex­cesses any­where and in a seam­less world, ad­verse global opin­ion can have an ad­verse im­pact both in­ter­nally and ex­ter­nally.

Changed Na­ture of War­fare

Ad­di­tion­ally, wars and war­fare have changed con­sid­er­ably. It is in this con­text that Richard P. Hal­lon in his ar­ti­cle “Pre­ci­sion-guided Mu­ni­tions and the New Era of War­fare” (ASPC Pa­per No. 53) states, “There has been a gen­er­alised lack of ap­pre­ci­a­tion of how war­fare has changed since the Sec­ond World War. On the eve of the Gulf War, for ex­am­ple, crit­ics of pro­posed mil­i­tary ac­tion posited sce­nar­ios where tens of thou­sands of Iraqis would be killed by largely in­dis­crim­i­nate air at­tacks that would ‘car­pet bomb’ pop­u­la­tion cen­tres, par­tic­u­larly Bagh­dad. To give view­ers some idea of what a ‘mod­ern’ air war might be like, com­men­ta­tors, iron­i­cally, ran footage of Ber­lin and other Ger­man cities af­ter Vic­tory in Europe (VE) Day. In fact, of course, coali­tion lead­ers had no in­ten­tion what­so­ever of us­ing such a level of force against an op­po­nent, recog­nis­ing that given the moral cli­mate of the present day; this use of power sim­ply would not be tol­er­ated by the world community, or even the pop­u­la­tion of a coali­tion na­tion that en­gaged in such ac­tion. But af­ter be­ing briefed on the air cam­paign plan for the Gulf War, coali­tion po­lit­i­cal and mil­i­tary lead­ers were very com­fort­able with the no­tion of us­ing pre­ci­sion weapons in at­tacks deep in the midst of ma­jor cities, once they had been as­sured that the ac­cu­ra­cies claimed for such

XM25 in­di­vid­ual air­burst weapon sys­tem

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.