Dogs of war parachuted into Taliban land

maybe they should have "frikin layzer beams on their heads"?

muuuhahahhaahha!

i'm having trouble believing they would put trained k-9's out like that.

takes alot of effort to train these dogs just to let them loose within armed people who hate dogs anyway.


besides, i'm sure they would stand out from other dogs, probably because they will be alot better fed and groomed.

even if they don't notice the cameras.


edit; i suppose reading the links should be SOP, i assumed they were just let loose, lol.
which i did find incredulous, tho.

Originally posted by Reaper2137
ok.. sats can only see thru a house in infra red.. ok? how does that help have you ever looked at any thing via infra red? it doesn't tell you much and they don't just shoot missiles? and I've been to afganistan their housing would be Condemned so a dog going inside wouldn't be a problem.. besides these dogs have handlers and they really would be the ones kicking in doors.. so you do know they don't send these dogs in by the self's either.. the army works in teams there would at least be a squad backing these guys up..en.wikipedia.org...

Yes.. this. This is what I was trying to say. Firstly these house wouldn't be hard to enter. Second It's not like they can direct these dogs from a plane they are sending them in with surveillance gear, watching it outside then invading the house as a squad most likely. Thanks for saying it much more clearly.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/11da3e0adce6.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by oozyism


What the article doesn't state is that explosives are also strapped to these dogs. I had a friend who was in the dog squad in Vietnam and they used to strap explosives to them and send them down the tunnels after the VC. He was a dog lover and I think it messed him up a bit.

If they did it then in the tunnels, they will be doing it now in the caves. Obviously, the MSM won't tell you this though.

no no no lol.. maybe they do that to the rabid going to die anyways dogs you find in afgan already but they spend way way to much money on these dogs anyways for them to be blowing them up.. lol... and they also left the dogs behind in vietnam fyi.. at least the soldiers can bring their dogs home with them now mostly lol..

reply to post by oozyism


That sounds very smart to me and wouldnt it get the soldiers adrennaline/testosterone pumping and anger way up when someone kills his dog? More of a reason to neutrilize the terrorist.

What's so hard to believe here?

The dogs are extremely well trained. They can access areas at speed and with minimal light (relying on their greatly enhanced senses of smell and hearing rather than sight). They can detect explosive materials and weapons with an efficiency that no machine can match. The cameras allow the IED task force guys to get a heads up on what their going to be faced with and helps them decide how best to defeat the threat without having to do a risky manual approach. As for biting people with weapons, this is a self defence measure if the dog comes across someone it wasn't expecting. The dogs are not used for offensive action against insurgents. They are too valuable a resource.

We've been using dogs for a variety of roles since we learned to train them. Strapping a camera to the animal is just a natural progression.

Oh, and we've never strapped explosives to dogs (the article relates to British SF). We also don't use them as target markers for UAV or fast air strikes. If a target position is PID'd by the dog we don't need a target beacon. We can mark the target ourselves without endangering the animal.

Originally posted by oozyism

Originally posted by Portugoal
reply to post by oozyism

 

Because they have real tanks, and those tanks can't go to the remote locations that the Taliban are...

Pretty simple. Bet you didn't really think that one through. They have people to do what these dogs do, but if they sent in the people (who surely would be killed), you'd be crying about them sending in the people.

They could get out of Afghanistan... but do you know how much the war (any war) helps the arms industry, and subsequently the US economy? Tough fact to grasp but a fact nonetheless.

But Tanks can also be ambushed, and destroyed and the people inside killed. So why not send elephants

Why not use eagles as helicopters,

Attach lasers in their and cameras in them and let them fly.

By the way, I'm not suppose to be crying about your children dying for a BS cause, you should be

And war doesn't help US economy, if it did, US wouldn't be in this mess right now, US would be thriving, last I checked US started two wars and ended up with an almost collapse of US economy

This kid is a little slow. Dogs have been used in warfar successfully for a long time. I'm not going to get into a history lesson but any type of method that saves a soldiers life and is effective to kill or capture the enemy I'm ok with. Thats why we use unmanned drones in the air. Also, an American Abrams tank cannot be penetrated by any known explosive because of its armor. There is a documented case in Iraq where one Abrams was hit by 50 RPG rounds and returned back to base. One soldier said the tank looked like it had just got scratched in a minor accident. I know we're not debating tank armor but I figured I'd add that.

War absolutely helps the US economy. Ever heard of Halliburton, ExxonMobile, LockHeed Martin, etc. I will say that its not helping our debt situation but I'm no economist. I just know these companies stock prices keep going up and they keep hiring new people, buying new buildings, and buying supplies from other companies to make their products for the military which obviously helps all of the companies that supply them, construction workers for their new buildings, and the engineers that are hired.

reply to post by clocker205


I agree with everything, but it helping the U.S. economy.
It helps all the bigwigs from the companies you listed get rich with our tax dollars. It doesn't really help anything else.