- Mar 26, 2005
- 4,094
- 123
- 106
Please correct me if I am wrong, I may very well be a dummy, but I always thought that a ROCKET, is an unguided projectile fired from a launcher, which will fly only as far as the propellant in it lasts and will land on whatever happens to be there when it reaches it's range, exploding/triggering the warhead due to impact. A sort of "rocket" was used by as far back as by he ancient Chinese when gunpowder was invented.
Example: A Russian "Kotusha" or a "Grad" MLRS which fires "dumb" rockets, compensating for horrible accuracy with sheer volume of projectiles fired. (saturating the area)
A MISSILE, on the other hand, is a relatively novel invention, which only came into play after World War II. Missiles are generally "guided" weapons, which contain sophisticated electronics, which communicate with "home base" and can be directed to their target with at least some precision.
Example: American TOW shoulder launched missile, which is guided, flying by a specific trajectory and lands on top of the tank with the idea of better penetration.
I have seen things such as arrows, and stones fired from a slingshot referred to in literature as "missiles", and I think that usage is incredibly misleading, especially considering how times have changed. Perhaps such term usage was relevant for a very long time, but I just don't see how it is correct to use it today.
Now my issue, is CNN and FOX news using the term "missile" to describe the recent so called "attacks" on American bases located in Iraq. Such a term implies Iran has already used fairly sophisticated weapons systems against United States assets located in Iraq. This sort of terminology is extremely powerful and dangerous. Much more dangerous than the actual weapons used, because such liberal use of terms can easily incite hate from the american public, and push the President to make a decision he will later regret.
While I have no doubt that Iran DOES possess missiles in their arsenal, I highly doubt they would ever use them against United States unless literally pushed against the wall. Further, based on the recent reports at least MOST, if not all, of those fired projectiles MISSED their mark. This clearly demonstrates that these probably weren't missiles, since missiles would not miss!
Please, go ahead and argue my points. I am all ears.
Example: A Russian "Kotusha" or a "Grad" MLRS which fires "dumb" rockets, compensating for horrible accuracy with sheer volume of projectiles fired. (saturating the area)
A MISSILE, on the other hand, is a relatively novel invention, which only came into play after World War II. Missiles are generally "guided" weapons, which contain sophisticated electronics, which communicate with "home base" and can be directed to their target with at least some precision.
Example: American TOW shoulder launched missile, which is guided, flying by a specific trajectory and lands on top of the tank with the idea of better penetration.
I have seen things such as arrows, and stones fired from a slingshot referred to in literature as "missiles", and I think that usage is incredibly misleading, especially considering how times have changed. Perhaps such term usage was relevant for a very long time, but I just don't see how it is correct to use it today.
Now my issue, is CNN and FOX news using the term "missile" to describe the recent so called "attacks" on American bases located in Iraq. Such a term implies Iran has already used fairly sophisticated weapons systems against United States assets located in Iraq. This sort of terminology is extremely powerful and dangerous. Much more dangerous than the actual weapons used, because such liberal use of terms can easily incite hate from the american public, and push the President to make a decision he will later regret.
While I have no doubt that Iran DOES possess missiles in their arsenal, I highly doubt they would ever use them against United States unless literally pushed against the wall. Further, based on the recent reports at least MOST, if not all, of those fired projectiles MISSED their mark. This clearly demonstrates that these probably weren't missiles, since missiles would not miss!
Please, go ahead and argue my points. I am all ears.
Last edited: