Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

How Has Technology Now Enhanced U.S. Military's Capability of Launching War?

Aired November 13, 2002 - 09:18   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Remember the missiles of the Gulf war about 11 years ago? Back then it was the Patriot versus the SCUD. Since that time, though, the weaponry has changed and, in some cases, dramatically. What will be used, in the event of war with Baghdad and how has the technology now enhanced the U.S. military's capability of launching war?
Nicholas Lemon wrote a recent article in The New Yorker. It's called Order of Battle. And Nick Lemon is with us here this morning in New York. Good to see you.

One of the more critical items here is thing called the JDAM. And Essentially, what it is, it's a guidance system that's attached to any weapon, conventional or otherwise, that really affords accuracy. Why so critical in 2002?

NICHOLAS LEMANN, "THE NEW YORKER": First, let's just say JDAM stands for Joint Direct Attack Munition. It does two things. First of all, you can have a soldier on the ground, radioing in where to bomb by GPS coordinates or other means, directly to a pilot or a crew in a bomber and that gets programmed directly into the bomb itself and it falls to a specific building.

You were telling me before we went on, you saw this in action in Afghanistan, right?

HEMMER: Correct.

LEMANN: It goes to a direct spot. So it's -- first, it's the accuracy of the targeting and, second, it's taking out a couple of layers of bureaucracy because you go from relatively low level soldier in the field to a middle-level person up in the air, without having to take back to headquarters and produce orders over a two- or three-day cycle.

HEMMER: What's stunning about this in Kandahar is you can drive down the street and see building after building after building and then one building in complete rubble...

LEMANN: Right.

HEMMER: ... and then you pick up again with a clean line of buildings. The accuracy, when used effectively, has been shown to be incredible. Bunker Busters used in Afghanistan, how do they work, what's the new technology that advances them at this point? LEMANN: Well, the fused technology is the new thing we might see in an Iraq war. It's called a Hard Target Smart Fuse. Basically, the fuse is attached to the bomb and you can tell the fuse, we think lose there's a four-story underground bunker. We want you to go to the fourth underground story and then explode. Don't explode before then.

So The fuse will sense there's a floor, there's a space, there's a floor, there's space and it'll go down to a certain number of feet or a certain number of underground floors and then explode. So it can be targeted, even within an underground bunker, very accurately.

HEMMER: How effective were they in Afghanistan? There's been some dispute as...

LEMANN: They weren't -- the one that I have heard that there's the most hope for is called the BOU-28 (ph). And I think one or two were used in Afghanistan, just experimentally, missed their targets, because something went wrong with the guidance system. This is different from the daisy cutter, which just falls on a bunker...

HEMMER: A good distinction....

LEMANN: ... and just blows up with a lot of megatonnage. This is much more precisely targeted, but supposedly in an Iraq war, it would be in much more general use than it was in Afghanistan.

HEMMER: Thermobaric bombs dropped in Afghanistan, which is the daisy cutter, essentially and the microwave bomb, which you say has not been used just yet. The distinction between the two is what?

LEMANN: OK. A thermobaric bomb, as I understand it, goes in and emits a very intense blast of heat and shockwave. And what that -- it's especially useful in Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction. If you have a site where a lot of germs, like anthrax germs or smallpox are being stored, you can't send troops in because they might be infected. If you bomb it with the precisely targeted thermobaric bomb, at least the hope is, depending on how the germs are stored, the blast would kill the germs and then you can secure the site. A microwave bomb sets off a very intense pulse of electromagnetic energy. And what it's supposed to do is fritz out electric systems.

HEMMER: Lock up the power grid. They used that in Belgrade, actually...

LEMANN: Right.

HEMMER: ... and a few other cities over Yugoslavia back in 1998. Listen, we're out of time. But quickly, I want to know, has the ability of the Iraqis been enhanced, with regard to their SCUD ability? Has that changed at all over the past 11 years?

LEMANN: There's a lot of debate about that, but the consensus seems to be relatively little or none. That's what I hear.

HEMMER: Fair enough. Nick Lemon, thanks, from "The New Yorker."

LEMANN: Thank you.

HEMMER: All right.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com





of Launching War?>


Aired November 13, 2002 - 09:18   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Remember the missiles of the Gulf war about 11 years ago? Back then it was the Patriot versus the SCUD. Since that time, though, the weaponry has changed and, in some cases, dramatically. What will be used, in the event of war with Baghdad and how has the technology now enhanced the U.S. military's capability of launching war?
Nicholas Lemon wrote a recent article in The New Yorker. It's called Order of Battle. And Nick Lemon is with us here this morning in New York. Good to see you.

One of the more critical items here is thing called the JDAM. And Essentially, what it is, it's a guidance system that's attached to any weapon, conventional or otherwise, that really affords accuracy. Why so critical in 2002?

NICHOLAS LEMANN, "THE NEW YORKER": First, let's just say JDAM stands for Joint Direct Attack Munition. It does two things. First of all, you can have a soldier on the ground, radioing in where to bomb by GPS coordinates or other means, directly to a pilot or a crew in a bomber and that gets programmed directly into the bomb itself and it falls to a specific building.

You were telling me before we went on, you saw this in action in Afghanistan, right?

HEMMER: Correct.

LEMANN: It goes to a direct spot. So it's -- first, it's the accuracy of the targeting and, second, it's taking out a couple of layers of bureaucracy because you go from relatively low level soldier in the field to a middle-level person up in the air, without having to take back to headquarters and produce orders over a two- or three-day cycle.

HEMMER: What's stunning about this in Kandahar is you can drive down the street and see building after building after building and then one building in complete rubble...

LEMANN: Right.

HEMMER: ... and then you pick up again with a clean line of buildings. The accuracy, when used effectively, has been shown to be incredible. Bunker Busters used in Afghanistan, how do they work, what's the new technology that advances them at this point? LEMANN: Well, the fused technology is the new thing we might see in an Iraq war. It's called a Hard Target Smart Fuse. Basically, the fuse is attached to the bomb and you can tell the fuse, we think lose there's a four-story underground bunker. We want you to go to the fourth underground story and then explode. Don't explode before then.

So The fuse will sense there's a floor, there's a space, there's a floor, there's space and it'll go down to a certain number of feet or a certain number of underground floors and then explode. So it can be targeted, even within an underground bunker, very accurately.

HEMMER: How effective were they in Afghanistan? There's been some dispute as...

LEMANN: They weren't -- the one that I have heard that there's the most hope for is called the BOU-28 (ph). And I think one or two were used in Afghanistan, just experimentally, missed their targets, because something went wrong with the guidance system. This is different from the daisy cutter, which just falls on a bunker...

HEMMER: A good distinction....

LEMANN: ... and just blows up with a lot of megatonnage. This is much more precisely targeted, but supposedly in an Iraq war, it would be in much more general use than it was in Afghanistan.

HEMMER: Thermobaric bombs dropped in Afghanistan, which is the daisy cutter, essentially and the microwave bomb, which you say has not been used just yet. The distinction between the two is what?

LEMANN: OK. A thermobaric bomb, as I understand it, goes in and emits a very intense blast of heat and shockwave. And what that -- it's especially useful in Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction. If you have a site where a lot of germs, like anthrax germs or smallpox are being stored, you can't send troops in because they might be infected. If you bomb it with the precisely targeted thermobaric bomb, at least the hope is, depending on how the germs are stored, the blast would kill the germs and then you can secure the site. A microwave bomb sets off a very intense pulse of electromagnetic energy. And what it's supposed to do is fritz out electric systems.

HEMMER: Lock up the power grid. They used that in Belgrade, actually...

LEMANN: Right.

HEMMER: ... and a few other cities over Yugoslavia back in 1998. Listen, we're out of time. But quickly, I want to know, has the ability of the Iraqis been enhanced, with regard to their SCUD ability? Has that changed at all over the past 11 years?

LEMANN: There's a lot of debate about that, but the consensus seems to be relatively little or none. That's what I hear.

HEMMER: Fair enough. Nick Lemon, thanks, from "The New Yorker."

LEMANN: Thank you.

HEMMER: All right.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com





of Launching War?>