Comments on: “Hizbullah was better” — by Israeli war correspondent http://www.israeliwatch.com/2006/08/23/hizbullah-was-better-by-israeli-war-correspondent/ Resisting 60 years of apartheid Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:19:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Israel/Lebanon Conflict / “Hizbullah was better” — by Israeli war correspondent http://www.israeliwatch.com/2006/08/23/hizbullah-was-better-by-israeli-war-correspondent/#comment-27 Israel/Lebanon Conflict / “Hizbullah was better” — by Israeli war correspondent Sat, 26 Aug 2006 20:29:19 +0000 http://www.israeliwatch.com/2006/08/23/hizbullah-was-better-by-israeli-war-correspondent/#comment-27 [...] Read the rest of this post [...] [...] Read the rest of this post [...]

]]> By: G. Anton http://www.israeliwatch.com/2006/08/23/hizbullah-was-better-by-israeli-war-correspondent/#comment-17 G. Anton Thu, 24 Aug 2006 23:33:32 +0000 http://www.israeliwatch.com/2006/08/23/hizbullah-was-better-by-israeli-war-correspondent/#comment-17 Sure it was bad, but it ccould have been much, much worse. Think of what that results have been if Hizbullah had some or all of the following: 1: A large number of really effective shoulder-launched ground-to-air missiles-- not those IR guided things, but sound guided or using some type of image tracking system that couldn't be easily counter-measured. 2. Again, a large number of well-trained snipers armed with a large calibre rifle like those the US had in Iraq. This weapon is capable of disabling a truck or light armoured vehicle at 1500 meters with one shot, so it could really raise hell with a truck convoy. It is cheap to manufacture as it is basically updated World War I technology. 3. Terrain skimming ram jet cruise missiles capable of reaching major cities and doing horrible damage, and ultimately capable of carrying a nuclear payload. Again, these very effective and deadly waapons are based on early 1960s technology such as tne US navy's Regulas I. 4. Some underwater capability for logistic support and delivering of the above. In my humble opinion, all of the above is just a question of time and money. Sure it was bad, but it ccould have been much, much worse. Think of what that results have been if Hizbullah had some or all of the following:

1: A large number of really effective shoulder-launched ground-to-air missiles– not those IR guided things, but sound guided or using some type of image tracking system that couldn’t be easily counter-measured.

2. Again, a large number of well-trained snipers armed with a large calibre rifle like those the US had in Iraq. This weapon is capable of disabling a truck or light armoured vehicle at 1500 meters with one shot, so it could really raise hell with a truck convoy. It is cheap to manufacture as it is basically updated World War I technology.

3. Terrain skimming ram jet cruise missiles capable of reaching major cities and doing horrible damage, and ultimately capable of carrying a nuclear payload. Again, these very effective and deadly waapons are based on early 1960s technology such as tne US navy’s Regulas I.

4. Some underwater capability for logistic support and delivering of the above.

In my humble opinion, all of the above is just a question of time and money.

]]>