In the world of war, there are no confirmed or unconfirmed kills. The whole thing is a misconception, a hoax, and a myth and it’s my opinion. You can accept it or not, but here is an explanation.
The only way to confirm your kills is to ask your enemy how many guys they have lost at a certain place and at a certain time. This, of course, is impossible. Additionally, even the most serious military organizations tend to completely overestimate the damage they have caused in battle. Here are some examples:
- During the NATO air campaign in Kosovo, NATO originally claimed that they had destroyed 120 enemy tanks. After the war was over, however, they had to (rather quietly) admit that this number was far too high and that they didn’t destroy more than 14 tanks and 18 armored vehicles.
- The German Air Force in World War II, the Luftwaffe, constantly gave false kill claims. This was so bad that the German Army’s propaganda detachment complained about these bogus numbers. In reality, Luftwaffe confirmed kills were 50% lower than originally claimed.
- Germany’s highest decorated soldier in WWII, Stuka ace Hans Ullrich Rudel, was despised by his own comrades for claiming kills that couldn’t be confirmed. As he was a hardcore Nazi, the German government loved him and accepted his claims. The same is true for many “success stories” of the Waffen-SS. Most of it was exaggerated.
- During the Battle of Kursk, the Russian military claimed to have destroyed at least 200 tanks at a certain village. German military high command compared this number with their own statistics and stated that the real number was “one or two German tanks”. The Soviet military had a 250:1 ratio regarding pretended kills to real ones.
Chris Kyle, America’s most famous sniper, wrote some controversies in his book about many facts. He even wrote false claims about his military record regarding which medals he had received. His confirmed kills are most probably not exactly clear.
The same goes for modern conflicts. During the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, most of the fighters observed that their kills could never be clearly established. If you shoot someone, you can hardly go there and check the enemy’s soldier’s pulse. Therefore, a typical confirmed kills account of a soldier sounded more like “between one or two and fifty”.
This is especially true for modern wars waged by global powers and its soldiers. To claim that a certain sniper has an exact number of kills is nonsense.
Why Photos Of Osama bin Laden’s Corpse Are Still Not Available to Public
A years after the Osama Bin Laden, the notorious terrorist leader, was killed there is still many conspiracy theories about his death He was killed on May 2, 2011, by US Navy SEALs operators at his compound in Abbottabad, Abbottabad, Pakistan. The operation was codenamed as Neptune Spear. In an article published on TheNewsRep, author Jack Murphy writes about the fact that so far there are no publicly released photos of Osama bin Laden’s corpse. Down below you can find his opinion on this topic:
There are a lot of puzzled expressions on people’s faces when it comes to the subject of the late Osama bin Laden and why the White House has not authorized the release of any pictures of his body. Photographs and video were released of Saddam Hussein’s hanging, as well as post-mortem pictures of his criminal sons, Uday and Qusay after Delta Force took them out. Why not release a few pictures of Public Enemy #1 to prove that he is dead and show the world what happens when you take on the U.S. of A?
Matt Bissonnette, one of the SEAL Team 6 operators on the bin Laden raid, partially outs the reason in his book “No Easy Day.” The book reads, “In his death throes, he was still twitching and convulsing. Another assaulter and I trained our lasers on his chest and fired several rounds. The bullets tore into him, slamming his body into the floor until he was motionless.”
But this is perhaps the most measured and polite description that one could give of how operator after operator took turns dumping magazines’ worth of ammunition into bin Laden’s body, two confidential sources within the community have told us. When all was said and done, Osama bin Laden had more than a hundred bullets in him, by the most conservative estimate.
Was this a one-time incident or part of a developing trend of lawless behavior? Consider these two other incidents:
•In 2013, The Associated Press reported that SEALs attached to SEAL Team 6 were investigated by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service after $30,000 in cash strangely vanished from Capt. Richard Phillips’ lifeboat. Phillips had been taken a hostage from the Maersk Alabama ship. SEAL snipers shot and killed his pirate captors using night-vision goggles, laser target designators, and multiple rounds. They took control of the lifeboat — and presumably the money.
But the money was never recovered — and its disappearance remains a mystery to this day. Phillips described the incident in his book this way: “Two stacks of hundreds, one of the fifties, then twenties, fives and tens … I never saw the money again. Later, when they gave me a sack to lean against, I felt the stacks of money inside, but I never spotted the cash out in the open again. “The case was eventually closed because there was no substantial evidence linking the SEALs to any wrongdoing.
In Eric Blehm’s book “Fearless,” he openly writes about illicit drug use by an active-duty SEAL stationed on the East Coast who ultimately went on to serve with SEAL Team 6. How this same person managed to pass a top-secret background clearance despite having 11 prior felony convictions is perturbing and revealing at the same time.
You may not care if bin Laden got some extra holes punched in him — few of us do — but what should concern you is a trend within certain special-operations units to engage in this type of self-indulgent and ultimately criminal behavior. Gone unchecked, these actions worsen over time and in the end risk creating a unit subculture that is hidden from senior commanders, that is more “Sons of Anarchy” than “American Hero.”
So is putting a few extra rounds into the enemy illegal?
Under the Laws of Land Warfare, a soldier is fully authorized to put a few insurance rounds into his target after he goes down. Provided the enemy is not surrendering, it is morally, legally and ethically appropriate to shoot the body a few times to ensure that he is really dead and no longer a threat. However, what happened on the bin Laden raid is beyond the permissible. The level of excess shown was not about making sure that bin Laden was no longer a threat. The excess was pure self-indulgence.
And if there’s any truth to the rumors floating around the special-operations community related to illegal activities at home and abroad, it will be a sad day of reckoning for America in many regards. When the truth comes to light, honor will have been betrayed by actions that are not aligned with the very principles these warriors swore an oath to uphold, the same ones that distinguish good guys from the bad.
Of course, these attitudes and behaviors do not come out of anywhere. Endless back-to-back combat deployments, post-traumatic stress disorder, broken families and the ugliness of more than a decade of war all play into it. War is ugly, ugliest of all for the warriors required to do the actual wet work, and Americans would do well to keep this in mind before passing judgment.
Now you know the likely reason why the Obama administration has not released pictures of Osama bin Laden’s corpse. To do so would show the world a body filled with a ridiculous number of gunshot wounds. The picture itself would likely cause an international scandal, and investigations would be conducted that could uncover other operations and activities many would do anything to keep buried.
This Might Be the U.S. Military’s Worst Idea Ever
The Pentagon wants a mobile nuclear reactor. The goal is to provide reliable electrical power to remote forward operating bases and during quick-response humanitarian missions. But the project also raises questions of nuclear security and keeping atomic materials from falling into the wrong hands.
On January 18, the Pentagon published a Request for Information on the feasibility of developing a portable nuclear reactor in support of a program known as “Project Dilithium.” The reactor is in response to a 2016 Defense Science Board report that found that fuel and water accounted for as much as 90 percent of supplies sent to outposts in Iraq and Afghanistan, which in turn exposed U.S. truck convoys to ambush (air-dropped fuel cost as much as $400 per gallon).
With power use only likely to grow with the advent of power-hungry systems such as high-energy lasers to shoot down missiles and drones, the report recommended nuclear power as a solution, with “the need and benefit outweighing the difficulty in achieving nearly limitless energy on the battlefield.”
In its RFI, the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office extolled the virtues of a mobile reactor for both overseas and domestic use. “Small mobile nuclear reactors can make the DOD’s domestic infrastructure resilient to an electrical grid attack and fundamentally change the logistics of forward operating bases, both by making more energy available and by drastically simplifying the complex fuel logistical lines which currently support existing power generators operating mostly on diesel fuel. Additionally, a small mobile nuclear reactor would enable a more rapid response during Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) operations. Small mobile nuclear reactors have the potential to be an across-the-board strategic game changer for the DOD by saving lives, saving money, and giving soldiers in the field a prime power source with increased flexibility and functionality.”
The reactor should be able to supply 1 to 10 megawatts of power at least three years without refueling. It should weigh “less than 40 tons total weight, sized for transportability by truck, ship, and C-17 aircraft,” and be passively cooled by ambient air.
The reactor should be “semiautonomous,” capable of safely functioning without the need for human operators, and requiring minimal monitoring. The reactor should require less than a week for shutdown, cool down, disconnect and preparation for transport, and require less than three days to begin generating power again.
Given that a mobile reactor is likely to generate as much controversy as electricity, the military wants an “inherently safe design, ensuring that a meltdown is physically impossible in various complete failure scenarios such as loss of power/cooling.”
There should also be “no net increase in risk to public safety by either direct radiation from operation or contamination with breach of primary core. Minimized consequences to nearby personnel in case of adversary attack.”
Most Popular Last Week
SOF3 days ago
Why Russia’s Alpha Group Commando Team Is Truly Terrifying
Toplist22 hours ago
Top 5 Tanks on Planet Earth
War Machine5 days ago
Gunman Brenton Tarrant live streamed moment he opened fire on mosque
SOF2 days ago
U.S. Special Operations Forces Want Lighter Machine Gun Ammo
Sidearms23 hours ago
Meet the Smith & Wesson Model 39/59: The Navy SEALs Old Gun
War Machine4 days ago
Special Forces storm Taliban Red Unit commander’s hideout in Uruzgan
Toplist4 days ago
5 U.S. Special Forces Raids That Went Bad
Interesting4 days ago
The man who chased away the gunman