Войти
РИА ФАН

The Economist: advanced military technologies did not save the US Armed Forces from defeat in Afghanistan

2004
0
0
Image source: www.arms-expo.ru

The Economist: advanced military technologies did not save the US Armed Forces from defeat in Afghanistan

London, February 6. The United States spends huge amounts of money on the development of modern military technologies, but they did not save the American Armed Forces from defeat in Afghanistan.

Analysts of the British edition of The Economist published a material in which they named the reason for the failure of the US military campaign in Afghanistan. The Americans have relied on advanced military technologies, forgetting that effective intelligence, the ability to disguise and act covertly still remain at a great price during the war.

It is noted that the Pentagon has managed to develop technologies for network-centric wars, as well as for conducting combat operations in Earth orbit. Today, the American command can carry out electronic control of troops in the radar and infrared ranges, but these developments have proved useless in practice.

In Britain, they said that all these technologies did not help the United States in Afghanistan. The US military was forced to flee when the situation escalated to the limit. Technological sophistication did not save Washington from a shameful defeat.

Earlier, the Russian permanent mission to the UN called the US attempts to pass off its policy in Afghanistan as "success" hypocrisy. They noted that the actions of the White House led only to the consolidation of a negative status for the country.

Dmitry Pyatov

The rights to this material belong to РИА ФАН
The material is placed by the copyright holder in the public domain
Original publication
  • The news mentions
Компании
Do you want to leave a comment? Register and/or Log in
ПОДПИСКА НА НОВОСТИ
Ежедневная рассылка новостей ВПК на электронный почтовый ящик
  • Discussion
    Update
  • 21.03 19:40
  • 0
Что было бы, если Российская Империя продолжала бы существовать? (литературный ответ)
  • 21.03 19:01
  • 0
Что было бы, если Российская Империя продолжала бы существовать?
  • 21.03 18:48
  • 15061
Without carrot and stick. Russia has deprived America of its usual levers of influence
  • 21.03 17:30
  • 13
Мультизадачная гиперзвуковая БРСД на "стэлс" платформах, как условие неядерного сдерживания
  • 21.03 15:59
  • 730
Подушка безопасности Ирана на фоне слов Израиля о недостаточности вывоза урана
  • 20.03 18:43
  • 2
Патрушев: наша военная наука не отстает, а во многом опережает зарубежные разработки в области морских дронов
  • 20.03 11:55
  • 2
Прогнозируемая стоимость создания системы ПРО США "Золотой купол" выросла до 185 млрд. долл.
  • 20.03 00:53
  • 0
К вопросу о стратегии России в сложившейся ситуации.
  • 19.03 20:18
  • 0
Комментарий к "Проект: ядерное не сдерживание"
  • 19.03 18:38
  • 1
Названо количество запущенных Киевом ракет SCALP и Storm Shadow с начала СВО
  • 19.03 16:04
  • 0
Проект: ядерное не сдерживание
  • 19.03 14:27
  • 0
Москва — Минск: углубление интеграции – закономерно, естественно и взаимовыгодно
  • 19.03 13:39
  • 2
Why didn't China rush to defend Iran
  • 19.03 11:57
  • 1
Persuasion Strike: Contrary to US statements, Iran continues to attack
  • 19.03 11:51
  • 2
ЦАМТО: союзники США заняли выжидательную позицию после призыва Трампа отправить корабли в Персидский залив