Missile

[Banglar Lathial]

I think somebody claimed that USA can easily defeat Iranian military (in conventional warfare, presumably). Less than a month into the criminal invasion of Iraq by Americans, Brits and other Western terrorists, this was the assessment of certain 'well informed' people. Apparently, they used the nom de guerre of "Ramzaj".

The Iraq War
Report for 2003-04-03
During yesterday and early this morning the coalition continued its advance toward Baghdad that it had begun three days ago. Units of the 3rd mechanized Infantry Division, failing to quickly capture the town of Al-Khindiya, blockaded it with a part of their forces and moved around the town from the east to reach Al-Iskanderiya by the morning. It is not clear right now whether the US troops were able to take the town of Al-Musaib or if they went around it as well. The overall [coalition] progress in this direction was about 25 kilometers during the past 24 hours.
This thrust came as a surprise to the Iraqi command. The Iraqi defense headquarters around Karabela remained deep behind the forward lines of the advancing US brigades. Due to the intensive aerial and artillery strikes the Iraqi headquarters [in Karabela] lost most of its communication facilities and has partially lost control of the troops. As a result the Iraqi defense units in the line of the coalition attack became disorganized and were unable to offer effective resistance. During the night fighting the Iraqi forces in this area were pushed from their defensive positions and withdrew toward Baghdad. The Iraqi losses were up to 100 killed and up to 300 captured. The US troops destroyed or captured up to 70 Iraqi tanks and APCs.

Currently the Iraqi command is rushing to create a new line of defense 20-30 kilometers south of Baghdad. The US losses in this attack were 3 armored vehicles, up to 8 killed and wounded.

Late on the night of April 2 [kilometers] east of Karabela a unit from the 3rd Mechanized Infantry Division went off-course and ran into an artillery ambush after moving too close to the Iraqi positions. In the resulting firefight the US forces lost no less than 8 armored vehicles and, according to the Iraqi reports, at least 25 US troops were killed or wounded.

In the town of Al-Kut US Marine units were able to capture a bridge across the Tigris; but they were unable to capture the entire town and currently fighting is continuing in the residential districts. No fewer than 3 US soldiers were killed and up to 12 were wounded in this area during the past 24 hours. The US troops are reporting 50 killed and 120 captured Iraqi soldiers.

The coalition was able to make serious progress to the south of Al-Kut. After quickly taking the town of An-nu-Manyah the US forces have set up a bridge across the Tigris and immediately proceeded to transfer the Marine units to the left bank. There is a highway going from An-nu-Manyah to Baghdad along the left bank of the Tigris. No more large populated areas are located along the highway and the attacking forces may be able to come within 15-20 kilometers of Baghdad as early as tonight.

The blockade of An-Najaf is continuing. Numerous attempts by the [coalition] troops to reach the center of the town have failed after being met by Iraqi fire. At least five [coalition] soldiers have been wounded and one is missing.

The situation around An-Divania remains unclear. Heavy fighting in this area is continuing since yesterday. The US field commanders have requested artillery and aviation support on several occasions and have reported "strong counterattacks by the enemy." It has been determined that by the evening of April 2 the command of the US 101st Airborne Division ordered its troops to withdraw from the town in order to create some space between its forces and the Iraqis to allow for artillery and aerial strikes. The overall US losses in this area during the past two days are up to 15 killed and around 35 wounded. At the same time the US commanders are reporting "hundreds of killed Iraqis; about 50 Iraqis - some of them wearing civilian clothes - have been captured by the coalition. There has been a report of another [coalition] helicopter loss in this area.

Resistance is also continuing in An-Nasiriya. The town's garrison has been fighting for the past ten days and continues to hold its positions on the left bank of the Euphrates. During the past day there has been a reduction in the intensity of the Iraqi resistance. However, the US commanders at the coalition headquarters believe that this is due to the Iraqis trying to preserve their ammunition, which is by no means unlimited. According to one of the US officers at the coalition headquarters elements of the [Iraqi] 11th Infantry Division remain in control on the left bank of the Euphrates. "...Resilience of this unquestionably brave enemy is worth respect. Four time we offered them to lay down their arms and surrender, but they continue resisting like fanatics..." [Reverse-translated from Russian] During the past night 1 US soldier was killed and 2 more were wounded in firefights in this area.

Another attempt by the British to penetrate Iraqi defenses near Basra has failed. Up to 2 battalions of the British 16th marine infantry brigade reinforced with tanks attempted to break through the Iraqi defenses last night northwest of the Maakil airport along the Al-Arab River. Simultaneously from the southwest at As-Zubair another 2 marine infantry battalions made an attempt to enter the area of Mahallat-es-Zubair, but were met with heavy fire and withdrew after a four-hour-long battle. The Iraqis have reported 2 destroyed British tanks, 5 APCs and no fewer than 30 British troops killed. However, the British commanders are reporting 4 lost armored vehicles and 5 killed. Additionally, Iraqi air defenses have shot down an F-18 fighter-bomber [...] of the town. The radio surveillance units reported the loss of another plane to the north of Baghdad. It is not known whether this plane was shot down or crashed after losing control due to a technical malfunction.

As we can see, the coalition command is continuing with its "march on Baghdad" tactics. In the course of their advance the coalition troops are moving around the primary centers of the Iraqi defense and are blockading them leaving the rest of the work to aviation and artillery. The very near future will show how effective this tactics really is. So far, according to intelligence reports, more than 50,000 Iraqi troops continue fighting behind the coalition forward lines at Karabela alone. No fewer than 5,000 Iraqis are defending An-Najaf and An-Divania. Experts estimate that the total number of Iraqis fighting behind coalition front approaches 90,000-100,000 regular army troops and militia.

Under such circumstances the coalition has two options: it can either try to quickly capture Baghdad, thus leaving the Iraqi garrisons in the occupied territories with no reason to continue with their resistance; or the coalition troops can dig in around Baghdad and prepare for the final assault while "cleaning up" the captured territory. The latter seems more likely as the coalition can use the fresh troops arriving now to Kuwait for these "clean up" operations. This will also allow these troops to gain valuable combat experience fighting the weakened enemy before the assault on Baghdad.

Analysts believe that this war will cause a review of the role of precision-guided munitions (PGM) on the modern battlefield. Already the results of using PGM in Iraq cast doubt on the effectiveness of PGM in woodland areas and in cross-country terrain. Under such conditions the main objective becomes not to hit the target with the first shot but to locate, identify and to track the target.

Reviewing ground operations [in Iraq] analysts conclude that the desert terrain and the resulting inability of the Iraqis to fight outside of towns and villages provide the coalition with its main strategic advantage. Complete air dominance allows [the coalition troops] to locate and engage Iraqi positions and armor at maximum distance using precision-guided munitions not available to the Iraqis, while remaining outside of the range of the Iraqi weapons. Considering the course of this war and the tactics used by the coalition, [Russian military] analysts find this tactics to be far removed from the realities of modern warfare and designed exclusively against a technologically much weaker opponent. Such tactics are unimaginable on the European theater of combat with its woodlands and cross-country terrain. Foreseeing the possibility of a future military standoff between the US and North Korea the analysts are certain that the US cannot hope for a military victory on the Korean Peninsula without the use of nuclear weapons.

Jewish media propaganda or films can not/should not be considered a reliable source of reference on Western military strength/weakness. Reality is that USA or any Western military can be easily defeated by a determined, well organized, well equipped, in general, a 'decent' military in conventional warfare. Propaganda warfare is a different story. Also, if any country were to invade USA, then the tables could be turned on them.

 

[Lighting_Fighter]

What muslims suppose to do, non-muslims do it! Muslims are bound to suffer because of lack of faith in Allah and courage and sacrifice. If you know what I mean.

and by the way after 9/11 if Pak took the side of taliban and instead of fighting them, US and its allies would never able to last more than month. But then again, muslims are corrupt.

 

[integra]

The only thing one needs is " Common Sense ",
the rarest thing of all.

 

[Lighting_Fighter]

and if someone said to me that I lack common sense then I would say missile is a strategic weapon. NOt F-16. If you have missile it will protect better than any other weapon.

and that is why US don't want any muslim countries to acquire or get the technology.

 

[LeGenD]

I think somebody claimed that USA can easily defeat Iranian military (in conventional warfare, presumably). Less than a month into the criminal invasion of Iraq by Americans, Brits and other Western terrorists, this was the assessment of certain 'well informed' people. Apparently, they used the nom de guerre of "Ramzaj".

The so-called 'well informed' people are Russians behind the article you cited. Not a neutral source for US related stuff.

And the article which you cited is written prior to fall of Baghdad.

Historical fact: US forces captured Iraq in just 21 days and defeated Saddam. Period.

Yes! Americans are humans too and wars are complicated matters. Mistakes and equipment losses can be expected during battles.

Jewish media propaganda or films can not/should not be considered a reliable source of reference on Western military strength/weakness. Reality is that USA or any Western military can be easily defeated by a determined, well organized, well equipped, in general, a 'decent' military in conventional warfare. Propaganda warfare is a different story. Also, if any country were to invade USA, then the tables could be turned on them.

Please do give some examples. Unless US air dominance can be challenged, not much can be done about its ground forces during combat.

What muslims suppose to do, non-muslims do it! Muslims are bound to suffer because of lack of faith in Allah and courage and sacrifice. If you know what I mean.

Yes. And this applies to whole Islamic world.

and by the way after 9/11 if Pak took the side of taliban and instead of fighting them, US and its allies would never able to last more than month. But then again, muslims are corrupt.

I sense hypocricy here. Pakistan was threatened with war and was ALONE. No other Islamic country would have come to its aid. Pakistan comes first for sane Pakistani people.

We (Pakistani) are not interested in getting our economy and infrastructure destroyed for the sake of the others. Thank you.

 

[wild_fire1979]

Yaar what "chaman chutiya" things are being said in this thread. When US enters into an all out war, the kind of technical wizardry they bring to the theater of war is mind boggling.

In today's war, if you do not have air dominance, your ground forces will be routed in open space. The only option left is asymmetric warfare in urban locations with civilians as shields. No power today can challenge the US firepower in open arena.

A simple interdiction of Growler in battle space is enough for the current BD airforce to not gain a single lock-on. Even of you manage to gain missiles (Ballistic or otherwise), you do not have enough strategic depth to hide them. A single awac can monitor the entire BD airspace. In case the missiles are siloed, they will be the first targets of bunker busters. In case they are road or train mobile, the moment it will be stationed and prepped for launch, you would have fighters vectoring in to take it out.

The only credible deterrence in sea based. And I doubt that BD will get boomers anytime soon. So for now, all this talks are simply pipe dreams. BDs influence will remain limited in the foreseeable future and so will it be its firepower.

 

[Tamizhan]

india had USSR and we had GOD... .

Huh please stop making ridiculous,ego boosting assertions.

Indians had nothing but a single canadian reactor. No USSR,no one else.

Remember how and why NSG as a group were formed ? To keep India out of the nuclear trade - anything and everything - after our 71 nuke test.

OTOH Pakistani nuclear program was actively aided by the Chinese and the Americans under Reagan turned a blind eye towards it because of Pakistan's role in the Soviet jihad.

So basically, India did not have USSR and Pakistan had China along with US.

 

[Banglar Lathial]

The so-called 'well informed' people are Russians behind the article you cited. Not a neutral source for US related stuff.

Dear, Russians are the most 'neutral' party in that war, more than any other because Russia did not intervene on behalf of Iraq, did not supply Iraq with any state of the art modern aircrafts, anti aircraft guns, SAMs or anything to deal greater damage to Western misadventures. Moreover, those were not official Russian communiques, rather, semi-official communiques disguised as unofficial reports.

Who do you consider "neutral" sources? USA? UK? You should wonder when and how to roll eyes once you know what a neutral source of information means in this context. Did Bangladesh or Pakistan even send any non military reporters to report from the front lines?

And the article which you cited is written prior to fall of Baghdad.

Historical fact: US forces captured Iraq in just 21 days and defeated Saddam. Period.

What fact? Neutron bombs or more than 600 Americans killed in Battle of Baghdad Airport? Criminalities in Fallujah or other Western crimes too numerous to mention?

Even if we ignore that Saddam Hussein was not supported strongly by any Arab or Muslim country, even if we ignore that a large part of the population was not very fond of him, even if we ignore that Iraq had been sanctioned by those criminal Westerners for over a decade depriving Iraq of such essentials as basic medicine, even if we ignore that those criminal Westerners had imposed a no fly zone over Iraq for over a decade, and that Iraq did not get the chance to modernize its military, should we also ignore that all your reports are Western? Are Western reports neutral?

Which other country/nationality that was not a party to the war actually reported from the frontlines? Al Jazeera reported from the frontlines showing scores of Western terrorists killed and injured, then Al Jazeera's Baghdad office was bombed by Americans. Do you remember how many reporters were killed by Americans in the shelling of Palestine Hotel in Baghdad? Sorry dear, what is "your neutral" source for "correct information"? Pentagon?

Yes! Americans are humans too and wars are complicated matters. Mistakes and equipment losses can be expected during battles.

The extent of their losses and mistakes were covered up, which is why there has been imposed a media 'blackout' on actual operations, crimes and losses of Western media invaders and nice 'tidbits' are released every now and again to try to generate the impression to gullible public that Americans or Westerners are superior in military affairs by an overwhelming margin, a margin so great that its opponents would be left in the dust if it were to take on the West in conventional warfare. The reality stands in stark contrast to the impression generated by Pentagon reports.

Please do give some examples. Unless US air dominance can be challenged, not much can be done about its ground forces during combat.

Examples of what? US "air superiority" only works against weak countries with obstinate/stupid/ignorant leaders and against fragmented countries with no/little industrial, scientific backbone to render crucial support to their military industry. If Saddam Hussein did not wait for the USA to pool all their forces in Kuwait and Qatar for months both in 1991 and in 2003, how could they attack Iraq? From their aircraft carriers with F-18s? The very same F-18s that were shot down by Iraqi MiG-25s in 1991 and were locked onto by Egyptian MiG-21s in one of the exercises, probably one of the Bright Star exercises?

Most of their combat aircrafts do not even have the necessary range to reach from the USA to most Muslim countries, or to North Korea or China or Russia, or most other countries of the world. It is because of their air bases near all these 'theaters of operation' that they even think of flying sorties against whoever they want to invade. Flatten their airbases, send in special forces to blow the few squadron of planes they have during peace time, send in trained operatives through the Mexican and Canadian borders to open a two front 'infiltration' of enemy ranks to carry out subversive activities (like they do against their 'enemies'), and there are numerous other options that I have not yet mentioned. Most of their combat aircrafts are F-16s and most of the remainder are F-15s, inducted abt 3 decades ago. Nothing 'special' about them to think that "air superiority" is a foregone conclusion. Deny their aircraft any chance to fly, or build a strong, dense air defense network, that could be the starting point for denting their propaganda "air superiority" concept they blabber about in their media. On the ground, when they do not outnumber and outgun their opponent by 10 to 1, at least, they start crying and/or making up stories, for example. The rest of their actions are not worth describing lest it should generate misimpressions of me.

For every video on any Western video sharing site that proves embarrassing for them, there are at least another 12 that are not approved for viewing on the same Western video sharing sites (because those are Western video sharing sites). And for every video created that embarrassed them, there could be another 25 or more that were never captured on video because media propaganda was seen as less of a priority for the brave Mujahideen fighting against the invading infidel enemy terrorists.

If you are interested in seeing a few hundred other videos, some of which are in fact multiple hours long, mostly consisting of combat operations showing kafir invader losses in detail, you may leave your email address via a PM or leave a message on my 'profile page'. I do not leave URLs of such videos in the public domain because the enemies are very active in seeking out and deactivating all pictures and videos that disprove their propaganda.

 

[anonymus]

Why bangladesh military isn't investing on making missiles? Everyone now things twice before attacking iran and the reason is its missiles. Same thing can happen to bangladesh. I know that bangladeshi military mainly defensive but in a war if you can not take the war into adversary's country basically you aren't winning. Bangladesh should think to make missiles, for the beginning, short range and later with research, distance could be increased. I see nobody here discuss about missiles and I see that military of bangladesh aren't intending to take the steps to make missiles. Why is that?

Because without WMD's ,a missile is worthless piece of long range artillery which costs more to be built than GDP of some African countries.

You people should allocate half of your GDP for missile development program which would result in some glorified long range artillery capable of shutting down Dum Dum airport for some...5 minutes.

Thank your stars that Bangladesh is not ruled by people who are stupid as OP are.

 

[LeGenD]

Dear, Russians are the most 'neutral' party in that war, more than any other because Russia did not intervene on behalf of Iraq, did not supply Iraq with any state of the art modern aircrafts, anti aircraft guns, SAMs or anything to deal greater damage to Western misadventures. Moreover, those were not official Russian communiques, rather, semi-official communiques disguised as unofficial reports.

I beg to differ. Even 'Chinese' are more 'neutral' then 'Russians' regarding assessment of conflicts involving the WEST. Russia always had been friendly to Iraq and has a history of supplying arms to it. This is not a bad thing but Russians tend to be not so neutral on the matters of WEST.

This is a hint:

A host of prominent military and civilian specialists critiqued the US led coalition war against Iraq. Their comments reflected a mixture of Cold War thinking on the one hand and a new place to update the Russian armed forces on the other.

And here is the source: Taylor & Francis Online ::

Get the picture now?

Who do you consider "neutral" sources? USA? UK? You should wonder when and how to roll eyes once you know what a neutral source of information means in this context. Did Bangladesh or Pakistan even send any non military reporters to report from the front lines?

Their is no such thing as neutral source IMO. Even so-called neutral observers are not free from bias. However, declassified documents and research papers published in journals are the best sources to consider regardless of nationalities IMO.

What fact? Neutron bombs or more than 600 Americans killed in Battle of Baghdad Airport? Criminalities in Fallujah or other Western crimes too numerous to mention?

Bro, wars are messy affairs. Extremely bad things happen in wars.

Now here is an analogy for you; one of the most controversial weapons of war is White Phosphorus (WP). This chemical has extremely damaging effects on the health of victims, including severe burns and irritation of the respiratory system.

- Russia used WP in battle of Grozny. Opponents were Islamic resistance groups.
- USA used WP in battle of Fallujah. Opponents were Islamic resistance groups.
- Israel used WP in battle of battle of Gaza. Opponents were Islamic resistance groups.

After the details of battle of Fallujah emerged, Russian parliament condemned US for using WP in battle of Fallujah. Doesn't this sounds ironic?

When it comes to battlefield, all of these nations are ruthless. However, I find it surprising that Russia has the nerve to condemn others for using controversial weapons during battles when its own forces have done the same. And you regard Russia as a neutral source?

Now keep in mind that usage of WP is not just limited to these countries. Their are more guilty parties including Taliban (<- Yes! You heard this correct).

And from where did you get the '600 American KIA' figure in Battle of Baghdad airport? Please do not quote any Russian nonsense in this regard. Provide solid evidence.

Even if we ignore that Saddam Hussein was not supported strongly by any Arab or Muslim country, even if we ignore that a large part of the population was not very fond of him, even if we ignore that Iraq had been sanctioned by those criminal Westerners for over a decade depriving Iraq of such essentials as basic medicine, even if we ignore that those criminal Westerners had imposed a no fly zone over Iraq for over a decade, and that Iraq did not get the chance to modernize its military, should we also ignore that all your reports are Western? Are Western reports neutral?

I have given my point of view above.

Which other country/nationality that was not a party to the war actually reported from the frontlines? Al Jazeera reported from the frontlines showing scores of Western terrorists killed and injured, then Al Jazeera's Baghdad office was bombed by Americans. Do you remember how many reporters were killed by Americans in the shelling of Palestine Hotel in Baghdad? Sorry dear, what is "your neutral" source for "correct information"? Pentagon?

Their are things that war planners do not wish to publicize during the course of the battles. Reasons include concerns of leakage of sensitive information regarding military operations and maintaining morale of troops engaged in combat. In addition, their are concerns regarding coverage of what is often dubbed as 'collateral damage' during combat situations. Unrestricted coverage of 'collateral damage' like events can spark severe reaction from the public and unwanted pressure against war effort can develop. Then their is possibility of using media sources as 'political tools' by foreign parties not directly involved in conflicts. During wars, you cannot expect media sources to roam freely in zones of conflict and not expect any repercussions. The aforementioned factors must be kept in mind.

If you are given charge of conducting a war effort and authorities expect you to succeed; what will you do about media sources, if they will create difficulties for you?

It is very easy to pass judgements about morality of others. However, if the roles are reversed, only then one can understand the 'ground realities' of events taking place around you.

The extent of their losses and mistakes were covered up, which is why there has been imposed a media 'blackout' on actual operations, crimes and losses of Western media invaders and nice 'tidbits' are released every now and again to try to generate the impression to gullible public that Americans or Westerners are superior in military affairs by an overwhelming margin, a margin so great that its opponents would be left in the dust if it were to take on the West in conventional warfare. The reality stands in stark contrast to the impression generated by Pentagon reports.

Propaganda is part of war. Both Iraq and and its enemies were engaged in propaganda warfare. My observation is that the loosing side typically conducts more propaganda then the winning side. However, truth never remains hidden forever and eventually comes out.

Examples of what? US "air superiority" only works against weak countries with obstinate/stupid/ignorant leaders and against fragmented countries with no/little industrial, scientific backbone to render crucial support to their military industry. If Saddam Hussein did not wait for the USA to pool all their forces in Kuwait and Qatar for months both in 1991 and in 2003, how could they attack Iraq? From their aircraft carriers with F-18s? The very same F-18s that were shot down by Iraqi MiG-25s in 1991 and were locked onto by Egyptian MiG-21s in one of the exercises, probably one of the Bright Star exercises?

Tell me one thing; was Iraq a weak country in 1991?

And exercises are not the best methods to judge the capability of an airforce. Exercises are mainly meant to test some concepts of combat and educational purposes.

Most of their combat aircrafts do not even have the necessary range to reach from the USA to most Muslim countries, or to North Korea or China or Russia, or most other countries of the world.

Very illogical statement. Of course, Jet Fighters have limited flight ranges. These limitations are based on the capacity to carry fuel.

However, some aircraft are specially designed with long range flight capabilities. Primary examples are bombers.

In addition, their are other solutions too. Continue to read below.

It is because of their air bases near all these 'theaters of operation' that they even think of flying sorties against whoever they want to invade.

Ever seen these?

Rolleyes emoticons make sense, right?

Flatten their airbases, send in special forces to blow the few squadron of planes they have during peace time, send in trained operatives through the Mexican and Canadian borders to open a two front 'infiltration' of enemy ranks to carry out subversive activities (like they do against their 'enemies'), and there are numerous other options that I have not yet mentioned.

You need to revisit your responses. They do not make much sense.

Most of their combat aircrafts are F-16s and most of the remainder are F-15s, inducted abt 3 decades ago.

When Americans design an aircraft; they keep its 'life span' in mind.

Nothing 'special' about them to think that "air superiority" is a foregone conclusion.

Their is much more detail behind the claim of 'air superiority' then just type of aircraft.

Deny their aircraft any chance to fly, or build a strong, dense air defense network, that could be the starting point for denting their propaganda "air superiority" concept they blabber about in their media.

Easier said then done.

On the ground, when they do not outnumber and outgun their opponent by 10 to 1, at least, they start crying and/or making up stories, for example.

Really?

Do some digging on Battle of 73 Easting, which took place during Persian Gulf War 1991.

Here is hint: The Battle of 73 Easting - Greatest Tank Battles - History Television

The rest of their actions are not worth describing lest it should generate misimpressions of me.

Now see these videos:

Want me to post more?

I have even seen footages of some US soldiers talking funny 'right after' experiencing IED explosions near them. Can you imagine?

For every video on any Western video sharing site that proves embarrassing for them, there are at least another 12 that are not approved for viewing on the same Western video sharing sites (because those are Western video sharing sites). And for every video created that embarrassed them, there could be another 25 or more that were never captured on video because media propaganda was seen as less of a priority for the brave Mujahideen fighting against the invading infidel enemy terrorists.

Their are brave soldiers on both sides.

Just keep in mind that humans are not drones or machines. Personalities of soldiers also matter. And war is not funny business.

If you are interested in seeing a few hundred other videos, some of which are in fact multiple hours long, mostly consisting of combat operations showing kafir invader losses in detail, you may leave your email address via a PM or leave a message on my 'profile page'. I do not leave URLs of such videos in the public domain because the enemies are very active in seeking out and deactivating all pictures and videos that disprove their propaganda.

Thanks for the offer. Will think about it.

 

[kalu_miah]

The answer for our security is in creative geopolitics in my very humble opinion, working together with other victim nations of South East Asia and East Asia to create a ASEAN+ (including Japan and Korea) strategic security and economic bloc. Missiles or fancy toys will do nothing for us at this present juncture. If we can create a bloc, having the latest and greatest will be automatic like poorer countries in EU.

 

[wild_fire1979]

Because without WMD's ,a missile is worthless piece of long range artillery which costs more to be built than GDP of some African countries.

You people should allocate half of your GDP for missile development program which would result in some glorified long range artillery capable of shutting down Dum Dum airport for some...5 minutes.

Thank your stars that Bangladesh is not ruled by people who are stupid as OP are.

Couldn't agree more!!! Without WMDs, the cost of a ballistic missile does not justify the price.

Since BD does not have Nuke, Chem or Bio weapons. Ballistic missiles are a waste of money. Cruise missiles offer better bang for the buck considering BD only considers India and Myanmar as its potential enemies.

 

[The SC]

To make the best out of a situation this pro Indian government of Bangladesh should at least get some Brahmos cruise missiles if not the technology to make them.

 

[The SC]

If North Korea was able to pull it off, why not Bangladesh.

 

[The SC]

Tell me one thing; was Iraq a weak country in 1991?

sure it was, that is merely 3 year after the war with Iran.