Orang tu paling gampaaang kalau bikin excuse. Kayak saya inilah. Mentang-mentang males ajaa blog ini jadi tidak terawat, ora kopen. Untung gak ada memedi atau gendruwo gentayangan yang lantas menghuni blog mangkrak ini. Oke deh. Mumpung masih bulan Januari, belum jauh-jauh banget dari Tahun Baru-an, saya mau bikin resolusi!
Resolusinya? Mau merawat blog mangkrak ini lagi biar tidak diambil alih gendruwo atau memedi sawah. Tetap semangat dehhh, jangan anget-anget tahi ayam bin obor blarak yaaa!
Minggu, 16 Januari 2011
Selasa, 06 Januari 2009
Gaza conflict: Who is a civilian?
By Heather Sharp
BBC News, Jerusalem
The bloodied children are clearly civilians; men killed as they launch rockets are undisputedly not. But what about the 40 or so young Hamas police recruits on parade who died in the first wave of Israel's bombing campaign in Gaza?
And weapons caches are clearly military sites – but what about the interior ministry, hit in a strike that killed two medical workers; or the money changer's office, destroyed last week injuring a boy living on the floor above?
As the death toll mounts in Gaza, the thorny question is arising of who and what can be considered a legitimate military target in a territory effectively governed by a group that many in the international community consider a terrorist organisation.
This is also the group that won the Palestinian legislative elections in January 2006 and a year later consolidated its control by force.
So while it was behind a campaign of suicide attacks in Israel and fires rockets indiscriminately over the border, it is also in charge of schools, hospitals, sewage works and power plants in Gaza.
International law
Israel says it is operating totally within humanitarian law, but human rights groups fear it is stretching the boundaries.
And as ground forces clash in the heavily-populated Gaza Strip, the questions will become more pressing.
International law’s rules on keeping civilian casualties to a minimum are based on the distinction between "combatants" and "non-combatants".
As Israel launched the first air strikes, outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said: "You - the citizens of Gaza - are not our enemies. Hamas, Jihad and the other terrorist organisations are your enemies, as they are our enemies."
But when an Israeli military spokesman also says things like "anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target," things get complicated.
The International Committee of the Red Cross - guardian of the Geneva Conventions on which international humanitarian law is based - defines a combatant as a person "directly engaged in hostilities".
But Israeli Defence Forces spokesman Benjamin Rutland told the BBC: "Our definition is that anyone who is involved with terrorism within Hamas is a valid target. This ranges from the strictly military institutions and includes the political institutions that provide the logistical funding and human resources for the terrorist arm."
Philippe Sands, Professor of International Law at University College London, says he is not aware of any Western democracy having taken so broad a definition.
"Once you extend the definition of combatant in the way that IDF is apparently doing, you begin to associate individuals who are only indirectly or peripherally involved… it becomes an open-ended definition, which undermines the very object and purpose of the rules that are intended to be applied."
Indeed, Hamas itself has been quoted as saying the fact that most Israelis serve in the military justifies attacks on civilian areas.
The first wave of bombings, which targeted police stations across Gaza, is a key case in question - particularly the strike that killed at least 40 trainees on parade.
Analysts say Hamas policemen are responsible for quashing dissent and rooting out spies, as well as tackling crime and directing traffic.
But the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, which has raised the issue in a letter to Israel’s attorney general, says it appears those killed were being trained in first aid, human rights and maintaining public order.
The IDF says it has intelligence that members of the police force often "moonlight" with rocket squads, but has given no details about the specific sites or individuals targeted.
To claim that all of those offices are legitimate targets, just because they are affiliated with Hamas, is legally flawed and extremely problematic
B’Tselem director Jessica Montell
However, campaign group Human Rights Watch (HRW) argues that even if police members do double as Hamas fighters, they can only be legally attacked when actually participating in military activities.
Both B’Tselem and HRW are also concerned about the targeting of ostensibly civilian sites such as a university, mosques and government buildings.
Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions - quoted by Israel, although not signed by it - says that for a site to be a legitimate military target it must "make an effective contribution to military action" and its destruction or neutralisation must also offer "a definite military advantage".
Israel says it has bombed mosques because they are used to store weapons, releasing video of the air strikes which it says shows secondary explosions as its proof.
But it gives no evidence for its claims that laboratories at the Islamic University, which it bombed heavily, were used for weapons research, or for its claims that at least three money changers targeted were involved in “the transfer of funds for terrorist activities”.
This is because Israel rarely releases intelligence material for fear of endangering the lives of its sources, Mr Rutland says.
However, on its targeting of the education, interior and foreign ministries and the parliament building, Israel simply argues they are part of the Hamas infrastructure – and there is no difference between its political and military wings.
"To claim that all of those offices are legitimate targets, just because they are affiliated with Hamas, is legally flawed and extremely problematic," says B’Tselem director Jessica Montell.
Questions of proportionality
Other incidents have raised concerns for these reasons, together with a second legal concept - proportionality.
This demands that the military gain of a particular operation be proportional to the likely or actual civilian losses incurred in carrying it out.
As Fred Abrahams, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch puts it: "Even if you have a legitimate target you can’t just drop 10-tonne bombs on it."
Gaza medic rushes injured child into hospital
Questions of proportionality rest on intention as much as the numbers of people killed and injured
Five sisters in the Balousha family were killed as they slept together as, apparently, a nearby Hamas-linked mosque was bombed in Jabaliya refugee camp on the second day of Operation Cast Lead.
HRW is calling for an investigation. "Was the mosque a legitimate target? We have our doubts… Did they use weaponry that would limit damage to civilians? We have our serious doubts," says Mr Abrahams.
In this case, Mr Rutland said the IDF had no record of a target in that specific area at that time, and gave no further explanation for the girls’ deaths.
A further case is the bombing of a truck that Israel initially said was loaded with missiles.
B’Tselem and the truck's owner – who said his son died along with seven other people – later said it was carrying oxygen canisters for welding. Israel maintains the warehouse the canisters were loaded from had been known to house weapons in the past.
How good was Israel's intelligence? How likely was it, for example, that at the moment of decision, the information might turn out to be wrong? And did the potential gains outweigh the possible losses?
Professor Sands says proportionality is "very, very difficult."
"What's proportionate in the eyes of one person may be disproportionate in the eyes of another," he says.
The difference in numbers in the Gaza war is stark - Palestinians say more than 500 Gazans have died in eight days, compared with 18 Israelis from rocket fire since 2001.
But experts say issues ranging from the parties' intentions, the reasons for going to war, the actions taken to protect - or indeed expose - civilians, and the conditions on the ground, all feed into a much more complicated legal equation.
Israel says lawyers are constantly consulted in its operations. It says it takes all possible steps to minimise civilian casualties.
Guided weapons are used; telephone warnings are often given before buildings are bombed; the IDF says missions have been aborted because civilians were seen at the target.
And it says its enemy is far from a standard army: "We're talking about an entire government whose entire raison d’etre is the defeat of Israel … and all of whose energies are directed at attacking Israeli civilians," says Mr Rutland.
Witnesses and analysts confirm that Hamas fires rockets from within populated civilian areas, and all sides agree that the movement flagrantly violates international law by targeting civilians with its rockets.
But while B’Tselem's Ms Montell describes the rocket fire as a "blatant war crime", she adds: "I certainly would not expect my government to act according to the standard Hamas has set for itself - we demand a higher standard."
BBC News, Jerusalem
The bloodied children are clearly civilians; men killed as they launch rockets are undisputedly not. But what about the 40 or so young Hamas police recruits on parade who died in the first wave of Israel's bombing campaign in Gaza?
And weapons caches are clearly military sites – but what about the interior ministry, hit in a strike that killed two medical workers; or the money changer's office, destroyed last week injuring a boy living on the floor above?
As the death toll mounts in Gaza, the thorny question is arising of who and what can be considered a legitimate military target in a territory effectively governed by a group that many in the international community consider a terrorist organisation.
This is also the group that won the Palestinian legislative elections in January 2006 and a year later consolidated its control by force.
So while it was behind a campaign of suicide attacks in Israel and fires rockets indiscriminately over the border, it is also in charge of schools, hospitals, sewage works and power plants in Gaza.
International law
Israel says it is operating totally within humanitarian law, but human rights groups fear it is stretching the boundaries.
And as ground forces clash in the heavily-populated Gaza Strip, the questions will become more pressing.
International law’s rules on keeping civilian casualties to a minimum are based on the distinction between "combatants" and "non-combatants".
As Israel launched the first air strikes, outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said: "You - the citizens of Gaza - are not our enemies. Hamas, Jihad and the other terrorist organisations are your enemies, as they are our enemies."
But when an Israeli military spokesman also says things like "anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target," things get complicated.
The International Committee of the Red Cross - guardian of the Geneva Conventions on which international humanitarian law is based - defines a combatant as a person "directly engaged in hostilities".
But Israeli Defence Forces spokesman Benjamin Rutland told the BBC: "Our definition is that anyone who is involved with terrorism within Hamas is a valid target. This ranges from the strictly military institutions and includes the political institutions that provide the logistical funding and human resources for the terrorist arm."
Philippe Sands, Professor of International Law at University College London, says he is not aware of any Western democracy having taken so broad a definition.
"Once you extend the definition of combatant in the way that IDF is apparently doing, you begin to associate individuals who are only indirectly or peripherally involved… it becomes an open-ended definition, which undermines the very object and purpose of the rules that are intended to be applied."
Indeed, Hamas itself has been quoted as saying the fact that most Israelis serve in the military justifies attacks on civilian areas.
The first wave of bombings, which targeted police stations across Gaza, is a key case in question - particularly the strike that killed at least 40 trainees on parade.
Analysts say Hamas policemen are responsible for quashing dissent and rooting out spies, as well as tackling crime and directing traffic.
But the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, which has raised the issue in a letter to Israel’s attorney general, says it appears those killed were being trained in first aid, human rights and maintaining public order.
The IDF says it has intelligence that members of the police force often "moonlight" with rocket squads, but has given no details about the specific sites or individuals targeted.
To claim that all of those offices are legitimate targets, just because they are affiliated with Hamas, is legally flawed and extremely problematic
B’Tselem director Jessica Montell
However, campaign group Human Rights Watch (HRW) argues that even if police members do double as Hamas fighters, they can only be legally attacked when actually participating in military activities.
Both B’Tselem and HRW are also concerned about the targeting of ostensibly civilian sites such as a university, mosques and government buildings.
Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions - quoted by Israel, although not signed by it - says that for a site to be a legitimate military target it must "make an effective contribution to military action" and its destruction or neutralisation must also offer "a definite military advantage".
Israel says it has bombed mosques because they are used to store weapons, releasing video of the air strikes which it says shows secondary explosions as its proof.
But it gives no evidence for its claims that laboratories at the Islamic University, which it bombed heavily, were used for weapons research, or for its claims that at least three money changers targeted were involved in “the transfer of funds for terrorist activities”.
This is because Israel rarely releases intelligence material for fear of endangering the lives of its sources, Mr Rutland says.
However, on its targeting of the education, interior and foreign ministries and the parliament building, Israel simply argues they are part of the Hamas infrastructure – and there is no difference between its political and military wings.
"To claim that all of those offices are legitimate targets, just because they are affiliated with Hamas, is legally flawed and extremely problematic," says B’Tselem director Jessica Montell.
Questions of proportionality
Other incidents have raised concerns for these reasons, together with a second legal concept - proportionality.
This demands that the military gain of a particular operation be proportional to the likely or actual civilian losses incurred in carrying it out.
As Fred Abrahams, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch puts it: "Even if you have a legitimate target you can’t just drop 10-tonne bombs on it."
Gaza medic rushes injured child into hospital
Questions of proportionality rest on intention as much as the numbers of people killed and injured
Five sisters in the Balousha family were killed as they slept together as, apparently, a nearby Hamas-linked mosque was bombed in Jabaliya refugee camp on the second day of Operation Cast Lead.
HRW is calling for an investigation. "Was the mosque a legitimate target? We have our doubts… Did they use weaponry that would limit damage to civilians? We have our serious doubts," says Mr Abrahams.
In this case, Mr Rutland said the IDF had no record of a target in that specific area at that time, and gave no further explanation for the girls’ deaths.
A further case is the bombing of a truck that Israel initially said was loaded with missiles.
B’Tselem and the truck's owner – who said his son died along with seven other people – later said it was carrying oxygen canisters for welding. Israel maintains the warehouse the canisters were loaded from had been known to house weapons in the past.
How good was Israel's intelligence? How likely was it, for example, that at the moment of decision, the information might turn out to be wrong? And did the potential gains outweigh the possible losses?
Professor Sands says proportionality is "very, very difficult."
"What's proportionate in the eyes of one person may be disproportionate in the eyes of another," he says.
The difference in numbers in the Gaza war is stark - Palestinians say more than 500 Gazans have died in eight days, compared with 18 Israelis from rocket fire since 2001.
But experts say issues ranging from the parties' intentions, the reasons for going to war, the actions taken to protect - or indeed expose - civilians, and the conditions on the ground, all feed into a much more complicated legal equation.
Israel says lawyers are constantly consulted in its operations. It says it takes all possible steps to minimise civilian casualties.
Guided weapons are used; telephone warnings are often given before buildings are bombed; the IDF says missions have been aborted because civilians were seen at the target.
And it says its enemy is far from a standard army: "We're talking about an entire government whose entire raison d’etre is the defeat of Israel … and all of whose energies are directed at attacking Israeli civilians," says Mr Rutland.
Witnesses and analysts confirm that Hamas fires rockets from within populated civilian areas, and all sides agree that the movement flagrantly violates international law by targeting civilians with its rockets.
But while B’Tselem's Ms Montell describes the rocket fire as a "blatant war crime", she adds: "I certainly would not expect my government to act according to the standard Hamas has set for itself - we demand a higher standard."
Senin, 05 Januari 2009
Bulava, pengancam dari dalam samudera
Tak henti-hentinya berbagai negara mengembangkan senjata pencabut nyawa. Kali ini Rusia mengembangkan sebuah peluru kendali (Rudal) berhulu ledak banyak yang basis peluncurannya dari kapal selam.
Rudal strategis yang dinamai Bulava tersebut September silam diujicoba peluncurannya dari kapal selam Dmitry Donskoi yang berlayar di Laut Putih di utara Rusia dan menjangkau sasarannya di Semenanjung Kamchatka, pantai timur Rusia yang berjarak sekitar 6.700 km.
Pengujian itu seolah-olah menjadi jawaban Rusia yang selama ini sudah dibikin gondok lantaran rencana AS untuk menggelar sistem pertahanan antirudal di wilayah-wilayah yang tadinya menjadi bagian dari Blok Timur Uni Soviet di era Perang Dingin dulu. AS sendiri selama ini berdalih bahwa sistem pertahanan yang di antaranya bakal digelar di Polandia dan Republik Cheska itu bertujuan menangkal serangan dari negara-negara seperti Korea Utara atau Iran.
Rudal Bulava yang disebut memiliki daya jangkau 8.000 kilometer itu sendiri menurut pihak Rusia memiliki kemampuan menghantam jaringan Rudal pertahanan udara. Kemampuan ini didapat dari 10 hulu ledak yang bisa dibawa sekaligus dalam satu unit Rudal, namun kesepuluh hulu ledak itu bisa diarahkan untuk menghancurkan targetnya sendiri-sendiri yang terpisah-pisah. Model yang juga diistilahkan sebagai Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicle (MIRV) seperti ini sudah cukup lazim diterapkan pada Rudal jarak jauh seperti misalnya pada Rudal Minuteman III asal AS
Menurut pers Rusia, Rusia untuk kali pertama menguji rudal Bulava pada September 2005 dan sukses melaksanakan pengujian lengkap untuk kali pertama pada Desember tahun lalu. Bulava atau yang biasa diidentifikasi sebagai SS-NX-30 adalah versi Rudal berbasis kapal selam dari Rudal antarbenua terbaru Rusia yaitu Topol-M atau SS-27. Hanya saja dilakukan sedikit modifikasi dalam hal ukuran yang akhirnya mempengaruhi pula jarak jangkaunya. Ini lantaran Rudal Topol yang panjangnya 21,9 meter terlalu besar untuk dimuatkan ke kapal selam.
Globalsecurity.org menyebutkan bahwa Rudal ini kemungkinan bakal menjadi senjata andalan kapal selam nuklir kelas Borey yang juga baru dirilis. Pada tahun 2007 sudah ada tiga buah kapal kelas ini yang dibangun. Namun ada laporan bahwa justru kapal selam dari kelas yang lebih tua yaitu kelas Typhoon yang justru akan dimodifikasi agar bisa menyandang Rudal ini. (R Bambang Aris S)
Foto: Globalsecurity.org
Kapal antibajak laut bagi orang berduit
Bajak laut yang sudah ada sejak zaman nenek moyang kita orang pelaut dulu ternyata tetap ganas dan berbahaya saja di era modern kini. Lihat saja aksi bajak laut di lepas pantai Somalia belum lama ini yang membajak kapal bermuatan penuh tank dan persenjataannya.
Tapi bersyukurlah pula pada teknologi modern - dan duit yang berlimpah - karena kapal yang "kebal" terhadap serangan bajak laut kini sudah dipersiapkan. Yang punya gawe adalah juragan minyak asal Rusia yang juga pemilik klub sepakbola Chelsea, Roman Abramovich. Seperti diungkapkan Gizmag.com belum lama ini, Abramovich sudah merogoh kocek sebanyak 200 juta pound atau lebih kurang Rp 3,35 triliun untuk membangun sebuah yacht atau kapal pesiar pribadi yang bukan cuma bakal menjadi kapal pesiar pribadi terbesar di dunia, namun juga antibajak laut.
Seabrek fasilitas pengamanan bakal diboyong ke kapal sepanjang 167 meter yang dinamai Eclipse ini. Sebagai fitur wajib jelas ada lapisan antipeluru di bagian-bagian kapal yang vital dan kaca-kaca tahan peluru. Selain itu ada pula radar khusus untuk mendeteksi datangnya Rudal atau roket.
Kalau upaya penangkalan ini tak mempan, tersedia sejumlah alternatif untuk ngacir mencari aman. Bisa saja menggunakan helikopter yang bisa mendarat di dua landasan helikopter alias helipad yang ada. Kalau tidak, tersedia pula kapal kecil yang nangkring di buritan belakang kapal. Yang paling keren adalah kabur menggunakan kapal selam kecil yang juga dibawa, yang bisa menyelam hingga kedalaman 48 meter. (R Bambang Aris S)
Foto: Gizmag.com
Pakaian antariksa, pelindung para astronot
Belum lama ini, tepatnya akhir September lalu, China kembali membuat berbagai bangsa di dunia terpana lantaran prestasi mereka di bidang penjelajahan antariksa. Kali ini seorang astronot China atau dalam istilah mereka disebut taikonot sukses melakukan "jalan-jalan di antariksa" alias spacewalk.
Prestasi ini makin menegaskan posisi China sebagai negeri ketiga di dunia setelah Rusia dan AS yang mampu secara mandiri menggelar program misi antariksa berawak. Yang tak kalah istimewa adalah kemampuan China membuat sendiri pakaian antariksa bagi taikonotnya untuk berjalan-jalan di antariksa itu.
Zhai Zhigang, sang taikonot saat itu mengenakan pakaian antariksa yang dinamai Feitian. Menurut chinadaily.com, pakaian antariksa itu nilainya lebih kurang US$4 juta atau sekitar Rp 37 miliar dengan bobot 120 kilogram. Pakaian ini diadopsi dari model pakaian antariksa bikinan Rusia yaitu Orlan-M dan mampu dipakai melakukan aktivitas di luar pesawat antariksa selama tujuh jam.
Nah, kenapa pakaian antariksa bisa begitu mahal harganya? Ini karena pakaian itu memang tidak sembarangan karena harus melindungi pemakainya dari kondisi ekstrem di antariksa yang tanpa tekanan udara dan gravitasi dan tanpa oksigen. Ketiadaan lapisan atmosfer juga menimbulkan bahaya yang sangat besar dari radiasi sinar matahari dan ancaman dari hantaman serpihan benda antariksa atau mikrometeorit.
Karenanya seperti diungkapkan dalam Howstuffworks.com, pakaian antariksa, apalagi yang dikenakan untuk aktivitas di luar pesawat harus bisa memenuhi berbagai kebutuhan seperti memberikan kondisi tekanan udara, memasok oksigen, membersihkan karbondioksida dari hasil pernapasan, memelihara suhu, melindungi dari radiasi matahari dan hantaman serpihan benda angkasa serta mendukung pergerakan dan aktivitas fisik yang harus dijalani astronaut.
Untuk memenuhi segala kebutuhan itu, di baju antariksa itu dibekalkan berbagai perangkat seperti radio komunikasi, tabung persediaan oksigen, tabung pengolah karbondioksida, wadah air minum, kamera, lampu dan baterai pemasok energi listrik. Bajunya sendiri juga dibuat dari berbagai bahan untuk menjamin keamanan dan kenyamanan penggunanya.
Untuk mencegah sengatan panas, umumnya pakaian antariksa dilapisi bahan penahan panas seperti Neoprene, Gore-Tex atau Dacron dan di bagian luarnya dilapisi bahan pemantul cahaya matahari. Untuk menjaga suhu di dalam pakaian agar tidak panas juga akibat aktivitas si pemakai, pakaian antariksa pada masa awal dilengkapi kipas angin kecil untuk pendingin. Model yang lebih maju menggunakan lapisan pakaian dalam yang memiliki selang-selang berukuran sangat kecil yang diisi cairan pendingin. Sementara untuk mencegah hantaman serpihan benda antariksa seperti mikrometeorit, pakaian juga dilapisi bahan seperti Dacron atau Kevlar. Kevlar selama ini juga dipakai sebagai materi pembuat busana tahan peluru. (R Bambang Aris S)
Foto: Howstuffworks.com, chinadaily.com
JLTV, andalan baru di medan perang
Penggemar dunia kemiliteran atau penggemar film action pasti tak asing dengan sosok kendaraan militer ringan AS yaitu Humvee. Namun dalam beberapa tahun ke depan sosok kendaraan yang jangkung dengan bodi lebar ini takkan dijumpai lagi karena sudah dilengserkan penggantinya yang disebut JLTV.
JLTV adalah singkatan dari Joint Light Tactical Vehicle atau kendaraan taktis ringan gabungan. Maksudnya gabungan karena kendaraan ini bakal digunakan oleh semua matra militer di AS seperti AD, AL, AU dan marinir.
Lantas kenapa Humvee yang sudah mulai ada tahun 1989 harus digusur dari peran dominannya di berbagai front yang selama ini diterjuni oleh militer AS? Pertimbangan keamanan menjadi faktor utamanya. Humvee yang tadinya dibuat untuk menggantikan fungsi aneka kendaraan militer ringan nontempur (atau yang selama ini secara salah kaprah disebut sebagai jip) sejak kelahirannya memang tidak dirancang untuk punya bodi yang tahan tembakan, apalagi bom atau ranjau.
Karena itu sejak beberapa tahun yang lalu militer AS merilis proyek JLTV untuk mendapatkan kendaraan militer yang sedari lahir memang sudah dipersiapkan untuk mengantisipasi aneka bahaya. Saat ini sudah ada tiga kontraktor yaitu Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics-AM General dan BAe-Navistar yang dipilih untuk membangun prototipe kendaraan tersebut untuk menjalani aneka pengujian hingga nantinya bisa dipilih satu kontraktor.
Menurut Kolonel John Myers dari salah satu lembaga AD AS yang terlibat dalam proyek ini, JLTV akan memberikan paduan kemampuan yang berimbang antara kinerja, daya angkut dan perlindungan. JLTV, kata dia seperti dikutip Defensetech.org, sepenuhnya dirancang sebagai kendaraan tempur dengan merujuk pada berbagai kebutuhan yang muncul dari medan perang seperti di Irak dan Afghanistan.
JLTV juga dinilai lebih ekonomis ketimbang kendaraan jenis Mine Resistant, Ambush Protected (MRAP) atau kendaraan tahan ranjau dan antisergapan yang saat ini banyak diterjunkan di Irak dan Afghanistan. MRAP memang aman, tapi bentuknya yang seukuran truk besar dengan harga hingga US$1 juta (sekitar Rp 10 miliar) per unit dinilai tak praktis, apalagi kendaraan ini sulit diangkut dengan pesawat atau helikopter sehingga mengurangi mobilitas.
Spesifikasi JLTV sendiri adalah lebih ringan dari Humvee dengan bobot antara 1,5 ton hingga 2,3 ton, sementara Humvee yang sudah dimodifikasi dengan aneka lapisan tahan peluru bobotnya bisa membengkak hingga 5,4 ton. Namun JLTV ditargetkan lebih tahan ledakan ranjau, punya fisik lebih jangkung dan punya lambung berbentuk V yang bisa mengalihkan tenaga ledakan ke sisi luar. Harganya dipatok antara US$200.000-250.000 atau Rp 2,1 miliar hingga Rp 2,6 miliar. (R Bambang Aris S)
Foto: Defensetech.org
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
