Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Inevitable War Against Iraq
Myself | 22:45GMT 15th March 2002 | Myself

Posted on 03/15/2002 1:47:27 PM PST by maquiladora

The Inevitable War Against Iraq

I'm writing this article for the folks on Freerepublic to read, think about and discuss. I hope you find it informative and a good read. Feel free to expand on anything I touch on, or give alternative opinions.
-Maquiladora

A war with Iraq? It's not a question of 'if' but 'when'. Today, during the President's speech at Fort Bragg, he stated clearly that Phase One of the war on terror was almost warped up. The Taliban were gone, and the remains of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan were being mopped by in operations conducted by US and Canadian troops such as 'Anaconda' and 'Harpoon'. So as Phase One draws to a close, we must shift our attention to Phase Two: Iraq.

Saddam Hussein is the only leader to have used chemical weapons against his own people. While he is in power in Iraq, the threat of him using WMD against his own people again, or other nations, is very real indeed. He has had more than three years to covertly further research and enhance the development of chemical and biological weapons since the UN inspectors left in December 1998. The location of the majority of Iraq's WMD facilities is unknown, and their status is unknown too.

President Bush wants to address the problem of Iraq's WMD and the problem of Saddam in power. So the goals of the coming war are clear:

1: Eliminate Saddam Hussein.
2: Locate and destroy all WMD facilities in Iraq.

Vice President Dick Cheney is currently visiting Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Qatar, and Oman. It's no vacation, he's going to tell Iraq's neighbours that the US plans to deal with the Iraqi problem once and for all. He'll want to know who's on board and who isn't. He'll be looking for covert and overt assistance: overflight, airbase usage and perhaps staging area permission.

All this in exchange for whatever is in Mr Cheney's briefcase: aid, advice, writing off debts, trade deals etc. Don't be fooled by what some Arab leaders say publicly. Most of that is for interal public consumption. Besides what is in the papers or reports on TV, the regional countries that will aid the US in a war on Iraq are: Israel, Turkey, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman. The other states in the region won't be of much use.

However, the US administration does not envision significant allied help when it comes to the crunch. Socailist Gulf War coalition partners Britain and France will be unwilling to engage in another fight against Iraq. The British Labour Party is generally strongly against a war on Iraq. A letter was delivered to No. 10 last week, signed by no less than 70 Members of Parliment informing the Prime Minister of their opposition to any military action against Iraq. France is even more unwilling to get involved, but perhaps that should not be surprising. But as Secretary of State Powell said recently, America is ready to do this alone.

The political impact of an unsuccessful lone-US campaign against Iraq would be unacceptable and unthinkable to the Bush administration. Thus, it is clear that the coming offensive will be an all-out, no-holds-barred war that would use overwhelming force and every conventional asset in the US military has at hand. Failure is not an option.

The war is coming, all the signs are there: Cheney's visit to the Mid-East, the President's remarks about Iraq's WMD and 'Phase Two', the recent deployment of Apache gunships to the Gulf, the insertion of CIA and Spec forces into Kurdish Northern Iraq last month and the reports that over 5,000 mothballed US armoured vehicles are being readied for action in Kuwait.

However, any action is likely to wait until at least the fall of 2002. The carrier battlegroups and associated airwings that will be needed will have to move to the region. Strategic sea-lift assets, pre-positioned ordnance and aviation fuel supplies, and other logistic requirements will all have to be looked at. These things take time. But a lot of the background stuff, the planning and plotting will already be well under way at CENTCOM by now.

The Air Tasking Order template for conducting the air war and initial steps needed to ensure air superiority are being formulated. Required active duty manning levels, which would need to be supplemented by Reserve call-ups, for all services is being evaluated.

How many troops are we taking about? Well, this won't be as big the Allied force there was in Desert Storm. Iraq's military is only a shadow of it's 1990-self. Even though there's still about 300,000 men in the Iraqi Army, it's expected that most of those will surrender en masse in the early days of the war. However, the 10,000-20,000 Republican Guard may prove a more difficult obsticle. Iraq's Air Force is virtually useless now, and though some SAM capabilites have been rebuilt, they should not pose a major threat. So at first glance, this should be easier than The Gulf War, right? Wrong. The objective in the Gulf War was to liberate Kuwait, not occupy the whole country and attempt to overthrow the government too. It will require a broader, more ambitious but perhaps less intense offensive. But we are back to our original question: How many troops are we talking about?

Well, up to 100,000 US troops will be required for any major ground war. You can add to that 25,000 support personnel based in the region. They most likely would stage out of Israel, Turkey, Oman and especially Kuwait.

Overall, the U.S. forces used likely would be lighter and more agile than during the Desert Storm conflict. Lessons learned in Afghanistan with the use of Special Forces guiding the crosshairs for smart bombs from tactical aircraft will be exploited to the fullest.

One of the two primary objectives for the troops would be to seek out and destroy all WMD facilities in the country. But a lot of this will first be done from the air. At least four carrier battlegroups would probably be pre-position for offensive air strikes: one or two in the Red Sea, two or three in the Arabian Gulf. The Air Force, unlike their operations in Afghanistan, would have a substantial number of tactical fighter/bombers involved. They would most likely operate primarily out of bases in Oman, Kuwait, Turkey and Diego Garcia.

The war against Iraq will start straight from the textbook: a massive around-the-clock campaign to neutralize command and control facilities, the surface-to-air threat and minimal aircraft threat.

The general expectation among US military planners is that Iraqi air defenses, command and control facilities, the Iraqi army and Republican Guard would be rapidly overwhelmed and defeated swiftly.

Nonetheless, Saddam has watched the US forces in Afghanistan and their operations very closely. He certainly will expect a massive air campaign with precision-guided munitions as the first onslaught. His contingency plans may include locating the majority of his Republican Guard and WMD devices in the hospitals, schools, mosques, and public institutions surrounding Baghdad. In fact, Iraqi forces are already on the move. Over the past week or so, reports have been coming in that Iraqi troops have been redeployed near the Jordanian border from their positions in the north. These may very well be Republican Guard forces taking up positons around remote WMD facilites.

So Saddam knows he's in trouble. His back is against the wall and he knows full well that President Bush will not end the war against Iraq until he is overthrown. Despite his public retoric and propaganda, he knows deep inside the power, might, reach and resolve of the US military. He knows deep inside that he can never win, that he is doomed. This is dangerous. When a man is doomed, he throws caution to the wind, he's got not nothing to lose.

If Saddam does have active WMD and the ability to deliver them, then he can be expected to use them. There is no doubt about that.

US planners will have to honor reports that over a dozen Scud II are hidden and functional within Iraq, and thus set up a robust theater missile defense network. The threat of biological or chemical weapons targeting Israel, neighboring countries, or US troops will be a major concern. If Saddam can do it, then he will do it. This time he has nothing to lose.

Israel undoubtedly will expect more deployments of improved Patriot missile batteries in country to offer greater protection. In fact, there are reports that this already underway.

This is serious stuff. Look at it this way. Action against Iraq is inevitable, if Saddam has the means, then an Iraqi WMD attack on Israel as a responce is inevitable, if the attack is succesful then a nuclear attack by Israel is inevitable. Now it turns into a whole new ball game. Israel will have launched a nuclear attack against Iraq and the Arab and Muslim world will be in uproar and the knives will be out for Sharon. Syria and Iran could be expected to launch an assualt on Israel and suddenly the US forces in the region could be facing multiple enimies, nuclear fallout, spiraling casualties and a global economic nosedive the likes of which have never been seen before. Where things could go from here is anyones guess...

To engage Iraq in a war will be the hardest decision President Bush will make to date. The danger in action may be very high, but as the President said recently, 'inaction' is not an option.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: geopolitics; iraq; vicepresidentchene; war; warlist; zionist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

1 posted on 03/15/2002 1:47:27 PM PST by maquiladora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: maquiladora
Re #1

In my opinion, the all-out assault will be preceded by internal guerilla uprising probably by Kurds. This will distract Saddam. He has to divert part of his elite troops to fight these guerillas. While this insurgency is in progress under the direction of CIA/SpecOps, U.S. will try to instigate defection of high ranking people or army units. Then U.S. can mount an invasion. But due to WMD, the invasion force may be spread out and move in slower pace. Anytime Saddam uses his WMD to Kurds, American troops or Israelis, U.S. will use her small nukes for retaliations. It is politically less provacative for U.S. to nuke Iraq than Israel. I know, U.S. is a great satan in Mid-East. But U.S. is still more popular than Israel. Finally, if the stalemate develops in the battlefield for some reason, U.S. will again use nukes to finish the war. U.S. cannot afford to have prolonged attrition battle Muslim extremists are so fond of waging. U.S. should not give any hopes to them. If they play madmen, they will be nuked.

2 posted on 03/15/2002 2:11:32 PM PST by TigerLikesRooster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: maquiladora
So basically what you guys are saying is we had better hope that Saddam doesnt have the capabilities to launch his WMDs.
6 posted on 03/15/2002 2:19:41 PM PST by fiftymegaton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: TigerLikesRooster
Problem Turkey also hates curds and may not be amenable to having them getting rambunctious in areas they want in Turkey,besides after 1991 I don't think they'll play they got well and truly shafted,they probably consider their current anarchic no go zone for Saddams military a better option.
8 posted on 03/15/2002 2:21:58 PM PST by Governor StrangeReno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: maquiladora
Did we ever get any confirmation regarding a Turkish News Site saying that families of US Military should start to pack up and go home in the next three months?
9 posted on 03/15/2002 2:22:07 PM PST by cmsgop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: derentwerfer-cccp
A rather over-simplistic and flawed viewpoint to say the least.
American patriotism is about as far removed for Islamic Extremisim as you can get.
10 posted on 03/15/2002 2:22:49 PM PST by maquiladora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: cmsgop
I've heard that report here on Freerepublic, but I don't recall hearing it elsewere. I'll look into it.
14 posted on 03/15/2002 2:27:11 PM PST by maquiladora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: seamole
au contraire Russia is the model for capitalisms future
17 posted on 03/15/2002 2:33:17 PM PST by Governor StrangeReno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

To: derentwerfer-cccp
Inform us of your personal "set of ideologies" please. I'll be very interested to see what motivates you to declare such bizarre statements.
19 posted on 03/15/2002 2:37:36 PM PST by maquiladora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator

To: maquiladora
What happened to the muslim terrorist activities going on in the horn-of-africa region? You know, somalia, ethiopia, etc. I thought we were going in there to mop up the bin-laudin-type groups operating there. It seems to me that this region would have priority over saddam insane. Iraq is a separate issue. Surely there are many good christian ethiopians that could be recruited to help us in this region.
21 posted on 03/15/2002 2:44:44 PM PST by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: derentwerfer-cccp
Very poor false equalization. Not the same God...Not the same faith...like saying an oxcart and a Porsche are both vehicles.
22 posted on 03/15/2002 2:45:16 PM PST by crystalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: derentwerfer-cccp
I have my own set of ideologies I follow.

Why don't you find your own island, declare yourself king, pass a law, break it, and imprison yourself?

Go now.

23 posted on 03/15/2002 2:45:35 PM PST by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: derentwerfer-cccp
You people, the patriots in the US, and the Fundamentalist Muslim groups, are one and the same.

Watch some more John Wayne movies. Read some more Zane Gray. Dig a little deeper. Superficialities are a starting point, not the end, not the summation.

24 posted on 03/15/2002 2:46:33 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
No, that region lacks oil and has little education and economic potential. Saddam is a hundred times the risk to the USA, and a THOUSAND times the risk in the next 2-3 yrs, that the Horn of Africa could ever be...
25 posted on 03/15/2002 2:47:29 PM PST by crystalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Roger Young
Re #7

So what are you going to do if Saddam launches two dozen scuds tipped with chemical warhead or several hundreds American soldiers are killed by same missiles ? American military does not have depth it had during Gulf war. And this time Saddam will not restrain himself, because as pointed out, he has nothing to lose. If you have better alternative, let me know.

26 posted on 03/15/2002 2:48:27 PM PST by TigerLikesRooster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: derentwerfer-cccp
You really think that a people who are obsessed with religion

Not so long ago there was a nation obsessed with atheism. It murder--er, I mean liquidated--over 20 million of its own citizens.

Go ahead. Keep ragging on religious believers. They were the first to be liquidated.

27 posted on 03/15/2002 2:48:27 PM PST by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: seamole
the man might be nostalgic remembering the broom they gave him at the train station with the intruction stand here for 40 years,food and a roof in exchange-items many currently don't have.
28 posted on 03/15/2002 2:49:49 PM PST by Governor StrangeReno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: maquiladora
I don't like it at all. Jordan, I think, could very easily be on our side. Our relations have improved due to their own Palestinian problem in the '70s. I hate to have an outright invasion of a country because they pose a threat. IMHO we should practice the MAD theory, only that Saddam should know that he cannot assure our destruction, therefore we wait for his strike to assure his. We should only seek peace, but be ready for war when it comes.
29 posted on 03/15/2002 2:50:01 PM PST by In veno, veritas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crystalk
What difference does the value of the resources matter? If we don't go after Al-qaeda wherever they run, we will never wipe them out. They will just hide out in the horn or indonesia untill they rebuild their strength and then strike again. We gotta finish the job now or the problem will come back later just like saddam did.
30 posted on 03/15/2002 2:56:21 PM PST by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: derentwerfer-cccp
Re #3

I don't think that they will be a World War. As I recall, Russia changed its battle doctrine to have first use of nukes during Kosovo crisis. America changed its own not long ago. So both country can use battlefield nukes. I was talking about responding to Saddam's WMD. WMD can be responded by WMD. If you got attacked by chemical weapons and lose a lot of casualties, you cannot go on shooting bullets and bombing buildings. As I recall, the last nukes ended the world war not started it. Appeasement of Hitler started the last world war. So it is not clear-cut as you think.

31 posted on 03/15/2002 2:56:59 PM PST by TigerLikesRooster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #32 Removed by Moderator

To: maquiladora
I don't think you should rule out a "whack-a-saddam" strategy.

Take control of the air, use some search forces and other means to locate him, and depend on the various new missile defense weapons to counter the wmd threat.

33 posted on 03/15/2002 3:01:02 PM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
Good try, but Iraq is not a separate issue. Hussein is at this moment capable of making the Israel/Palestinian violence look like intramural basketball games, and he's hoping for just a little more time until he can deliver them long-distance. True, he doesn't give a hoot about Islam, but he sure would like to settle the score against the U.S., in a more spectacular way than he's tried in the past.
34 posted on 03/15/2002 3:02:33 PM PST by browardchad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Governor StrangeReno
RE #8

I am aware of Kurd vs Tukey situation and Kurd's feeling of being abandoned after the gulf war. But Kurd have to be in the equation, I think. So U.S. will push all buttons to enlist Kurds. Turkey was bought last fall by U.S. There was a state visit by Turkish President which brought hundreds of businessmen as entourage. Apparently they all got their wish. I know this is not an easy problem. But it has to be worked out. Politically, it is always much better to have inside help rather than outright invasion.

35 posted on 03/15/2002 3:03:53 PM PST by TigerLikesRooster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
Not disagreeing that the individual baddies should be hunted down, but when a State is developing weapons of mass destruction, that becomes a higher priority. Do both, I say.
36 posted on 03/15/2002 3:08:19 PM PST by crystalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: maquiladora
Pretty good analisys, except that the Brits will be with us. Blaid will insist, and the only option for the Labour antis would be a vote of no confidence, which would dissolve the Labour government. They will complain but in the end Blair will get his way.
37 posted on 03/15/2002 3:10:38 PM PST by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: browardchad
What do you mean "not a separate issue". It most certainly is a separate issue. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do anything about saddam, only that we should take care of what we already started with al-qaeda first(or at least concurrently). Saddam may be a greater threat, but only because we have al-qaeda on the run at the moment. Why should we not take the opportunity to finish them off now while we can? Al-qaeda will only come back later just as saddam has if we let them continue.
38 posted on 03/15/2002 3:11:14 PM PST by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: seamole
You should read what your General Secretary said about your ideology the other day, comrade.

Do you use the Dr.Goebels argument on every German who has guts to disagree with you?

Genaral Secretary said the other day. That day is gone, so the Genaral Secretary with HIS ideology.

Check your calendar.

39 posted on 03/15/2002 3:18:12 PM PST by Alexandre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
Re #38

Well, you can see this problem from a different angle. That is, it all comes down to (1)weapon and (2) money. If we can deprive both to terrorists, we have a great head start. Yes, organization is still there which will be taken out one by one. But if money goes and weapon goes, they are so busy making ends meet that they may not have time for terrorism. To deprive (1), Iraq has to go because Iraq has many WMD to share with terrorists. To deprive (2), we encourage Russia to boost its oil production, lowering oil prices and bankrupting Saudi and other Gulf states. So Iraq is eminently relevant as well as Saudi.

40 posted on 03/15/2002 3:19:15 PM PST by TigerLikesRooster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
to #27 Not so long ago there was a nation obsessed with atheism. It murder--er, I mean liquidated--over 20 million of its own citizens.

There was a nation under obsessed cruel dictatorship. While this dictatorship was eleminating over 50 millions of its own citizens, The West was silent and quite well cooperated with Stalin and its successors (forget small clashes here and there).

Once dictatorship is gone - every keyboard warrior is happy to spit on what left of this nation.

41 posted on 03/15/2002 3:26:19 PM PST by Alexandre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: maquiladora
An alternate scenario is that the U.S. will gradually ratchet up the military pressure on Iraq, rather than launch a sudden Gulf-War-style massive assault, precisely to avoid Hussein's use of WMDs on Israel.

The U.S. will proceed to position our forces as if we plan a conventional attack (and to give us the option of engaging in such an attack at any time). But meanwhile we'll infiltrate our special forces into Northern and Southern Iraq under cover of our air power in the "no-fly zones". Our aircraft will intensify their activities, and start hitting some targets without waiting to be "locked onto" by radar. Any suspected missile launch facility will become fair game. Soon missile sites in central Iraq, outside the "no-fly zones", will be targeted.

This is our "slowly boil the frog" strategy. We just keep increasing our military action but hold off the massive air and land attacks. We launch special forces raids on suspected WMD facilities. We assist anti-Hussein Iraqi forces in the north and south. And we allow fear and defeatism to percolate throughout the Iraqi government and military. Saddam has to keep purging and fighting off coup attempts (or suspected attempts), and he becomes more and more isolated, spending most of his time hiding in underground bunkers.

As long as the U.S. holds off on full-scale war, Hussein will be unable to use his WMDs against Israel, since that would immediately trigger massive retaliation and all-out war and make him appear responsible. Meanwhile Hussein can cling to the (vain) hope that the pressure of "world opinion" might yet prevent a U.S. attack.

Eventually Saddam and his government crack apart from the pressure, and our Iraqi allies take over with virtually no loss of U.S. life.

42 posted on 03/15/2002 3:28:49 PM PST by dpwiener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dpwiener
Re #42

I think this is a good scenario. Instead of them forcing attrition to U.S., U.S. bring attrition to them. The success of this operation depends a lot on political operation to alienate and enlist part of Saddam's regime in exchange for new life after Saddam's death. But I fear that Saddam doesn't want to wait for his slow eventual death. He will come up with some excuse to launch those missiles. He will go down in flames whether we like it or not. It is theoretically possible to outmaneuver him, killing him or capturing him before he launches those missiles. But it is unlikely. On the other hand, I am pretty sure that he will be the one who launches WMD first not U.S.

43 posted on 03/15/2002 3:43:26 PM PST by TigerLikesRooster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: maquiladora
If Saddam does have active WMD and the ability to deliver them, then he can be expected to use them. There is no doubt about that.

Saddam had WMD (chemical and or biological weapons in the last Gulf War) but he didn't use them against either Israel or Saudi Arabia for fear of nuclear retaliation. On the other hand, if his back is to the wall, he has nothing to lose and he might very well decide to use everything, in which case the U.S., or more likely Israel, will retaliate with nuclear weapons, possibly seting off the whole region and bringing on WWIII. Given that these are not trivial issues, I wonder why Congess isn't debating the issue around the clock. If it's necessary to risk nuclear war to bring down Saddam, Bush should ask congress to step up to the plate and explicitly declare war on Iraq. At least we'd get to hear the best arguments, pro and con.

44 posted on 03/15/2002 3:47:59 PM PST by DentsRun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dpwiener
Good points - how about having some of our SF troops carry in a couple of tac-nukes? Then these could be positioned somewhere near suspected sites of nuke development within Iraq, and command detonated - giving the entire world a glimpse of Iraq detonating a nuke during "testing". Instant green light to empty a couple of Tridents, no US casualties, and not even any negative world opinion. Plus, the message would be delivered to the Arab world that we've put up with about all of thier $hit that we're going to.

Regarding the initial analysis of this article, I think that the Russians here in this thread underestimate the newfound friendhsip between our nations. Should this jihad grow, America and Russia will become natural allies against Islam, forgetting all else. Why not? Russia is a Constitutional Republic, they have their own Islamic troubles, and the economic interdependence between us will only grow in the future. Russia and the US could logically become more than allies - call it a joint venture - or even a merger at some time. (Wouldn't China love that!!!) Already, Russia is our #2 oil supplier - and trying to become #1 ahead of Suadi Arabia. Personally, I think we should tell the Saudis to pack sand, and buy all of our foreign oil from Russia. That alone would break the Arab's financial empire in only months. After all, they have NOTHING else worth owning.

45 posted on 03/15/2002 3:58:38 PM PST by 11B3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Comment #46 Removed by Moderator

To: TigerLikesRooster
Bankrupting the gulf states sounds like a good plan. They are already in debt up to their ears due to corruption and military spending even with the cash flow they currently enjoy. Cutting off their cash flow by finding another oil source would literally ruin them. If that really is the plan, I am all for it.
47 posted on 03/15/2002 4:27:48 PM PST by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Maquiladora, TigerLikesRooster
Maq -- good, insightful post.

Tige -- while an insurgency of the Kurds would be very good to have, both the Barzani and Talabani factions (which are more or less clan-based and fight each other intermittently) have been burnt by US indecision or withdrawal at least three times before:

The only way they will believe us is if we are there shoulder to shoulder with them. I think Maq gets this. This in tuen makes specific demands as to units that can be used, etc. which I shan't go into.

I can't imagine any scenario other than a WMD attack on the US or a close ally that would lead to a US use of nuclear weapons. In fact, in many cases of WMD attack the correct responce would not be nuclear. For nukes to be worth shooting off, the provocation must be sufficient, but that's only half of the equation, the political half. The other half is military: the target must also be suitable.

So far we have faced nothing that would justify the use of nuclear arms, from a strictly military viewpoint.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

48 posted on 03/15/2002 5:09:37 PM PST by Criminal Number 18F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 11B3
Good points - how about having some of our SF troops carry in a couple of tac-nukes?

Heh, infantry. Couple reasons why not. Three even:

  1. There are no SADMs in the inventory any more
  2. They actually went out during the cold war when it became clear that there was really no use for them -- no target that couldn't be hit better, safer and more certainly with an aircraft or guided weapon.
  3. Increased accuracy and power of conventional weapons makes small nukes obsolete for most military purposes. A JDAM just costs $18k more than a dumb bomb (which is $5-8k) yet can put a 2000 lb. bomb within three metres of any point on earth. Other modern weapons address the problem of extremely hard targets. All we need is eyes on the ground to tell the zoomies what to hit.

The nuclear arty shells and battlefield missiles are gone, also. Simply obsolete. In 1945 you needed to erase an enemy's cities to destroy his war-making capability and defeat him. In 2002 that sort of un-Christian (non-Western, really) frightfulness is no longer required or useful.

Ironically, the one bomb that remains militarily useful in certain circumstances is the one we didn't field: the Enhanced Radiation Weapon ("neutron bomb") which would simplify defeating the North Koreans and save many Allied lives, if that war plan ever has to be implemented...

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

49 posted on 03/15/2002 5:32:45 PM PST by Criminal Number 18F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: maquiladora
"Today, during the President's speech at Fort Bragg, he stated clearly that Phase One of the war on terror was almost warped up."

Warp factor five, Mr. Scott!

--Boris

50 posted on 03/15/2002 7:12:45 PM PST by boris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson