Re: [OT] Military (non-political) discussion of Iraq war
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't understand your comment.
Who are the stupid ones, the institute or the Syrians ?

Re: [OT] Military (non-political) discussion of Iraq war
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't understand your comment.
Who are the stupid ones, the institute or the Syrians ?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anyone that thinks these weapons are worth having. They really only work on civies, and often strike the side that set them loose. They are not WMD, they are terror weapons.

Re: [OT] Military (non-political) discussion of Iraq war
 

Thermo:
From your link:
"From a strategic perspective, long-range missiles such as the Scud could offer a means to deliver chemical weapons in response to Israel’s nuclear threat."

They are designed to be terror weapons. They are doing exactly what they are supposed to do. That's sad, but it's not stupid.

Re: [OT] Military (non-political) discussion of Iraq war
 

The AK's are popular in the Middle East(along with the Isralie Galil, which has some similiarities) BECAUSE they're simple, easy-to-maintain designs which withstand temperature extremes well.

No, it's not up with the latest rifles, but it's pretty much ideal for light infantry forces in desert conditions where techical expertise is scarce.

The (mainly ex-russian) RPG launchers they use are fairly tough and robust as well.

Re: [OT] Military (non-political) discussion of Iraq war
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don’t see it that way. Israel has never invaded Syria, they have kicked them in the pants on
several occasions, but the ground wars were defensive as far as Israel was concerned. Israel
can not use their nukes as a first strike weapon, the world would not stand for it. And Israel has
no territorial designs on Syria, they already captured the high ground many years ago. So why
does Syria need the WMD if not to use them for a first strike attack on Israel? And in so doing,
they would kill some Israelis that were in the general area of the targets. But then, Israel would have enough support in the rest of the world to actually get away with nuking Damascus. It would be a measured response. And one that I think Israel is capable of undertaking.
Personally, I think that is what makes it stupid, why have weapons of limited use that also make
you a target for weapons that will utterly destroy your own country. The Israelis WMD vastly
trumps Syria’s WMD.

Re: [OT] Military (non-political) discussion of Iraq war
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">&lt;empathy&gt;Better a rubbish deterrant than no deterrant at all&lt;/empathy&gt;

Remember - the more terrifying the weapon, the greater the deterrance.

Re: gratutious discussion of weapons

The AK-47 may not be the greatest rifle in the world, but I bet its easier to maintain and use in the desert than the bLasted SA-80 the British troops are lumped with. The SAS refuse to use it, which tells you something about it's capabilities.

Re: [OT] Military (non-political) discussion of Iraq war
 

Apologies to Alpha Kodiak for ruining his fine non-political thread http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Thermo:
The good ol' double standards again ? "WMD's are all right as long as they are mine (Or Israel's)"

The Syrian Scuds:
As a first strike weapon they are useless, but they still work reasonable well as a deterrent.
The very fact that the US is in Iraq right now is proof enough (for any unallied nation) of the need for a Last ditch "F.. them all" weapon.

Can't make yourself a nuke, make the best weapon you can!

North Korea is going to find a lot of new customers for their hardware over the next few years.

Re: [OT] Military (non-political) discussion of Iraq war
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Double standard, what are you talking about? There is no standard here. No entitlement to
possess them. And I think the days of just going out and getting some, no mater what your history is, are just about over. These are WMD that we are talking about. Syria supports terrorism, Syria’s Armed forces are little more than a conscript reserve force. Syria is at this time occupying a neighbor, and has in the past invaded another neighbor. They are almost as bad a Saddam in control of Iraq. I can not imagine any standard that would allow them to have WMD. And I seriously doubt that they are capable of keeping their know how and actual product safely stored from outsiders, let alone the fanatics that are within their own military. Chem and Bio weapons are easily smuggled, and inherently hard to inventory.

I am not so keen on Israel having nukes either, but then I do see that they face extinction at the
hands of their neighbors every day. I also see that Israel has thrived where the Arab states have
stagnated. And when I look at Israelis armed forces, I see an organization that is able to
safeguard it’s WMD and prevent them from falling into the hands of terrorists. It’s not really a
Jew vs. Arab thing, that is just used to incite the common man. It is western politics vs. Islamic politics thing.

As for the NK’s, I wouldn’t look for to much out of them any time soon. They aren’t willing to
risk everything that they are. This is a manufactured crises, manufactured by them. They know that it is not the 1950’s, and that the little damage that they could inflict out side of the peninsula would be returned to them a thousand fold. Also, their benefactor to the far north no longer cares what happens to them. And their benefactor to the near north is a very phobic nation and not likely to long tolerate a nuclear loose cannon within striking distance of their major cities.

The Indians and Packies are more of a worry to me, neither country is stable enough to
guarantee the security of their WMD. And neither country is above making a first strike upon
the other.

Re: [OT] Military (non-political) discussion of Iraq war
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You think China and the USA will let North Korea complete development of Nuclear weapons. The Last thing China wants is for South Korea and Japan to start building nukes. Where do you think the lay over is on the way home from Iraq?

[ April 06, 2003, 04:24: Message edited by: LGM ]

Re: [OT] Military (non-political) discussion of Iraq war
 

It would appear that American forces are going to try to pick off resistance targets in Baghdad one at a time. Their run through Baghdad with armor shows that they can pick their spots and go where they want, when they want. Doesn't mean that there isn't any resistance, just that if the Americans are careful, they can do what they want.

There does seem to be a story that we actually lost a tank inside Baghdad, but I haven't seen any real details. Doesn't make to much difference in the overall big picture, but it's an interesting event (bad for us, good for them) at any rate.

Finally, the attack on the house of "Chemical Ali" in Basra shhows we've got pretty good intelligence assets (Spec Ops) on the ground. I think we will see more operations like this as time goes on.