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

[Thermodyne]

http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/syrscud.htm

Shakes head and thinks that these people are so stupid.

[primitive]

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/syrscud.htm

Shakes head and thinks that these people are so stupid.

I don't understand your comment.
Who are the stupid ones, the institute or the Syrians ?

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by primitive:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/syrscud.htm

Shakes head and thinks that these people are so stupid.

I don't understand your comment.
Who are the stupid ones, the institute or the Syrians ?

---

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.

[primitive]

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.

[Dawn Falcon]

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.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by primitive:
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.

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.

[Wanderer]

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
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.

<empathy>Better a rubbish deterrant than no deterrant at all</empathy>

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.