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

[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.

[primitive]

Apologies to Alpha Kodiak for ruining his fine non-political thread

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.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by primitive:
Apologies to Alpha Kodiak for ruining his fine non-political thread

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.

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.

[LGM]

Originally posted by primitive:

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

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 ]

[Alpha Kodiak]

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.

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by primitive:
Apologies to Alpha Kodiak for ruining his fine non-political thread

Don't make me report a hijacking to Homeland Security! You don't want to see the Spec Ops boys outside your house with a laser designator....

Actually, it is impossible to completely divorce the military discussion from the political discussion since military action is really an extension of the political process. I just wanted a thread where discussion of the military aspects wasn't dictated by a persons feelings about whether or not we should be there. It should be possible for a war supporter to point out problems in the campaign without giving up their support for the war. Conversely, it should be possible for an opponent of the war to acknowledge a military success in the war without compromising their belief that the war is wrong.

[TerranC]

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
But then, Israel would have enough support in the rest of the world to actually get away with nuking Damascus.

I hope you meant that phrase as a metaphor, not as a statement; Damascus is one of world's oldest cities, and it has historical ties with Christianity and Islam. Whoever nukes Damascus is in for a holy war that will haunt them for years to come.

[ April 06, 2003, 06:06: Message edited by: TerranC ]