 |
|  |
 |
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
 |
Kuzelj
Nov 2000 time: 05:25
|
|
For Desert Storm, or before that Iraqi army was in top 10 in the world... but got overrun like nothing, much easier than predicted. However NK is not a desert, for the war option, and for UN not working - it remains to be seen.
Russia has certaily got reasons for concern in the same way as US - and that is Chechens, they surely want nuclear weapons to be controlled in the similar way the westerners do, so I do not think they would be a problem, and it is not in China's interest either to have half controllable neighjbour with nukes, that can certainly reach them sooner than anyone else (important, like Russia or US)... so I would not be suprised that China steps in to do something about it.
I would first use up diplomatic options, see where Russia and China stand and why, as SK and Japan are definitley on our side. So all in all there should be other options than just a war in NK. Still it seems to me to be a much more urgent prolem than this Iraq WOMD. US and UN should be pushing on both fronts for inspectors and regaining some control.
Come on, how easy it is to hide nuclear reactors or stockpile once you get inspectors in who have the aid from the west? I don't think that's easy, and there has to be some other way to make them cooperate apart from war.
And could you explain why are weapons inspectors only half-effective?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970 time: 00:25
|
|
quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Orange, GP is correct. There was wide-spread belief that Iraq would put up some kind of resistence. At first, I said they'd be clobbered by the US, but I let myself get beat-down by the "battle-tested Iraqi army" argument (in retrospect, I have to wonder why since I knew what both US and Iraqi military capabilities were). There were also lots of news stories about Iraq's modern equipment.
A lot of opposition to the war was because of the fear of American casualites.
From a certain PoV, though, it was absolutely brilliant. You downplay your own capabilities and then CRUSH your opponent. You seem even more powerful and invincible than if you had gone in from the beginging saying that it will be an overwhelming victory on the order of the Greeks at Marathon. So, was this the result of a successful disinformation campaign on the part of the US? |
No. They were having a hard enough time getting domestic support and putting the coalition together.
Also, they would have had better plans to handle the Highway of Death angst and to conclude the war, etc.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000 time: 00:25
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Arrian
Che,
You paranoid muther****er! That's not necessarily a bad thing, mind you, but you really are stretching things on that one! |
Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean they really aren't out to get you. If you read up on the CIAs dirty tricks, you'd know they did a lot of disinformation in the past. Given that Bush Sr was head of the CIA at a time while this was still going on, it's not unreasonable to conclude that the US was doing it again (especially since we'd been doing it again under Reagan). The CIA had people to whom it fed stories at all the major media outlets in the US. I don't see why that wouldn't have still been the case.
As to GP's assertion that given the domestic opposition, they wouldn't have done that, it's a fair criticism, especially since I'm just engaging in speculation. On the other hand, since no one running for Congress, not even the hard core liberals made opposition to war a campaign plank, there wasn't too much danger of losing Congress, even when candidates were getting yelled at by their constituants for not taking a stand (I saw one old man tear into Ill. Senator Simon). I never believed for a second during the build up to the war that Congress was gonna stand up to Bush and say no (even if quite a few did vote against the resolution for war).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
orange
|
 |
It doesn't matter what your name is!
Feb 2000 time: 00:25
|
|
quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Orange, GP is correct. There was wide-spread belief that Iraq would put up some kind of resistence. At first, I said they'd be clobbered by the US, but I let myself get beat-down by the "battle-tested Iraqi army" argument (in retrospect, I have to wonder why since I knew what both US and Iraqi military capabilities were). There were also lots of news stories about Iraq's modern equipment.
A lot of opposition to the war was because of the fear of American casualites.
From a certain PoV, though, it was absolutely brilliant. You downplay your own capabilities and then CRUSH your opponent. You seem even more powerful and invincible than if you had gone in from the beginging saying that it will be an overwhelming victory on the order of the Greeks at Marathon. So, was this the result of a successful disinformation campaign on the part of the US? |
I suppose hindsight clouded my objectivism.
I do remember, and have seen/heard examples of the anti-war effort back in 90-91, but I didn't think there was any legitimacy behind it.
The major newspapers charge for their archive sections though, so I haven't been able to get very far with some searches 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970 time: 21:25
|
|
quote: Originally posted by GP
1. Well if someone who was a WW2 survivor chooses to debate about what the national mood and expectations were at the time of the war...and you are basing your opinions on a Flotd-like knowledge of history from being a wargame buff, I may be a tad inclined to take his opinions a bit more seriously.
2. I'm not making this up, orange. Just read some Op-ed stories from the NYT from 1990.
3. My weapons officer, LCDR Nelson Moe, from SSN 665 was detached shortly before the war and was at Riyadh as part of the staff (strike planning). He gave us a brief shortly after the war had finished. The level of success was much greater than had been expected in August 1990, when planning started. |
The difference around this time is supposed to be urban combat.
My prediction is that the use of unmanned drones will make urban combat much more effective. I'm not saying it will make it "easy" but it certainly will put eyes where they weren't able to go before. Also, remember the US would have proxy fighters in on this as well.
Now, most people think of the predators, but that's not the only use of these bad boys anymore. The Marines are using unmanned recon drones at the UNIT level. So it's much easier, along with next generation thermal sensors, to peek around the corner or look through the door and see what baddies are hidden there.
There was an interesting show about Gulf War 1 where the battleship would launch these little drones, they look just like a toy airplane you would buy at those old hobby shops. They used the drones to target their big artillery guns on the battleships. These things were so accurate, that the Iraqis began to figure out the sound of them, and would start surrendering to these little model airplanes when they flew in.
These little drones are amazing, and can eliminate the threat of those Soviet anti-aircraft missles which were once so devastating to Western and Israeli airforces. Basically what happens is that they "trick" the missles into firing, thinking the little drone is a real f-16 or whatever, and they end up wasting the missle on the drone, and also the drone is so small they can't hit it anyway.
orange,
Everyone I knew at the time were scared sh1tless. We were being bombarded with news that Iraq fielded the 4th largest army in the world and they were using state of the art Soviet equipment (which hadn't yet been tested on a wide scale at that point). Everyone was surprised at how quickly it ended.
Heck, just 2 years ago, we were hearing how Afghanistan was an unwinnable war, it had eaten up two of the strongest empires ever, the British and the Soviets.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
orange
|
 |
It doesn't matter what your name is!
Feb 2000 time: 00:25
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker
orange,
Everyone I knew at the time were scared sh1tless. We were being bombarded with news that Iraq fielded the 4th largest army in the world and they were using state of the art Soviet equipment (which hadn't yet been tested on a wide scale at that point). Everyone was surprised at how quickly it ended.
Heck, just 2 years ago, we were hearing how Afghanistan was an unwinnable war, it had eaten up two of the strongest empires ever, the British and the Soviets. |
Well, I think there's always going to be a group of people that will call any war, whether it be against a large nation like Iran or Egypt, or a small nation like Nicaragua, "another Vietnam" to get anti-war support. Now, I'm against the war on Iraq, but I don't completely buy into the proposed figures on how long a war against Iraq today will take. Will it be much different than Desert Storm - of course. I don't think it will be won quickly. But I certainly have no doubts on our ability to win such a war.
Same thing with Afghanistan. So when GP said there were lots of people talking about Desert Storm as an unwinnable war, I figured it was the same leftist we are the world crowd, and not anything legitimate.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Orange, GP is correct. There was wide-spread belief that Iraq would put up some kind of resistence. At first, I said they'd be clobbered by the US, but I let myself get beat-down by the "battle-tested Iraqi army" argument (in retrospect, I have to wonder why since I knew what both US and Iraqi military capabilities were). There were also lots of news stories about Iraq's modern equipment.
|
Actually, considering the performance of thie "battle hardened army" against the virtually untrained Iranians I was pretty sure that Iraq was going to get creamed then.
If you knew the specs on the Iraqi "modern weapons vs. ours you'd have seen that the contest was a foregone conclusion as well.
We had pretty near parity in numbers in the southern Iraq/Kuwait/northern Saudi Arabia theater then. I'm not sure how the numbers stack up at this time though.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25. Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|