This Just In: Iraq Concedes to Inspections...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MarkG

Very good, you win a cookie, because they didn't allow an attack, they ordered a liberation of Kuwait, how do you think ol Saddam stood in power, charm and good looks?

OH MY GOD! you are really saying that the US didnt overthrow Saddam cause it wasnt authorized by the UN?!?!

The US did not ever exceed the scope of action authorized by the UN with respect to liberating Kuwait and engaging Iraqi ground forces in or transiting to the KTO.

Elements of the US XVIII Corps and the French 6th Light Armored Division had set up a blocking position between Baghdad and the Iraqi army to cut off that line of retreat.

The Iraqis had no effective military strenght between Baghdad and the US blocking position, and the US could have had major elements of three divisions in and around Baghdad within 24 hours, with the first elements effectively able to cut off any reinforcement to Baghdad well before the Iraqis even would have known it.

Saddam was ours, but the US did in fact adhere to the limited scope of action approved by the UN. Had the US not done so, there wasn't **** the rest of the world could have done about it at the time.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Wanna play what if? What if Saddam shucks and jives for 4 months and just before the sorry ass UN decides to act he announces that he has nuclear weapons and will use them to defend himself. What then?

And where are those missing SU nukes anyway?

He has to be able to launch them somehow.

[Capt Dizle]

all you have to do is, like, light the fuse man...

[Thucydides]

Hell, if we shipped over a nuclear bomb tomorrow he couldn't use it for anything except as a tool to keep him from being invaded. If he does have WOMD, we shouldn't invade him as he might as a final act of vindictiveness use it before we take him out of power. Barring that, he won't use a WOMD on another country because the logical end result of such an action would be the destruction of his country and his removal from power. If he invades another country, and then claims that he'll use against the country it if we try to liberate the invaded country, then we can easily call his bluff by threatening to nuke Baghdad if such an action was to occur (hell, even blowing the dam upriver of the Tigris and Euphrates would destroy Baghdad). The point is, it really doesn't matter whether Saddam has a bomb or not because he's not an extremist, he puts his own survival above everything else. Since using a WOMD except in self-defense would result in his own destruction, he wouldn't do it. In countries that are more extremist in there views however, that's another story...

[Chris 62]

Saved me the trouble Reb, thanks.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
all you have to do is, like, light the fuse man...

And if we invade, how much of anything do you think will be in the air without "Made in the USA" stamped all over it?

Scud/al_Hussein's take a long time to set up, especially if you're trying to launch them at target areas that aren't pre-defined. You can be your last dollar that J-STARS and AWACS coverage, plus Scud-buster missions will be all over the friggin' place.

No problem, Yank.

[Capt Dizle]

I feel so much more assured now. Thank you very much.

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


And if we invade, how much of anything do you think will be in the air without "Made in the USA" stamped all over it?

Scud/al_Hussein's take a long time to set up, especially if you're trying to launch them at target areas that aren't pre-defined. You can be your last dollar that J-STARS and AWACS coverage, plus Scud-buster missions will be all over the friggin' place.

No problem, Yank.

The History channel did a story a few weeks ago about a British SAS unit that was looking for SCUD in the last war. They said they never found a single SCUD because Sadam was moving them all the time. Iraq has more tunnels then Vietnam.
Someone said its take to much time to fire a SCUD, I say no. It would take about 10 min.
Leave bunker, drive a hundred feet or yards (2 to 4 min.), stop raise the missile (1 to 2 min.) start computer, used GPS to find out were you are on planet earth. Enter where you want the missile to go (1 to 2 min.), the computer tell the missile how long the burn will be, when to separate the warhead, push the red button and the rest will be history.
That is why the US added the Mobil Russian missiles to START. They could move and fired in a few min. and we could not located them fast enough.

[Capt Dizle]

What we need is a banana smiley.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by joseph1944
The History channel did a story a few weeks ago about a British SAS unit that was looking for SCUD in the last war. They said they never found a single SCUD because Sadam was moving them all the time. Iraq has more tunnels then Vietnam.
Someone said its take to much time to fire a SCUD, I say no. It would take about 10 min.
Leave bunker, drive a hundred feet or yards (2 to 4 min.), stop raise the missile (1 to 2 min.) start computer, used GPS to find out were you are on planet earth. Enter where you want the missile to go (1 to 2 min.), the computer tell the missile how long the burn will be, when to separate the warhead, push the red button and the rest will be history.
That is why the US added the Mobil Russian missiles to START. They could move and fired in a few min. and we could not located them fast enough.

A few minor details. The USAF (or some part of it) owns GPS. In time of war (a la the gulf war), they can selectively deteriorate the accuracy of the open channel GPS signals for a given area, because there are two sets of signals - open and encrypted. Deterioration can take the accuracy down to a matter of 1-2 kilometers or so. You wouldn't drive out of a bunker and use GPS no matter how accurate it was, because you could pre-survey launch points from the bunker, and simply go there. That's not the issue.

This is a minor issue because...

The Scud that the Iraqis use (much earlier than the later SS-25 and similar late model USSR mobile INF launchers) doesn't use GPS onboard navigation. It uses simple-ass gyroscopes for flight stability, and is essentially a ballistic missle, with extremely limited lateral flight correction capability.

Next problem, the Scud-B, Al-Hussein B and Al-Hussein C do not have spin up capability for either the missile or the warhead, so even if the warhead separates (separation failure rate on all Iraqi missiles was atrocious), they're inaccurate as hell, since they tumble. Their CEP accuracy (all models) are abysmal.

Bigger problem, there is no computer to tell the Iraqi Scud variants how long the burn will be. It's a fixed duration burn (80 seconds for the Al-Hussein B) at full fuel load, and the only way you shorten the range is by underloading it. That means you have to fuel it on setup, and there's weight and azimuth tables to play with to set the target range below maximum. The refueling is accomplished by a second vehicle, and they tend to work sloppy and quick (would you like to drive a fuel truck in a war zone in the face of allied air supremacy?)

Your ten minute "ideal" launch time presupposes you have a fixed target of known range and bearin and your missile is prefueld for that range. Blasting a suburb of Tehran or Tel Aviv is one thing, effective use of that weapon against troop or supply concentrations is another thing entirely.

SAS and US SOCOM forces were all over the place on Scud-hunts, and other recon missions. They didn't have that great of a success rate for a number of reasons, weather being one (two US SF troops died of exposure in freezing rain). Their real success was that they were able to monitor movement, so the Iraqi Scuds (not many of them left even by the most aggressive estimates) couldn't be redeployed from their existing locations very far at all.

The much bigger factor this time around will be the increased sophistication and number of J-STARS aircraft and the more extensive use of Predator and similar drones in continuous coverage.


With respect to the START treaty, the biggest issue is that we did not expect to establish immeditate air supremacy over Soviet airspace and thus did not have any means other than countermissile fire and stand off weapons to deal with mobile missiles. By definition, those are inadequate solutions, but that reflects a completely different strategic reality than applies with Iraq.

[Gatekeeper]

MtG, et al.:

What are your thoughts in regards to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter? It seems I get the impression that he speaks out of both sides of his mouth ... yet he does make a salient point or two in the process.

Gatekeeper

[MarkG]

Saddam was ours, but the US did in fact adhere to the limited scope of action approved by the UN.

so how come the US acted on Jugoslavia without the consent of the UN?

/me waits patiently to hear that it was because a Bush wasnt in the white house....

[MichaeltheGreat]

Ritter unfortunately has trashed his own credibility.

He does have a point, in that the realistic threat (a lot is known about Iraqi efforts to import critical technology, and failures to produce critical technology domestically) is not as critical as the hawks would have everyone believe.

There is no strategic urgency to act in days or weeks.

Ritter himself admits though that at the time he left, by his (and the UN's) estimate, only 90 to 95% percent of Iraqi suspected WMD development capability had been wiped out - that's a lot, you'll never get 100% because there's a lot of legit dual use applications (vaccines and pharmaceuticals, medical research).

However, that's just an estimate based on what the UN knew at the time, when it was being more and more obstructed. Is 90% the real number? Or is 75%? Ritter and others are pretty confident about the 90 to 95 number, but Ritter himself admits he has no idea what the Iraqis have done since then.

Is Saddam a long term threat? Hell yes he is. Is he enough of an immediate threat to necessitate war, let alone a unilateral US action? No way.

The big problem is what is going to replace Saddam, with or without US military intervention? His kids are worse than he is, but much dumber. Neither Syria not Turkey (especially Turkey) want a Kurdish independent state or independence movement, and it's our Kurd allies-of-the-moment who are harboring al Qaeda, not the Hussein government. There's a big Shiite population in the south, who are more of a Shiite fundamentalist bent, and who are not particularly fond of a Sunni apostate leader. That's fertile ground for Iranian (the Khamanei personality of the government, not the Khatami one) fun and games.

We are sure as hell not going to "install a democracy" there - we didn't do it in Kuwait, there are no democratic institutions at all in Iraq, and all of our allies in the area are Kings and Emirs, who have no interest in this subversive concept known as democracy. Besides, give them a choice of leaders, and you can guaranteee we won't like who they pick. Put our lackey in place, and you can start a pool on how quick he gets assassinated. The US is just not prepared to go nationbuilding in the middle east. It's really more of an Arab League / UN problem, and if they coddle Saddam, they're the ones who are going to get ****ed.

The whole "he might sell stuff to terrorists if he manages to develop it" line is a bunch of crap. There's tons of terrorists operating in Pakistan and India, there's tons of Russian physisists, engineers and troops guarding nukes who can use a little extra cash - the simple fact is that WMD production is now within the technical reach of far more people than the US can ever thump, and it's getting more available, not less.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MarkG

Saddam was ours, but the US did in fact adhere to the limited scope of action approved by the UN.

so how come the US acted on Jugoslavia without the consent of the UN?

* MarkG waits patiently to hear that it was because a Bush wasnt in the white house....

The whole US / NATO policy in Yugoslavia was a FUBAR, but then look at Clinton's stupidity in Somalia as well.

Personally, I think it was a mistake for us to have not gotten Saddam the first time around, and the UN should have made that determination once it became clear Saddam would have to be driven out by force.

One of the problems was that in order to create the original coalition (remember both Egypt and Syria had large manpower contributions to the Joint Forces Command, as well as the gulf states, Kuwaitis and Saudis), Bush had to promise a lot to the Arabs with respect to limiting the American / UN response to freeing Kuwait - it was a huge potential political issue, and the arab states all look to Iraq as the strategic counter to Iranian power in the gulf.

A weak Iraq means they not only have to deal with an unstable and volatile neighbor in Iraq, but they also have to pick up a lot of slack with respect to containing potential Iranian aggression - the original gulf war was only shortly after the end of the Iran-Iraq war, and various fun and games by the Iranians in the gulf. Everyone was concerned about the Shiite minority in Iraq (very strong in the south) and also the possibility of pro-Iranian and anti-western elements in Saudi Arabia.

[The Mad Monk]

Put our lackey in place, and you can start a pool on how quick he gets assassinated.

...speaking of which, anyone have a pool going on Karzai?