Estimated casualties of a war on Iraq: 1 million people!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
That's how the US will kill 1m people, by bombing the major cities. Suppose the Iraqi troops are withdrawn to the cities, the US either tries to force them to surrender by bombing the hell out of the cities, which will result in huge civilian casualties, or dig them out in ground actions, which will result in lots of body bags.

The total casualties, by the stretchiest, most politically oriented interpretation imaginable (taking nearly every death in the country of someone less than 100 years old) won't come close to a milion.

If the Iraqis retreat into the cities, they have to permanently surrender their mobility, because once dug in, they will never come out and resume mobile operations.

Bridges, railroads, major roadways, etc. will be bombed out quickly to cut down Iraqi mobility, so if they're not in the cities dug in at the outset, most Iraqi forces will never reach there.

The US will establish total ownership of Iraqi airspace within 48 hours (it'll be at the 90%+ level within about 48 minutes ), so no Iraqi forces will move very far. Once in the cities, and immobile, they can be bypassed and isolated by small screening forces, and once US air and ground forces are able to move in and around and through the country virtually unimpeded, the motivation of most Iraqis to fight for Hussein will totally melt away.

Use of psyops, bribes to commanders, and deals to let "dirty" commanders take a nice soft retirement in friendly Saudi Arabia or the destination of their choice will be used to induce surrender of their forces.

90% of Iraqi forces will be creampuffs. The other 10%? It really depends what they do and where they are in the first couple of days. They could be some trouble, but the whole notion of some protracted campaign is pretty unlikely. The best solution to holdout troops, if there are any, is isolation. So I doubt that casualties will be particularly high on either side, although the usual propaganda suspects will try to make a big deal of anything and everything.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sandman
It's simply media hype. High explosives are far worse. Machine guns too. And most especially nukes.

No, there's no reason to classify VX or BW agents as weapons of mass destruction, a 500lb bomb is so much worse.

Comparing 1,000's of tons of conventional ordnance targeted systematically over a period of days or weeks to a one-off haphazard and poorly planned single use of of BW or CW agent is a bit silly, wouldn't one think?

Given anything close to consistent application, BW or CW agents could achieve very high casualties with far lower number of launchers / delivery platforms than conventional attacks.

[chequita guevara]

I thought we already had total control of Iraqi airspace, it's just that we don't excercize it over 1/3rd of their territory.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Agathon
Does the million include dead Americans from the wave of terrorist attacks this will surely cause?

Funny, we weren't doing anything to Afghanistan to really slow down Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorist network, other than bellyaching about the Buddha statues being destroyed. Funny, we were — under former President Clinton — attempting to mediate a final peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Funny how we sent troops and air power in to keep people — Muslim and Christian alike — alive in Kosovo and hosted the Dayton Accords to hopefully bring peace to the rest of the Balkans disrupted by Yugoslavia's breakup.

Funny how all those *civilized* actions did nothing to dissuade al-Qaida and its minions from bringing down the damn World Trade Center, hitting the Pentagon and bringing down an airliner in Pennsylvania, all on Sept. 11, 2001. I mean, you'd think that working to achieve positive outcomes in those areas described above would've done something for the image of the United States. Apparently not.

My point? The bastards who *hated* us while we were doing all that above in the 1990s continue to hate us now, and an invasion (or non-invasion) or Iraq isn't going to change that one iota. All it will change is the timing of when Saddam Hussein will use what he's got on America now, or five years from now. Oh, and probably our allies as well.

Or the thousands who will die laughing at the next US attempt at "justifying" the war. Or the US troops that will be killed by their own side. Including this lot a million seems like a conservative estimate.

Let them die laughing, then. Better that than dying in a flaming skyscraper. Better than dying in a bomb blast. Better than dying from a chemical weapons attack in a subway. Better than dying at a concert packed with young people. To die laughing is a good way to go, rather than being torn asunder by shrapnel.

As for friendly fire incidents, they're always tragic.

One thing's for sure, unlike 911, hardly anyone is going to feel sorry for you next time.

You know what? It's only a matter of time before al-Qaida or any of its associated allies succeed in causing a Sept. 11, 2001, event (or multiples thereof) in Europe. You think backing away from the United States, wailing and gnashing your teeth about U.S. policy is going to spare you from al-Qaida, et al.? Think again, buddy. At most, it will move you down their target list a bit while they continue to deal with the good old US of A and those who walk in stride with us. Eventually, though, they'll return their focus to you and the vaunted security forces will fail and then the blood of thousands will stain Europe in a single horrible day or two. Not dozens or hundreds of dead spread out over years or even decades, but *thousands* in a single strike, in a matter of hours.

I bet those poor folks on Bali thought they'd never be targeted, hmm? Well, Europe is just another Bali waiting to happen, except on a larger scale.

Gatekeeper

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat




No, there's no reason to classify VX or BW agents as weapons of mass destruction, a 500lb bomb is so much worse.

Comparing 1,000's of tons of conventional ordnance targeted systematically over a period of days or weeks to a one-off haphazard and poorly planned single use of of BW or CW agent is a bit silly, wouldn't one think?

Given anything close to consistent application, BW or CW agents could achieve very high casualties with far lower number of launchers / delivery platforms than conventional attacks.

It seems to me that fighting against a modern army (Saddam's doesn't count) very few military casualties are likely to result from even a well-coordinated chemical attack. There are the inevitable deaths that would result from surprised troops, but soon after that wouldn't they be in NBC warfare suits?

The major casualties would result from attacks on civilian centres. The military dogma seems to be (from things I've read on this) that a chemical environment is more of a nuisance than anything else, and worse, is a nuisance that applies to both attacker and defender...

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
"Kill one man and you are a murderer. Kill a million and you are a statesman."

I can't remember who said that.

Nakita Kruschev, i believe... tho IM sure someone has already answered this

[cavebear]

So, after the first 100,000 Iraqi soldiers are wiped out, people think the the rest won't surrender like last time?

And someone has a reason to believe the Iraqi army has changed?Given that our weapons have improved considerably and that theirs have deteriorated, I find this rather difficult to accept.

[KrazyHorse]

Ascribed to Josef Stalin, but according to Chegitz that's apocryphal.

A similar quote (Kill one man and you are a murderer. Kill millions and you are a conqueror.
Kill all and you are a God.) is attributed to Jean Rostand.

[chequita guevara]

Different quote, Frogger. The one you are thinking of is "One death is a tragedy, ten thousand is statistics," (with various numbers often bandied about--and yes, it is apocryphal). The one that tripledoc mentions is new to me, but Google couldn't find it.

[KrazyHorse]

I've heard the statesman one ascribed to stalin. Never heard it ascribed to Kruschev. Doesn't really seem in keeping with my image of Kruschev's personality.

[Zylka]

I think this thread's 100th post just begs the notation that:

IT'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER VIETNAM!!!

(WAKE UP, PEOPLE)

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Frogger
I've heard the statesman one ascribed to stalin. Never heard it ascribed to Kruschev. Doesn't really seem in keeping with my image of Kruschev's personality.

Im probably mistaken then

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Zylka
I think this thread's 100th post just begs the notation that:

IT'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER VIETNAM!!!

(WAKE UP, PEOPLE)

oh my god... I have more respect for the ignorance of those who say this is all about oil...

[Kramerman]

Re: Estimated casualties of a war on Iraq: 1 million people!

Originally posted by paiktis22
Just for oil...


Since there seems to be no way to stop it, I at least hope that the US/UK will do it without a UN mandate.

I'm amazed at the UK I have to say.
Most Brits don't want to, yet they let their government do as it pleases. It is confusing.

And from the Brits here, it is clear that they do not share the American "mind". Yet their government acts like it is a willfull errant boy of the US.

Why?

Let us at least hope that there will be no UN mandate.

Interests aside, 1 million of people will die from US/UK bombs and whatever "interests" speak against a war, I hope they will be heard and prevail, even though I do not see it happening

At least war on Iraq WITHOUT a UN mandate

I Hope France and Germany will hold strong and continue to make Europe proud.

where is Paiktis, btw? Havent heard one arguement from 'em attempting to substaniate the claim of 1000000 deaths (damn thats a lot of zeros...).

[Zylka]

HOLY KARP, KAMERMANNAN - JUST KEEP ON SWALLOWING

(PS THE GOVERNMENT IS PUTTING FLUORIDE IN OUR WATER!!@@)