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

[KrazyHorse]

Commie bastard.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Arrian
I apologize if this has been posted before, and even if not, for its length But I found it interesting:

Truth be told, IMO Agathon posted the most interesting anti-Iraq War article I've seen so far. It's certainly put my opinions on the matter in doubt at least.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Getting rid of Hussein isn't a bad goal.

There are two fatal flaws in the present scenario:

A lack of vision of what to do/have in a post-Saddam Iraq, which also encompasses the issue of what portion of our combat forces are tied up in occupation duties and for how long.

The second one is the disinterest (and this gets to the whole weakness of the Franks-Shinseki-Myers trio in dealing with the Rumsfeld's limited world view) in the details of ground combat and ground occupation on the part of Rumsfeld and his bunch (Wolfowitz, Perle, Armitage et al).

Kicking the Iraqi's ass and "winning" on the battlefield is not an issue, but it's the whole "Gee, pa, whadowedonow? problem after the fact that is the complete and total sticking point.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
it's the whole "Gee, pa, whadowedonow? problem after the fact that is the complete and total sticking point.

Only for those who have bothered to think about the issue.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Given the US performance in Somolia, it is unreasonable to think that casualties will be very low for either side.

IIRC the casualty ratio in the botched operation in Mogadishu was something like 50 to 1. The type of equipment and number of troops deployed to Somalia was severely limited by certain political considerations. These considerations are not in effect in Iraq, so US troops should perform much better.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


IIRC the casualty ratio in the botched operation in Mogadishu was something like 50 to 1. The type of equipment and number of troops deployed to Somalia was severely limited by certain political considerations. These considerations are not in effect in Iraq, so US troops should perform much better.

Translation: "Gee PAW... all our new toys are purdy and will help us kill those Mooslums..."

[Sandman]

Well, perhaps you should be clear on what is your alleged basis of comparison? Single round al-Hussein D missile with conventional vs. CW munition? Single round 152 mm arty, conventional ground-burst HE vs. CW?

Conventional scuds versus chemical or biological scuds.

Assuming that you use non-persistent, low adhesion, low level agents that are more subject to wind and rain effects. There's a fairly wide variety of available choices. Gas masks are meaningless against agents that can be absorbed by skin contact, and full suits take time to deploy. Both have severe effects on situational awareness, so they degrade combat capability to a great degree. Full suits, depending on weather, have a high propensity to cause heat and fatigue cases, further degrading combat capability, which is almost paralyzed with persistent, adhesive agents like VX.

Even the effectiveness of persistant chemical weapons is blunted by wind and rain, and high temperatures decrease the persistance as well, as it boils off quicker.

Gas masks protect the most vulnerable part of the body from absorbing chemical agents; the lungs. Whilst some gases can be absorbed through the skin, the gas mask buys vital time to administer antidotes, put on a suit or move to clearer air.

Combat capability is not so important when dealing with chemicals, since the enemy is not going to send out troops in chem suits, since they would also be at an even worse disadvantage.

Medical supplies close at hand is a non-issue for mass casualty situations involving high lethality agents like VX. Many forward medics would also be casualties, there aren't enough medics in the force, and their ability to move to and treat casualties effectively when suited up (assuming they're not casualties themselves). Casualties wouldn't survive long enough to get evac'd to a batallion aid station, and the main priority of all troops wouldn't be casualty evacuation (from a contaminated area to a clean area with persistent agents), it would be docontamination and scrubdown procedures in place.

An injection is all that's needed to not immediately die from a serious dose of VX. Medics are not strictly necessary; the troops can use the antidote themselves (long term side-effects could be nasty though). To produce a highly lethal dosage that could quickly produce mass casualties would also be pretty difficult, given the unpredictability of chemical weapons.

Yeah, if you had tons, delivered over a sustained period of time, you'd eventually rack up major casualties. Maybe as many as 10-15% of the troops you bombed the hell out of, unless they were just strolling in the open with no cover available. Come to think of it, they'd be screwed geese if they were hit by CW munitions in that situation too.

I admit I was overexaggerating the ineffectiveness of gas compared to explosives on this point. Against poorly equipped, poorly trained, densely packed troops it will be very effective, that's why Iraq invested in it.

What about it? You're not going to deliver these things with 120mm mortars. Rocket artillery against area targets like airfields, or compounds like KKMC in Saudi, against port areas and supply points, with persistent, adhesive agents, and you've got exactly what you want in terms of effect - and it's not like there's a shortage of those types of targets.

Well, you've been hinting at a frontline situation in your earlier paragraphs. But attacking supply depots with nerve gas seems like a waste when explosives would cause more lasting damage. What effect would nerve gas have on a runway or a loading bay? A massive nerve gas attack on a base would be nasty for the inhabitants, but not the base itself. Why not go for a massive conventional attack and put the base out of action for good?

How about armor, cover, air defenses, counterbattery arty, etc. for starters.

Ok, you've got me there. But I'd still rather face a gas shell than an explosive one.

And what about biological weapons?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sandman


Conventional scuds versus chemical or biological scuds.

The only Scud (actually, an al-Hussein, B model IIRC, since the Iraqi missiles are fairly extensively modified from the USSR original) which did appreciable damage did so accidentally - the one that dropped on the Dhahran barracks after the engine got blown off by a Patriot hit. The alteration of the ballistic trajectory took a missile that would have missed anything by a mile or two and dropped it's warhead right in the middle of a barracks. Given the Scud / al Hussein's notorious inaccuracy, I wouldn't be worried much about any with conventional explosives - it's pure accident if they hit anything in the first place, and the warhead mass ( 500 or 1,000 lbs, depending on al-Hussein model) isn't much for wide area damage. It'll ruin your day if it practically drops on top of you, but that's true of anything.

Even the effectiveness of persistant chemical weapons is blunted by wind and rain, and high temperatures decrease the persistance as well, as it boils off quicker.

Yes, but you're talking hours (infinite amount of time in a battlefield or direct combat support situation), and you have to proceed from the assumption that anything potentially contaminated, is contaminated. The clean-up procedures effectively paralyze the normal function of whatever the target is, until NBC detectors and tests report negatively.

Gas masks protect the most vulnerable part of the body from absorbing chemical agents; the lungs. Whilst some gases can be absorbed through the skin, the gas mask buys vital time to administer antidotes, put on a suit or move to clearer air.

If you get to employ it in time. A smart SOB (with accurate weapons, which the Iraqis don't have) would first put in a few HE rounds to get everyone to ground, then CW - then back to HE to restrict movement in the attack area. Minimizing casualties for CW is dependent on almost immediate awareness of a CW attack.

Combat capability is not so important when dealing with chemicals, since the enemy is not going to send out troops in chem suits, since they would also be at an even worse disadvantage.

Combat capability is always important. Anything from responding to later attacks by conventional munitions artillery, or the jitteriness troops would have after chemical exposure and their tendency to rapidly suit up if in doubt regarding later attacks. Or take the simple inability of a unit to respond effectively for some time. It's a little tougher to see the point, since we're talking US vs Iraq, than US vs a competent enemy with modern equipment and doctrine, but being able to render a given unit ineffective for a period of time, or a given area unusable for a period of time, is a nice capability to have.

Also, once suited up, and confirmed that you're under a CW attack, you have to remain suited up until the appropriate units can detect and isolate the specific CW agent(s) (which can be a real pain if you slip in the occasional VX round in an attack primarily with GA or GB type agents), and make sure that the appropriate decon procedures have been followed. It's not like you can just drive away and take off your MOPP-IV's by hand.

An injection is all that's needed to not immediately die from a serious dose of VX. Medics are not strictly necessary; the troops can use the antidote themselves (long term side-effects could be nasty though). To produce a highly lethal dosage that could quickly produce mass casualties would also be pretty difficult, given the unpredictability of chemical weapons.

If there's indications of VX gaseous exposure to the lungs (as opposed to liquid droplets or contact exposure) the Atropine injection has to be given directly in the heart, and very quickly after exposure.

I admit I was overexaggerating the ineffectiveness of gas compared to explosives on this point. Against poorly equipped, poorly trained, densely packed troops it will be very effective, that's why Iraq invested in it.

More of the effects are indirect and secondary - the avoidance of mass casualties entails procedures and actions that are difficult, time consuming, and effectively impedes the target unit's performance of it's mission.

Well, you've been hinting at a frontline situation in your earlier paragraphs. But attacking supply depots with nerve gas seems like a waste when explosives would cause more lasting damage. What effect would nerve gas have on a runway or a loading bay? A massive nerve gas attack on a base would be nasty for the inhabitants, but not the base itself. Why not go for a massive conventional attack and put the base out of action for good?

Area denial is always a function of time - you don't need to wipe out a base (which may be useful to you later), if you can simply prevent an enemy from making use of it. Attacking supply depots with nerve agents means the depot shuts down and ceases to function as such until everything in it is decontaminated and cleared.

Ok, you've got me there. But I'd still rather face a gas shell than an explosive one.

Deal, you get the VX, I'll take my chances with HE.

And what about biological weapons?

Bioweapons are much more variable than CW, because of the range of possible agents and the ways they can be released. Given the dust inherent in a battlefield situation, and the delay in onset of symptoms, anthrax spores could be real handy - way beyond direct effects. Think about it - how aggressive do you think troops would be (or they'd spend their whole time fighting in MOPP-IV's) moving into areas and occupying buildings, etc., after anthrax spores had been discovered in some previously occupied area?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


IIRC the casualty ratio in the botched operation in Mogadishu was something like 50 to 1. The type of equipment and number of troops deployed to Somalia was severely limited by certain political considerations. These considerations are not in effect in Iraq, so US troops should perform much better.

Fatalities were about 25 to 1, total casualties more like 15-20 to 1.

The basic FUBAR was that Aspin denied TF Ranger the support and tools necessary to carry out the assigned mission, because they'd already been withdrawn, and Clinton didn't want to be seen as either: going back in in force, when he was trying to half assedly get out (hint: Don't pick fights after you've withdrawn most of your forces); or as being too "provocative" (Hint: If you're going to try to kidnap the biggest warlord and his staff, you probably can't do much more to piss his supporters off, ever in a million years, so don't sweat being "provocative")

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


There are a lot of people who have a reason to fight to the death in the Iraqi military, given what will happen to them if they are ever tried.

Given the US performance in Somolia, it is unreasonable to think that casualties will be very low for either side.

In the Battle of Mogadishu 17 American soldiers died... and between 500 and 1000 Somalis died. Taken in to consideration the fact that the soldiers were very ill prepared for the **** up of their mission and the results that followed, that only gives me more confidence for fully trained and ready US combat troops. Of course the fighters will be different on both sides, so not too much of a comparison can be fairly made.

[chequita guevara]

Does anyone here think the Iraqis will be as ill-trained and ill-equipped as the Somalis? Both sides are gonna be better armed, better trained, and have more forces available to fight. I figure a ten or twenty to one casualty ration in Iraq is not out of the question. All I'm saying is it's gonna be bloodier than Afganistan, Gulf War 1 or even Lebanon. That doesn't mean we're gonna see tens of thousands of US casualties or that it's gonna be another Vietnam.

[KrazyHorse]

IT'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER VIETNAM!!!!!!

[Zylka]

WHAT THE HECK?!?!

[KrazyHorse]

WHO THE **** ARE YOU?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Does anyone here think the Iraqis will be as ill-trained and ill-equipped as the Somalis?

Worse, for the most part.