Peter Cairns

Of course if it is a radra device then there is the possibility that the instant you turn it on to find if there is someone in the next room. any opponent with a range finder up to a mile away knows exactly where you are. It's find against a low tech opponent, but it should be greeted with caution. An opponent that can rig a sophisticated IED, might well be able to rig a backpack full of semtex to go off when one of these things is turned on in the room next door, and then it's Bye, bye, detector, bye bye, squad, bye bye building. Peter.

Well I've been away for a while guys changing ISP's so now I am back i'll put in my tuppense worth. Karl Popper, Nobel prize winning philosopher did a Classic piece of work decades back on the nature of scientific truth. In it he pointed out that all we can really say is what we definitely know not to be true, things like at standard tempreture and pressure a lighted match won't set fire to a glass of water, so far so good. However this left us with the problem of all the unknowns, especially at the edge, where we just don't know, If we take the line that if we cannot disprove it it could be true then anything is possible, and scientific progress stalls as every prospect has equal merit. So what popper suggested was that we should look at probability not possibility. Thus although we cannot prove without doubtthat at any moment people might not strt transforming in to ducks and flying off, all we do know and understand suggests that it is highly unlikely, in fact so unlikely that we dismiss it. Now as someone who has doubts about some of Poppers work Ido in general follow his Philosophy and here I'll apply them to some of the things mentioned. OK The Philadelphia project or whatever, I read about it years back and i've always taken the view that they were probably doing work on advanced DeGuassing, for magnetic mines or even as a means or attempt to foil radar. And well they put to much electricity in to a metal hull and set fire to the wiring, probably killed some people and electricuted some more etc. No time travel no invisibility no aliens. Are Aliens , time travel and invisibility all possiblely involved YES. Are any of them in any way probable, NO If you live in a one dice world then you get six possibilities, one to six all the same. If you live in a two dice world you get thirty six possibilies, but the chance of a two ( in in thirty six) is only a sixth of getting a seven (six possibilities). If for something to happen six events need to happen in a row and the chance is 9 out of 10, then you get a chance of about 53 % ( 9*9*9*9+9+9)/(10*10*10*10*10*10) But if the chance is only 1 in 10 for each then you get 1 in a million. I've know doubt that using electromagnatism you can get a flying sauser to fly, but to get it to hover you need enogh power to light a samll city and even then if it leaves the magnetic field it falls like a stone. In theory and indeed it practice it is possible, but the probability of turning it in to a practicle flying machine is virtually nill, so yes you can make a tinfoil saucer rise in a strong field in your garage, but for a fraction of the enegry you can produce a far more spectacular and effective saucer in your back yard, it's called a frizbee..... As to the 8mm Plasma weapon. I think the most probable candidate is something like a Shmel or one of the later generation soviet single shot AT rounds, and although Steve and I tend to have slightly differeing views on Irans involvement in Iraq, something comming across from the East with or without offical Iranian sanction is "Probable". Some new and unknow advanced technology super weapon is " possible" but not probable. So there. Peter.

Steve I am not buying your logic. The Syrians can't win a war, so there best tactic is to prevent it, therefore the best strategic defence is to do the one thing the US doesn't want them too, which is turn Damacus in to a fortress. If that doesn't stop the war then it is certainly the best way to prelong it, and that at least offers the hope that Support in and for the US will melt away. Okay so lets say I can't get everyone to stay in the capital, where are they going to go, North across the mountains to the Lebanon, yeh they'll get a warm welcome there. In Cars towards the US in a shooting war, doubtful as you said yourself SOP says shoot any vehicle that could be construde a threat, and besides civilians don't run towards the war. I didn't come across many news reports of people abandoning Baghdad for the desert. Lets say a million leave and that leaves me half a million, where is the US going to put it's million, in tents in the desert over winter? Who's commanding Strker force... Moses... If the Syrians can turn the war in to a humanitarian disaster they can win. What do you do with all the males of fighting age in that 1 million, ask Fidel for a bigger bit of Cuba. As to the iraqi's fading away, well what do you expect, they'd been hammered in Kuwait and by the time the US reached Bagdad ever unit in their path had been rolled up. So you avoid that mistake, you don't try to fight all along the road to Damascus. You fortify key towns over your six month preparation period, not forgetting food and water, and let the US have the desert for free, they can keep it. Thats what Vann advised the Vietnamese ( and Westmoreland) to do. The jungles useless let them have it. The land doesn't matter it's the people that count. Put about half of the regular army split between Damascus and Aleppo, and disperse the rest with orders to avoid contact till after the siege begins. "You Never fight the Same War Twice", doesn't mean it will be worse, but that it will be different, your comparison with Bagdad assumes it will be the same. The Syrians know and have seen on TV that no one can match the US in the open, they may be unreformed, but they aren't morons. It also assumes that the errors Saddam made aren't pretty obvious. Trying to fight the US failed it Kuwait so Saddam changed tactics and placed his army in large units along the Allied advance route, in an attempt to delay them, he had some success in the close urban fighting but in the end that didn't work either. So the only real successes if you can call them that were when the US was draw in to urban or close terrain and close combat. It's not much but it's all the Syrians have to build on. You don't have to be a genius to work out that that points to only one realistic chance for the Syrians from a strategic point of view. FORTRESS DAMASCUS. It's not great but it's the best option they have. Oh one other thing, I am not big on the Russian front but I do know that the US formally offered aid to Russia in July 41 and set out the practicals at a conference at the end of Oct 41. As the Germans were on the outskirts of Moscow within a month of that I hardly think that american aid was a factor. Leningrad had been under siege for three months by then, and it lasted 900 days. Peter.

Steve I am not buying your logic. The Syrians can't win a war, so there best tactic is to prevent it, therefore the best strategic defence is to do the one thing the US doesn't want them too, which is turn Damacus in to a fortress. If that doesn't stop the war then it is certainly the best way to prelong it, and that at least offers the hope that Support in and for the US will melt away. Okay so lets say I can't get everyone to stay in the capital, where are they going to go, North across the mountains to the Lebanon, yeh they'll get a warm welcome there. In Cars towards the US in a shooting war, doubtful as you said yourself SOP says shoot any vehicle that could be construde a threat, and besides civilians don't run towards the war. I didn't come across many news reports of people abandoning Baghdad for the desert. Lets say a million leave and that leaves me half a million, where is the US going to put it's million, in tents in the desert over winter? Who's commanding Strker force... Moses... If the Syrians can turn the war in to a humanitarian disaster they can win. What do you do with all the males of fighting age in that 1 million, ask Fidel for a bigger bit of Cuba. As to the iraqi's fading away, well what do you expect, they'd been hammered in Kuwait and by the time the US reached Bagdad ever unit in their path had been rolled up. So you avoid that mistake, you don't try to fight all along the road to Damascus. You fortify key towns over your six month preparation period, not forgetting food and water, and let the US have the desert for free, they can keep it. Thats what Vann advised the Vietnamese ( and Westmoreland) to do. The jungles useless let them have it. The land doesn't matter it's the people that count. Put about half of the regular army split between Damascus and Aleppo, and disperse the rest with orders to avoid contact till after the siege begins. "You Never fight the Same War Twice", doesn't mean it will be worse, but that it will be different, your comparison with Bagdad assumes it will be the same. The Syrians know and have seen on TV that no one can match the US in the open, they may be unreformed, but they aren't morons. It also assumes that the errors Saddam made aren't pretty obvious. Trying to fight the US failed it Kuwait so Saddam changed tactics and placed his army in large units along the Allied advance route, in an attempt to delay them, he had some success in the close urban fighting but in the end that didn't work either. So the only real successes if you can call them that were when the US was draw in to urban or close terrain and close combat. It's not much but it's all the Syrians have to build on. You don't have to be a genius to work out that that points to only one realistic chance for the Syrians from a strategic point of view. FORTRESS DAMASCUS. It's not great but it's the best option they have. Oh one other thing, I am not big on the Russian front but I do know that the US formally offered aid to Russia in July 41 and set out the practicals at a conference at the end of Oct 41. As the Germans were on the outskirts of Moscow within a month of that I hardly think that american aid was a factor. Leningrad had been under siege for three months by then, and it lasted 900 days. Peter.

Steve I am not buying your logic. The Syrians can't win a war, so there best tactic is to prevent it, therefore the best strategic defence is to do the one thing the US doesn't want them too, which is turn Damacus in to a fortress. If that doesn't stop the war then it is certainly the best way to prelong it, and that at least offers the hope that Support in and for the US will melt away. Okay so lets say I can't get everyone to stay in the capital, where are they going to go, North across the mountains to the Lebanon, yeh they'll get a warm welcome there. In Cars towards the US in a shooting war, doubtful as you said yourself SOP says shoot any vehicle that could be construde a threat, and besides civilians don't run towards the war. I didn't come across many news reports of people abandoning Baghdad for the desert. Lets say a million leave and that leaves me half a million, where is the US going to put it's million, in tents in the desert over winter? Who's commanding Strker force... Moses... If the Syrians can turn the war in to a humanitarian disaster they can win. What do you do with all the males of fighting age in that 1 million, ask Fidel for a bigger bit of Cuba. As to the iraqi's fading away, well what do you expect, they'd been hammered in Kuwait and by the time the US reached Bagdad ever unit in their path had been rolled up. So you avoid that mistake, you don't try to fight all along the road to Damascus. You fortify key towns over your six month preparation period, not forgetting food and water, and let the US have the desert for free, they can keep it. Thats what Vann advised the Vietnamese ( and Westmoreland) to do. The jungles useless let them have it. The land doesn't matter it's the people that count. Put about half of the regular army split between Damascus and Aleppo, and disperse the rest with orders to avoid contact till after the siege begins. "You Never fight the Same War Twice", doesn't mean it will be worse, but that it will be different, your comparison with Bagdad assumes it will be the same. The Syrians know and have seen on TV that no one can match the US in the open, they may be unreformed, but they aren't morons. It also assumes that the errors Saddam made aren't pretty obvious. Trying to fight the US failed it Kuwait so Saddam changed tactics and placed his army in large units along the Allied advance route, in an attempt to delay them, he had some success in the close urban fighting but in the end that didn't work either. So the only real successes if you can call them that were when the US was draw in to urban or close terrain and close combat. It's not much but it's all the Syrians have to build on. You don't have to be a genius to work out that that points to only one realistic chance for the Syrians from a strategic point of view. FORTRESS DAMASCUS. It's not great but it's the best option they have. Oh one other thing, I am not big on the Russian front but I do know that the US formally offered aid to Russia in July 41 and set out the practicals at a conference at the end of Oct 41. As the Germans were on the outskirts of Moscow within a month of that I hardly think that american aid was a factor. Leningrad had been under siege for three months by then, and it lasted 900 days. Peter.

Sorry Steve, I just can't see the US propping up Assad by force, even if Bin Laden was sworn in to office, Their international credibility is at an all time low, and their is no way this administrations supporters would back it let alone the democrats. If the regeme was to implode and it looked like "verifiable" quantities of Syrians Chemical weapons were to fall in to the hands of iraqi sunni's then you have a pretext for action and a credible basis for CM:SF, but not bring back assad, There is compromise and there is hypocracy, and they are different things. One is pragmatic the other deceitful, one is grudgingly accepted the other denounced. As to Damascus, I thought you were the last person i should tell " You Never Fight the Same War Twice", to throw out or dismiss a generation of concern over urban warfare developed since Hue, because "Well Bagdah wasn't bad" is the worst kind of wishful thinking. As I told c3k, one of the worst mistakes you can make is to assume your enemy is stupid. Peter.

Sorry Steve, I just can't see the US propping up Assad by force, even if Bin Laden was sworn in to office, Their international credibility is at an all time low, and their is no way this administrations supporters would back it let alone the democrats. If the regeme was to implode and it looked like "verifiable" quantities of Syrians Chemical weapons were to fall in to the hands of iraqi sunni's then you have a pretext for action and a credible basis for CM:SF, but not bring back assad, There is compromise and there is hypocracy, and they are different things. One is pragmatic the other deceitful, one is grudgingly accepted the other denounced. As to Damascus, I thought you were the last person i should tell " You Never Fight the Same War Twice", to throw out or dismiss a generation of concern over urban warfare developed since Hue, because "Well Bagdah wasn't bad" is the worst kind of wishful thinking. As I told c3k, one of the worst mistakes you can make is to assume your enemy is stupid. Peter.

Sorry Steve, I just can't see the US propping up Assad by force, even if Bin Laden was sworn in to office, Their international credibility is at an all time low, and their is no way this administrations supporters would back it let alone the democrats. If the regeme was to implode and it looked like "verifiable" quantities of Syrians Chemical weapons were to fall in to the hands of iraqi sunni's then you have a pretext for action and a credible basis for CM:SF, but not bring back assad, There is compromise and there is hypocracy, and they are different things. One is pragmatic the other deceitful, one is grudgingly accepted the other denounced. As to Damascus, I thought you were the last person i should tell " You Never Fight the Same War Twice", to throw out or dismiss a generation of concern over urban warfare developed since Hue, because "Well Bagdah wasn't bad" is the worst kind of wishful thinking. As I told c3k, one of the worst mistakes you can make is to assume your enemy is stupid. Peter.

ozi_digger, Thanks that was a great help it gives really detailed maps of the whole of Syria. Unfortunately they are in Russian. However it does look like that feature is some kind of hill side quarry right enough. From the spot heights on the map I'd say most of the city is about 700m Above sea level , but the slopes to the North about 1100m, some 1,000ft higher. The ridge itself is about 2km wide. http://sunsite.berkeley.edu:8085/syria/100k/09-37-085.jpg There are some wierd round layouts to the south west of the city, just above a town called "KNCYA", no idea what they are. There are two other airfields to the Noth West that are new plus one close in on the west. The main international airport to the East doesn't show on this map. I am surprised how much grren there is though I don't have a key so it could be just cultivated ground rather the tree cover. Thanks again mate. Peter.

ozi_digger, Thanks that was a great help it gives really detailed maps of the whole of Syria. Unfortunately they are in Russian. However it does look like that feature is some kind of hill side quarry right enough. From the spot heights on the map I'd say most of the city is about 700m Above sea level , but the slopes to the North about 1100m, some 1,000ft higher. The ridge itself is about 2km wide. http://sunsite.berkeley.edu:8085/syria/100k/09-37-085.jpg There are some wierd round layouts to the south west of the city, just above a town called "KNCYA", no idea what they are. There are two other airfields to the Noth West that are new plus one close in on the west. The main international airport to the East doesn't show on this map. I am surprised how much grren there is though I don't have a key so it could be just cultivated ground rather the tree cover. Thanks again mate. Peter.

ozi_digger, Thanks that was a great help it gives really detailed maps of the whole of Syria. Unfortunately they are in Russian. However it does look like that feature is some kind of hill side quarry right enough. From the spot heights on the map I'd say most of the city is about 700m Above sea level , but the slopes to the North about 1100m, some 1,000ft higher. The ridge itself is about 2km wide. http://sunsite.berkeley.edu:8085/syria/100k/09-37-085.jpg There are some wierd round layouts to the south west of the city, just above a town called "KNCYA", no idea what they are. There are two other airfields to the Noth West that are new plus one close in on the west. The main international airport to the East doesn't show on this map. I am surprised how much grren there is though I don't have a key so it could be just cultivated ground rather the tree cover. Thanks again mate. Peter.

MikeyD , Yeh but the legitimate Government is Assad and he's as big a thug as his dad. Thats like the US intervening to prop up Saddam if the Iranians had invaded in 2001. Hardly likely. We could see a sort of "Sandy revolution" like the Ukraines "Orange" one, and intervene to stop a blood bath, but even that would be highly unlikely unless the US wanted to be opportunistic. Given allied support for Iraq was limited, and the current post OIF feeling in the US both of those are doubtful too. Peter.

MikeyD , Yeh but the legitimate Government is Assad and he's as big a thug as his dad. Thats like the US intervening to prop up Saddam if the Iranians had invaded in 2001. Hardly likely. We could see a sort of "Sandy revolution" like the Ukraines "Orange" one, and intervene to stop a blood bath, but even that would be highly unlikely unless the US wanted to be opportunistic. Given allied support for Iraq was limited, and the current post OIF feeling in the US both of those are doubtful too. Peter.

MikeyD , Yeh but the legitimate Government is Assad and he's as big a thug as his dad. Thats like the US intervening to prop up Saddam if the Iranians had invaded in 2001. Hardly likely. We could see a sort of "Sandy revolution" like the Ukraines "Orange" one, and intervene to stop a blood bath, but even that would be highly unlikely unless the US wanted to be opportunistic. Given allied support for Iraq was limited, and the current post OIF feeling in the US both of those are doubtful too. Peter.

It's not the airport , thats about 12km or so to the east, It looks more like a quarry to me. If it is an airport it seems to have the terminal at the end of the main runway, which is dumb even for the Syrians. Peter.

It's not the airport , thats about 12km or so to the east, It looks more like a quarry to me. If it is an airport it seems to have the terminal at the end of the main runway, which is dumb even for the Syrians. Peter.

It's not the airport , thats about 12km or so to the east, It looks more like a quarry to me. If it is an airport it seems to have the terminal at the end of the main runway, which is dumb even for the Syrians. Peter.

undead reindeer cavalry, thanks for the info. I think i'll try Google for a map, I have my doubts about the airport though. Dorosh, It may be gaudy, but turn it from white to black and you get Revenge of the Sith.... Peter.

undead reindeer cavalry, thanks for the info. I think i'll try Google for a map, I have my doubts about the airport though. Dorosh, It may be gaudy, but turn it from white to black and you get Revenge of the Sith.... Peter.

undead reindeer cavalry, thanks for the info. I think i'll try Google for a map, I have my doubts about the airport though. Dorosh, It may be gaudy, but turn it from white to black and you get Revenge of the Sith.... Peter.

undead reindeer cavalry, Using armour and SP's in towns doesn't preclude using ATGM's I'd rather not waste them in open country either. Besides I seem to recall that some of the minimum ranges for ATGM's aren't exactly "short", some aren't armed to almost 100m. Using one thing doesn't preclude using another, it isn't tank or ATGM, it's wasted tank in the wastes or useful tank in the town. Steve. Leningrad and Stalingrad came under siege when most of European Russia was already over run, So I'd on't think I would count on them fading away. Secondly if the regeme ( if there is one) decided to go for "God and Country", then pulling the Bulk back in to the "holy City" to " defend the People form the Invading Infidel", would a) avoid it getting pasted in the open, whivh is pretty much inevitable if they stand let alone manouver. and Plays to the people rather nicely. It also means that even if they only have 200 BMP-3's thats where you'll find them. Nationally they may not be significant but locally well used, they could be nasty. They are versatile and the width compared to an M-1 gives them an urban advantage in the defensive. Also if the US want to avoid the hot summer and it gets in to say the winter, It snows in Damascus, and the Plateau to the east and Iraq, is cold and wet in the winter. In that situation it would be firstly uncomfortable for the US and secondly besieging 1.5m civilians might not go down well internationally. Of 15m population almost a third are in only five cities. Depending on the resistance to the US from the general population and the bulk of the army disperesed around the country I' d think going for the valiant siege and fortifying the big five is the way to go. By my reading of the CIA world book, the road infrastructure off the main routes is a lot more like Afghanistan than Iraq, and there is as far as I can make out only one road to Iraq, hardly ideal for suppling a siege of a city. Also if you can pull some stuff north of Damascus in to the mountains where they can move in to the Lebanon, you might be able to do what the Iraqi's are doing from Syria right now. this is quite good for basics on the cities etc. http://www.cafe-syria.com Peter.

I know I posted the web page with the aerial photo of Damascus, but does anyone know what some of the main features are and the scale . Middle to upper far left there is a huge thing that looks like a cross between an airport and a race track? Whats the name and size of that central roundabout, and what is the dark cross on red building to the right and slightly down. also look how densly packed the housing ( if it is housing) seems to be in the middle right hand side. Peter.

I know I posted the web page with the aerial photo of Damascus, but does anyone know what some of the main features are and the scale . Middle to upper far left there is a huge thing that looks like a cross between an airport and a race track? Whats the name and size of that central roundabout, and what is the dark cross on red building to the right and slightly down. also look how densly packed the housing ( if it is housing) seems to be in the middle right hand side. Peter.

I know I posted the web page with the aerial photo of Damascus, but does anyone know what some of the main features are and the scale . Middle to upper far left there is a huge thing that looks like a cross between an airport and a race track? Whats the name and size of that central roundabout, and what is the dark cross on red building to the right and slightly down. also look how densly packed the housing ( if it is housing) seems to be in the middle right hand side. Peter.

Styeve, Well I have to say I more or less agree with everyrthing you said except one, I am seriously concerned about the belief that you can't stop them taking Damascus. In the case of Bagdhad, the bulk of the regular army was out of the picture by the time the US entered the city, destroyed or bypassed. If however the strategy adopted is to pull alot of all be it antequated armour and artillery in to the city, then it's a different picture. If we get a Leningrad or Stalingrad, then it all changes. A city the size of Damascus isn't Fallugha(?). and if it has a determined defence and the backing of the population it could be a tough nut to crack. Damascus is said to be the oldest inhabited city in the world, over 4,500 years. It is one of the worlds heritage jewels and contains the worlds first and I believe oldest Mosque. It is riddled with both ancient backstreets and sprawling unplanned suburbs. In short there are miriad issues in any assault and capture. Dillweed. You haven't mentioned nationalism. Huge numbers of Syrians have done military service and like most arab nations even if they hate the regeme, they love their country. I am not saying they would suddenly turn in to an army overnight, but it is a big mistake to discount them. Look at Germany in WW2, " Right or Wrong, My Country", was a far greater motivator that the Nazi's, and as for Russia, It's remembered as " The Great Patriotic War", because it was patriotism not communism that drove peole on. Peter.