Peter Cairns

Heres a good image, Peter

JC_Hare, interesting post JC but you ommitted the title of the publication. so here it is. THE MIDDLE EAST FORUM Promoting Americas Interests. It's even got a mission statement. Mission The Middle East Forum, a think tank, works to define and promote American interests in the Middle East through research, publications, and educational outreach. The Forum's policy recommendations include fighting radical Islam (rather than terrorism), convincing the Palestinians that Israel is permanent, reducing funds going to the Middle East for energy purchases, slowing down the democratization process, and more robustly asserting U.S. interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia. In addition, the Forum works to improve Middle East studies in North America. MEF sees the region, with its profusion of dictatorships, radical ideologies, existential conflicts, border disagreements, political violence, and weapons of mass destruction as a major source of problems for the United States. Accordingly, it urges active measures to protect Americans and their allies. Toward this end, the Forum seeks to help shape the intellectual climate in which U.S. foreign policy is made by addressing key issues in a timely and accessible way for a sophisticated public. I particularly liked this bit, reducing funds going to the Middle East for energy purchases, slowing down the democratization process Peter.

Sorry done it again, i'll get the hang of this one day.... http://www.ecotour-iran.com/glance_zagros.htm Peter.

Nidan1, Flying from Israel before you get to Tehran you need to cross this. Peter.

Of course the question this whole debate opens up is will you be able too, or indeed will Strykers be "rollable" in the game. Two answers, One, As they roll in real life, they should be rollable in the game, and Two, Once people know how and what will roll it, they will start designing Gamey" terrain to do it deliberately. As far as I know you couldn't roll vehicles in any of the CM1 games, they just refused to go that far, which is one way to deal with the problem. It all depends on just how frequently these things are rolling in terms of total hours in the field. I suppose you could do a rough calculation of how many Strykers in Iraq, x how many hours running each per day, x how many days in theatre, / number of roll overs. This would give you a very (very) rough rolls per hour, which you could compare with an average CM:SF game to get a chance of rollover per game. On this basis I think a CM1 abort option of having them stop or reverse before tipping, would probably be most realistic, as the frequency of roll overs doesn't justify simulation in terms of either authenticity or programming time. Thoughts please Steve! Peter.

I LIVE IN SCOTLAND Since we banned handguns, There has been no major increase in Burglaries, agreesive or otherwise. I know of no cases in the last decade of "whole families being tied Up". As the vast majority of Scots never had guns then the tiny minority who did haven't changed criminal behaviour one iota. Most murders in scotland are not related to Theft or robbery, but unfortunately to drink, fights between young me and domestic violence. We do not have Armed or otherwise criminals violently mugging large numbers of people. Most of our violent crime is drugs or gang related and as I say young men with to much drink and the a knife. I don't know what country you think I live in but it sure as hell isn't the one you discribed. As to shooting, I've shot geese for meat and done some range target shooting for sport which I enjoyed, but as to blasting heavy calibre weapons at full auto just to make things fly to pieces, thats not sport or fun, thats just people who need to grow up, which would be fine if they didn't have access to lethal fire arms. Peter.

So just where did you get figures that said that Syria was making money out of policing war torn Lebanon? All the indications I've ever seen said it was costing them far more than they could make. If Syria is making money out of it, there about the first country ever to make money out of an occupation. Oh and if there is no comparrison, why does the ew US/UK drafted Iraqi constitution prevent a future Iraqi government from nationalising the oil industry and prevent Iraqi oil workers from joining a trade union. Saddam was a murdering thug thats not in doubt, but the state the Lebanon was in when the Syrians took over was far worse than the situation in Iraq when the US went in, hell it had had almost 30 years of constant civil war. Do I like the syria government, No. Do I see them as the root of all evil No I don't believe that either. But nor do I believe that we in the west should take the moral high ground so that when we go it, it's all justice and freedom. and if they do it it's nasty. I think the primary motive for Syria going in was because the chaos looked like spreading, and once in they believed that staying was the best way to prevent a return, and yes they wanted to control their neighbour. But like I say, thats what we are doing too, we are both removing threats and trying to create states in our own image and that will be secure allies. Syrias methods and template may be different but If we can send troops in to a country that we feel is a danger to us and others, we can hardly denounce Syria for doing the same. Peter,

web page Sorry folks lets try that again shall we. Peter.

Nice system and not bad piece of video, SA-15 variant, not much use for high altitude, but could well have been high up the shopping list as it has excellent antiUAV performance. Peter.

Well I live in a country that banned all hand guns and automatic weapons for private use or ownership because in two seperate and bloody events, law abiding citizeans who owned guns and liked to "fire such interesting weapons" ran amok and killed men women and, in Dunblane, kids. So much as I am interested in warfare, the mentality behind the kind of blasting away videos I've seen leaves me cold, as I can't seperate the effect on an oil drum from that on a person, and I've always tried to avoid people who can. Peter.

At a startegic or operational level, wounding is better than killing as it creates a greater burden logistically. Thats why cluster bombs are particularly effective. Where as a conventional iron bomb obliterated those close in, wounds those further out but does hurt those far away, a cluster bomb kills fewer but wounds far more. However as rightly said to the man on the ground facing an enemy, you shoot to kill and want a round that will do it. Wound rather than kill isn't an urban myth, it's just not practiced at a tactical level. Grenades are designed to kill because thats what you want when fighting at close range. Land mines are designed to main because thats what you want when your not about. Peter.

Lee, sgtgoody (esq), I once heard someone being heckled say, "Audiences are like armies, it's the ones not at the front who bay most for blood", Next time, walk out on to the range before they start firing and see how free you feel. There's two sides to war, there is the guy above the trench with the Lugar, and the guy kneeling in it waiting. I find neither, uplifting or the report of a single 9mm sound anything like freedom. Peter.

Oh course regardless of what you think of Assad, his father, or Syria, you could argue that given the state the Lebanon had decended in to that the Syrians had at least as good reasons to go in to the Lebanon, as the US had to go in to Iraq. Now if in twenty years time Iraq is as peaceful as the Lebanon had become but still had a major US presence, what would that make the US, as bad as the Syrians. If at that time a Pro Bin Laden party had a charismatic leader who looked like he could win, do you think the freedom loving US would just sit back and let him become leader of Iraq. The Syrians more than overstayed their welcome, and were in for their own reasons, but the ended a bloody civil war that had reduced Beruit to a ruin, maybe the parrallel, with removing the Talaban is better, but the Syrians were as worried about the chaos over their border spreading as the US was about terrorism. As to them being able to stop it because they are a totalitarian state, well the Russians were ruthless in Afghanistan and that didn't stop it and they still are in Chetnya. I think with many regemes their attitude if they aren't a threat to us and they can be of some use, then leave them alone. Egypt took an opposite view with the threat from the Muslim brotherhood, and that has lead to twenty years plus of repression torture and bombings. Syria may have found these groups usefull and may be regretting it now, but unless the US goes in heavy, I doubt that given current relations with Washington they are going to fall over themselves to stop infiltration, I mean why should they. It's not as if the US will thank them or mend fences. The Syrians know they are effectively on a US hit list, so why risk a small scale civil war with militant islam in your country for someone who's planning to F**K you. Peter.

I read a report by SIPRI ( Stockholm Institute of Peace Research Studies) years back on the ballastic effects of 5.56mm rounds. Two things emerged. Firstly because of the shape, (long thin) they tended to shatter more when they hit bone, distort and tumble, particularly if they have lost energy and are "wobbling" in flight. This caused them to create a shockwave in the body as they disappated energy. Secondly when the looked a brains where the bulllet had passed through one side and out the other, say completely through the right hemisphere and out the back, they found limited damage, a clean hole front and back and a path. However when they looked at the other hemisphere, it was mush, as the round hade created a pressure wave which not only burst the opposite hemisphere to the path, but was sometimes strong enough to fracture that side of the skull along the weak points. So at close range when velocity is very high (close to 1,000mps), it can pass straight through and leave a clean hole and cause little damage bcause it doesn't deform or slow or cause a pressure wave. Howver at lower speeds at at say over 100m or so, when it gives up more energy or has begun to wobble a bit, or if it hits bone or the skull it can have devastating effects. Conclusion. There is a lot more to bullet effects than just calibre. Peter.

No the point is you don't notice when you are being poisioned by nitrogen, it is quick and there are no obvious signs. Many of the asphexiating gases are associated with cumbustion either complete CO2, or incomplete CO, as in mines where there is anone hazard. The issue with nitrogen is that it is very difficult to detect and few think it is dangerous. This discussion is an example, I reacted the same way when I first came across it. What Nitrogen?, hell thats not dangerous... Just because it kills you by displacing oxygen as opposed to chemically like carbon monoxide, doesn't make you any less dead. Peter,

Yes are is about 80% Nitrogen, and 17% oxygen, which you need to breath, it is picked up by the iron Fe+3 molocule in Hemogloben. But , Take away the 17% and breath Nitrogen, and nothing happens, ie YOU DIE, quick and clean. In Industrial accidents with Nitrogen leaks people have walled down flights of stairs and just fallen over in the Nitrogen rich lower level. Next guy thinks he's fallen and knocked himself out, goes down to help and Bingo he's down too. It really is nasty stuff, because, It's colourless oderless, and 99% of people also think that it's harmless. But it's not, it is an extremely dangerous gas that many people even in industries that should know better , like aviation, grossly underestimate. Peter.

The other option is to go for an advanced round such as the germans did that has the bullet inbedded in a block of propellemt. this lets you have a bigger calibre but not necessarily a bigger round. The new 40mm Compact rounds are actually smaller than 30mm rounds and about the same size as a 25mm. Peter.

If it uses a hellfire type seeker that can discriminate a T-72 from a tractor then it's Okay. A basic heat or EM sensor isn't. The other option is optical, via Fibre optics, but that's not fire and forget. Peter.

Steve, As ever once we've clarified a few points we're actually pretty close. Peter.

Steve, A decent Sniper will be 600-800m and a good one better, the fact that the US isn't facing quality today doesn't mean they won't. and even without snipers i doubt a 40mm grenade will have the range capability of a 12.7mm let alone a 14.7mm HMG. Peter.

Dinger, Firing on sound contact will be risky. If they start setting off rounds by putting them in oildrums in school playgrounds and then setting them alight, it' their round that kills the kids, but if you counter fire we know who will get the blame. Peter.

Dogface, To theories Mine, They didn't understand it and didn't think he would invade, which is why they were shocked and ended up kicking him out. or They knew what they were doing and wanted him to invade so they could kick him out. But Why? I am for cockup over conspiracy any day. Peter.

Dogface, I think it more poor communications due to what you might euphemistically call " cultural differences". For the US as a western democracy " not associated with America", ment sit down together and iron out an agreement over soverignty the way we do, over trade or commerce. For Saddam, it ment sort it out yourselves , which to him ment do waht you always do "kick the **** out of them". In this respect it has to be a US political failure in not understanding the mentality of the people they were dealing with and putting your message in a clear way that they would understand. Peter,

Steve, I agree on one thing and sort of disagree on another. Firstly agreement. The support of the international community, the local population and especially neighbours are wanted for success but not essential, though it's difficult to get by without any. In the case of Iraq, it's clear that at the strategic level the Bush administration just couldn't have looked at in this way ( thats not a political attack just a judgement). Of the near neighbours they had branded the Syrians and Iranians virtually as enemies, so their goes neighbour support. Next the group, within Iraq, most in favour of toppling Saddam, the Kurds, wanted their own state, which was anathema to the Turks the northern neighbour. In the south the Shia's had a close affinity with Iran, who were anathema to the Bush administration. Add this to the general hostility of key allies, for whatever reasons, and the general reluctance of the UN to sanction any encroachment of national borders ( hardly susrprising from abody made up of soverign states) and it's hard to see how they came to believe it would all fall in to place post invasion. Now the disagreement. On Iranian involvement. As I see it the Iranians want to see a strong pro Iranian, islamic Shia dominated Iraq with no independant Kurdish state. To achieve this they want to support, encourage, and nurture pro Iranain Shia party's, which they would do in part through military support and logistics. As part of this is is almost certainly the case that they want to gain as much control politically as possible in the south and to as actively as possible aid armed Shia groups fighting the Sunnis. In this respect engaging the Britrish in the south isn't really in their interest. The sooner they get the British to hand over security in the south to Iraqi forces that they can influence and direct the better. Thats why I tend to take the view that their actual support is real but their control of what actually happend on the ground is limited. As to central Iraq, for me the smart game from an Iranian point of view is to help the Shia take out Sunni's ( torture imprisonment, death squads) while doing nothing to stop Sunni's trying to kill Anericans. This for me is in some ways supported by the idea of different militant groups having a turf war for Bagdhad. For Iran, Shia control of the centre and a pro Iranian regeme in the aftermath of the US withdrawl is the prize, so The US working with and coming to rely on a Shai dominated army is a good thing. For these reasons I dont see it as being in Irans interest to get involved or support attacks on US forces. Iran wants you out and the Shias in control. For me their main target is the Sunni's and whats left of the Baath Party. Whether they can coordinate or even get that message to the disperate groups on the ground is another matter. Of course just as Iraq is politically fractured and riven, so is Iran, so there may well de different groups who have different objectives. Whether it be the Iraqi exiles you still have a support base in Iran or the more militant elements, there is for me a difference between "support from Iran" and "Iranain Support". Indeed there is an arguement for believing that at least some of the Iraqi's getting support from within Iran are doing things that are not in any way in Irans interests. I tend to be wary of believing in a monolithic enemy with an evil purpose, as opposed to a much more fluid and fractured picture, I am no more convinced by the Axis of Evil, than by the Red Menace, that lumped China and the USSR in as a single enemy. Peter.

Steve, I think your wromg about direction from Iran, sure they are involved and would love that kind of influence but they just don't have it. A beeter analogy for me is with Pakistan and the resistance in Afghanistan. They armed and supported both what became the Northern Alliance, though they never had any real control, and then later they all but created the Talaban. However these groups took on a life of their own and went their own way, (Hell Mossad originally backed and funded Hezbollah as a way of undermining the PLO and look how that ended up). For me Iraq is as you say a mass of disperate factions, under the banner of a government who are all tying to get there share of power, and would pretty much cut each others throats to get it, but much as I say they'd like to if Iran is pulling any strings its more like trying to land a Marlin, that control a puppet. Thats one of the reasons I feel that an army strong enough to take over the fight and take on the insurgency is probably the only thing strong enough to hold the country together. And that opens up the prospect of the Kurds going their own way, which would have us back to Saddams days in no time. People are joining the police and army for the money and little else and have little loyalty to the state as such. like many middleeastern societies they have loyalty to the extended family , the tride the local Iman, a particular Mosque or faction and a ethnic or regional group, even a political party. In some respects like the Balkans, the nation was held together by an authoritarian central government and when it and it's propoganda were swept away we discovered ( to late as by that time we occupied the place) that Iraq as anything more than a piece of land defined by it's neighbours borders, didn't actually exist. Maybe like the USSR and Yugoslavia these were to coin a phrase "Snowman Countries", once we turned up the heat and the thaw set in, they just melted away. The only way to get it back is to put a freeze on freedom and bring back Jack frost, be he Saddam, Tito or Putin. Pretty depressing, but hell my wife has a day off tommorrow, and we are going "Christmas shopping" so I am in that kind of mood. Peter.