question on military tactics

[Wisbech_lad]

Fionn,

Interesting analysis. Of course, the end of the Imperial phase of the British Empire was 1916-1921, when the British Army used the same tactics “at home” in Eire. Suddenly the UK public was faced with the reality of Imperialism, and the uncomfortable realisation they could be next in line for repression. Rapidly policy changed to preparing colonies for Home Rule ASAP. In somewhat the same way, the army had to change its counter insurgency tactics learnt in Malaya in N.I. OK to torture and detain funny coloured people a few thousand miles away, but not that close to home and TV cameras...

[Pak_43]

In somewhat the same way, the army had to change its counter insurgency tactics learnt in Malaya in N.I. OK to torture and detain funny coloured people a few thousand miles away, but not that close to home and TV cameras...

Malaya is still the only successful action by regular forces against communist guerilla insurgents isn't it?

[Cpt.Kloss]

Have you ever wondered why they hate US so much?

Inefficient and stupid US Middle East policy will be very very costly...

During Balkan confilct US forces were quick to react, where are US "peacekeepers" when people in Palestina are being deprived of their homeland? Some country leaders are being judged for war crimes, some others (those firendly - you know whom I mean) are very well.

If it wasn't earlier it is now obvious that the only thing US cares is its national interest - and nothing more.

It is a disaster for civilised world, but I fear

WTC was only a beginning...

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss:

Have you ever wondered why they hate US so much?

Inefficient and stupid US Middle East policy will be very very costly...

During Balkan confilct US forces were quick to react, where are US "peacekeepers" when people in Palestina are being deprived of their homeland? Some country leaders are being judged for war crimes, some others (those firendly - you know whom I mean) are very well.

If it wasn't earlier it is now obvious that the only thing US cares is its national interest - and nothing more.

It is a disaster for civilised world, but I fear

WTC was only a beginning...

Other countries hate the US because we appear immature and impulsive compared to other countries in the world, that are "older" and "more mature". Why is it then that people from all over the world still want to come to the US? No society is perfect, and "Globalism" is a product of American liberals, and if history has taught us anything, its that "National Interests" usually take precedent when a country forms its policies. What is wrong with America caring about its national interests? Every other country does, why is it that America can't?

The American Government sends billions of its taxpayers money all over the world. To friends and foes alike, in their times of need. Perhaps some of that money is not well spent, nor does it always fall in line with our "national interests"

The American military is not in business to be "Peacekeepers". All countries, America included, have military forces for one reason and one reason only. The American military is in business to protect American citizens, and to prevent outside military or terrorist organizations from threatening our way of life. In other words, to close with and destroy any enemy of America. They are not trained to be "cops" or "nation builders". They are trained to kill and destroy in the most efficient ways possible. Once again the "peacekeeper" role was foisted upon the American Military by liberals and people who have no connection with the armed forces, a la Clinton.

We live in a new world now, although our current problems still stem from centuries old "National/ethnic disagreements" Bin Laden and his ilk are driven by one thing, and concern for the Palistinians isnt it. They want what all demegogues and tyrants have wanted throughout human history. They want domination and power, they want to sit back in comfort while the rest of the world does their bidding.

Like us or not, America is the only country, thats willing and capable to stand up to these people. Sure we will make mistakes, but we will prevail.

[Fionn]

Cogust,

1. I focussed on discussing the best way for the Iraqis to cause military casualties because killing US servicemen is the only thing which will cause the US public to turn against the war IMO ( much American strategy and technology will be directed towards reducing the number of men and women "put in harm's way" so as to avoid such a scenario).

2. " My point is that Saddam does not have the option to kill a million civilians even if he wanted to," Oh yes he does. He merely needs to use weaponised biological agents to do so. It would be quite easy to do if he wished to do so ( assuming he has some seed smallpox etc in storage somewhere).

A little-known fact is that Soviet ICBMs did not carry only nukes. The nuke-armed ones were designed to take out militarily-important targets while the ones armed with biological agents were to be targetted on population centres thus ensuring almost total anihilation of the American populace in the few months following the exchange... Interestingly it is probable that with a "missile defence shield" in place the relative importance of biological weapons increases since a single nuke getting through can only destroy one city whilst a single biological warhead getting through could, in the absence of appropriate ( by which I mean ruthless, tyrannical and bloody) control measures actually spread throughout the whole country, thus destroying it.

In short limiting yourself to thinking ONLY of gas is short-sighted. Biological weapons due to their self-perpetuating nature are infinitely more dangerous and certainly many times more effective in causing massive civilian casualties.

Wisbech,

Well as I always say whether we admit it or not history does show us that governments in predominantly caucasian countries are less willing to inflict certain things on "nearby caucasian countries" than they are on "far-away non-caucasian countries". This is probably a great argument for the growing cultural and ethnic intermingling which is happening worldwide.

I don't think it is due to racism in particular as much as it is simply to do with ingrained group identifications etc which are a hold-over from the times when we operated in small hunting groups. IOW I believe that the same basic thing ( we are more willing to inflict pain etc on those "unlike us and far away" than those "like us and nearby") would hold irrespective of the culture and ethnicity of the nation-state.

Nidan1,

1. " Why is it then that people from all over the world still want to come to the US?"

Well the answer is obvious once you stop painting those who have different opinions than yours as charicatures. No-one is saying "The US sucks and EVERYTHING it does is wrong etc". Neither should anyone be saying "The US rocks and EVERYTHING it does is right and brilliant".

No, the truth is that as with every country there are many wonderful things and many dreadful things. It is a cultural melting pot which offers many people the chance to get ahead based purely on their ability but there is also much racism, ghettoisation and de facto segregation ( if not de jure segregation). When people stop staking out extreme positions on either side of the debate and agree that the truth is that aspects of both extremes exist within the one state ( group and person) at the same time then a more rational discussion can develop. Until that time though this will be just another forum pissing match with people less concerned with what the other is actually SAYING and more concerned with defending their own positions.

Nidan 1,

You list several roles of the US military but ALL of those roles have one thing in common, namely, defence against an outside threat. You leave out the MOST important role of the military and the ONLY role which actually can account for all its missions. That role is the "furtherance of national policy objectives". Note, the furtherance of national policy objectives does NOT necessitate the presence of a real threat in order for war to be declared.

Oil is, due to an unfortunate energy policy, a raw material of strategic importance to the US. It is a commodity without which the US cannot survive and therefore securing a source of oil is a national policy objective of the first order. For this your politicians are willing to wage a war against Iraq and in the world of realpolitik this is eminently defensible.

On the other hand people shouldn't allow themselves to be misled into thinking that that Iraq constitutes a major threat to the US. NK is certainly a greater threat but it isn't being dealt with militarily. Iraq merely has something the US needs to secure and Iraq is the country which the US has the "best excuse" to get involved with. Geo-politically an Iraqi puppet state will also, potentially, be a very good thing in terms of stabilising the region and controlling Iran should that become necessary.

And to your last point:

"Sure we will make mistakes, but we will prevail."

The fact that you will prevail does NOT give you and your countrymen the right to be cavalier towards mistakes. What the non-Americans here are saying is NOT that you shouldn't defend yourselves/secure your nation's military and economic necessities.

No, what they are saying is that America is going about doing so in a VERY blunt way and that if you spent a bit more time coming to terms with and manipulating the complexities of these regions you could achieve your objectives whilst:

a) improving the lot of others ( instead of bombing them)... in general the middle classes do not support theological wars so creating more prosperous masses actually weakens these despots you are so worried about,

engaging in less military activity ( thus risking fewer of your own people AND preventing the creation of blood hatreds following on from your killing of relatives etc),

c) improving US world image.

Anyways, it is simply the case that a little more subtlety and a bit more of a long-term approach could yield benefits and the non-Americans seem, to my eye, to be putting forward said approaches and opposing what they view as unwarranted militarism.

That the militarism will prevail does not mean that there wasn't a BETTER alternative.

[Nidan1]

Fionn:

Do you honestly believe that Iraq does not pose a threat to the world in general, maybe not the United States in particular? I am not naive enough to think that the Iraqis will be invading the East Coast anytime soon, but they have the wherewithall to send their surrogates, namely the Jihadists to America and other places to create havoc and murder.

It is the fault of all the Western nations that an alternative to the dependence on fossil fuels has not been found. The entire world ecomony revolves around the commerce and trade dependent on oil and its by products. Therefore a basic by product of any dealings with Iraq either peaceful or military, would have the need for oil as a major factor. Why should anyone in the world tolerate Saddam controlling that much influence over such an important resource, when he has shown nothing by comtempt for the rest of us?

If that was the only danger he poses, it would be sufficient, but he does posess chemical and biological weapons, and has shown a willingness to use them. Whether or not he has enough technology to disperse them reliably outside of the borders of Iraq is one thing I personally do not want to find out. Nor do I doubt that he would give some forms of these weapons to others.

You refer to the fact, that American foreign policy should not be so blunt, and maybe it should take the time to understand the undercurrents and factors which have lead to the situations that we are in. I ask you, do we have the time now, especially in reference to Iraq? Saddam was our big pal, when he was fighting the Iranians, and everyone supplied him with weapons and technology. We are now reaping the whirlwind of those policies, and I dont think we have time to delay any longer. America's sabre rattling may be just that, maybe we can intimidate him enough to finally see the light. His past behavior does not indicate that that may be the case.

I was not painting the rest of the citizens of the world as carictatures when I referred to the continued influx of immigrants into America. World populations are continually shifting in those areas where people can freely move, and people still seek to come here from all over to seek opportunity. It is one of the things that keeps America on the minds of the rest of the world, whether in a good way or a bad way. There are some places in the world where people have no hope, and they see the US as a place of hope.

I am not closed minded when it comes to recognizing that other people have opinions and beliefs that may differ from mine. I have lived long enough to be exposed to many things, and I do recognize that consensus is ofttimes difficult to mananage when very emotional topics are discussed. I do believe that a Global society, while it may someday come to pass, is a long way off. The dangers presented by rogue states such as Iraq, NK and some may say the US, effect all of us. However, we have not yet reached the point where we can openly and without deceit, negotiate with each other to resolve differences effectively. I am open to all opinions, I listen, and based on my life experience, and what I have learned of world history, I try will balance all of this in my mind. I believe that in light of present world circumstances, and the varied national interests of all parties that have direct involvement, military action against Iraq is a viable option for the world to take, or if the US chooses to go it alone, for America to take.

[Fionn]

Nidan1,

Terrorism is NOT an indiscriminate weapon when utilised by nation states. Whilst it is true that precisely who gets killed or injured is often rather random it is also true that when nation states engage in terrorism in order to display antagonism towards eachother or send some other message this terrorism is quite carefully metered.

Terrorism when ordered by nation states is most commonly a form of "limited war" akin to the sparring which nations used to engage in on their borders with possible belligerents.

So, do I think that Hussein will be launching major attacks on America? No, he won't since he knows that doing so would constitute a major escalation of tensions and would ensure that the American response would be swift and lethal ( to his regime and, more importantly, to himself personally).

" Why should anyone in the world tolerate Saddam controlling that much influence over such an important resource, when he has shown nothing by comtempt for the rest of us? If that was the only danger he poses, it would be sufficient, but he does posess chemical and biological weapons, and has shown a willingness to use them."

We disagree here:

1. His posession of chemical and biological weapons is not a major threat to America (unless he wants to commit suicide by striking at the continental US... something his entire history points up as being extremely unlikely)

2. He hasn't shown the rest of the world nothing but contempt. He was actually a client state of the US and the West for longer than he has been persona non grata. IOW when his utility was great AND he towed the line he was tolerated. Now that has changed and he is no longer tolerated. This is entirely in keeping with realpolitik and as such is eminently defensible.

My problem with these arguments comes when people start quoting spurious reasons. If someone said "Look, oil is important to us, he cannot be relied upon to supply us with it and work towards the stability of an important oil region. Therefore we will remove him and institute a client regime" then you could begin to see the real reason things are happening and your support is being asked for.

3. You miss out possibly the greatest danger he poses. He is a destabilising interest in this region since he is not tied to one of the three great powers ( America, Russia or China) and therefore he is free to follow the course of best advantage to HIM as opposed to the rather more sedate courses which he would be forced to plot by his "uncles". E.g. If China or Russia had major control in NK at the moment we wouldn't be running into the problems we are currently experiencing IMO since they wouldn't let Kim's goals interfere with their own, loftier goals.

" I ask you, do we have the time now, especially in reference to Iraq?"

Sure it will be quite some time before Saddam can develop and adequately test his new generation of rockets ( potentially with a range to threaten Europe and American Indian Ocean basis). He is also unlikely to be able to develop nukes in the short term with the arms inspectors there as a confounding factor. Therefore for quite some time he will provide no greater threat to the region than he currently poses. So, you have time. It will not, of course, be utilised since several climatically and politically propitious timezones are approaching within which military action would be advisable.

"There are some places in the world where people have no hope, and they see the US as a place of hope."

Agreed.

" The dangers presented by rogue states such as Iraq, NK and some may say the US, effect all of us. However, we have not yet reached the point where we can openly and without deceit, negotiate with each other to resolve differences effectively."

Agreed. On a point of information: I don't actually necessarily oppose military action against Iraq. I may think that it should never have come to this and I certainly do think it is a pity the US is trying to convince us all of false reasons for war instead of simply saying that the threat to oil is, in their government's mind, reason enough for war. On the other hand ALL countries have a duty to act to "defend" themselves from threats and since the lack of oil is a very definite threat ( due to a boondoggle of an energy policy) Machiavelli, Clausewitz and Sun Tzu would all, IMO, agree that war is eminently justified. (They just might go about it in very different ways... I can't help thinking Sun Tzu would make sure Hussein was assasinated or bought off and a more friendly regime installed without the need for a major war but that's water under the bridge I suppose.)

So, I don't condemn America for deciding on "regime change" in Iraq. I merely think it is going about it in a very duplicitous and ineffective manner.

As to who will take part in the war:

America and Britain will send ground troops. Saudi Arabia, British puppet states in the Gulf region and Turkey will lend support whilst Israel will pass on Intel ( it would be very important for Israeli contributions to be kept as secret as possible so I don't think a direct military contribution from them would be desirable). All will help for their own selfish reasons... Turkey will gain support for future attempts to join the EU, Saudi will gain support for its regime, British puppet states will show loyalty to their master and continue to receive the support that garners and Israel will rid itself of one of the most dangerous threats to its very existence in the region).

All very cynical etc of course but then looking at the world through the prism of realpolitik does tend to cant it that way.

P.s. Thanks for keeping it civil. I'm all for disagreeing strongly,trying to persuade the other fellow etc but it is nice to do it without idjits incapable of rational debate ( or even worse, word-twisters) jumping in.

[gunnersman]

Originally posted by John Malcolm:

Perhaps someone who supports Bush, would be kind enough to inform us why we're going to war with Iraq. Yes, he's a ruthless dictator. But why single this one regime out from the multitude of others in the world. He poses no threat to the USA itself, only to American interests in the middle east. There are less links between Saddam's Iraq and Al Queda than there are between Saudi and Osama's organisation. The whole 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' issue seems like a lame excuse for war. The USA is planning to go to war with a country who claims not to have WMD or a proven WMD programme, while not going to war with the DPRK who have WMD and have restarted their nuclear developments. Mmmmhhh?

As you might recall, Iraq is only one member of Bush's "Axis of Evil" which also includes, N. Korea, Iran, Libya, Syria, Egypt, which also happen to sponsor terrorism. And then there are those places around the world which are considered havens for terrorist i.e Yemen, Columbia, Cuba, many South Pacific Islands, Middle Eastern countries. Do you really think it will end with Iraq? Bush even stated that the war on terrorism will be a long one.

As for the idea of the US going to Iraq for oil, so what? I would rather we have it than Saddam. Oil is vital to our interests. There is no secret in that. Its vital to everyone's interests. Good! Go get all of it! But I dont think that is the main objective. Why didnt we do that 10 years ago? Frankly I think this whole war on terrorism is waaaaaay over due. Hell, terrorists as we know them today have been doing there dirty deeds since the 70's if not earlier. Yea we did tit for tat during Reagan but Clinton's

handling of it was badly done, treating terrorism like a criminal case, bad move.

If the fight is taken to the cities, I see the US letting those who are opposed to Saddam going in and taking care of the problem while the US provides support much the same way we did in Afghanistan.

The whole UN inspector team is a sham. They're not going to Saddam's palaces. Thats where the paydirt is. They are just trying to keep the US from attacking. The UN is impotent and it will be even more evident if we go in without the UN. The UN is just trying to exert their authority, what little of it there is. Hans Blix is a lawyer by trade and has had no expirience with CNB weapons whatsoever. Its big frickin joke!

If Saddam kills his own people, it wont be the first time. I think that will only turn them against him.

So what if we make the Arab's hate us more than they do already. They always have and always will. Let them stew in their backward countries. The main reason they hate us is because we support Israel. Its no big secret Arab's hate Israel. They need to get over it. They will be much happier.

Nuff said.

[Fionn]

" So what if we make the Arab's hate us more than they do already. They always have and always will. Let them stew in their backward countries."

Not entertaining the possibility of a better future is a very non-survivalist trait. Saying "It has always been that way and it always will" would have prevented doctors ever figuring out that infections could be treated, it would have prevented multiple countries around the world from making peace with eachother.

Also as a point of information: The Arabs haven't always hated America. Hell, I doubt many of them know America existed 100 years ago. No, many of them have grown to detest certain things America does/stands for. If they have grown to detest certain things then they can grow to not hate (given time and support).

As to "so what if we make the Arabs hate us more than they do already". Well the simple answer is that IF they had WMDs then it WOULD matter. Of course American policy is to prevent any nation which hates them and doesn't currently have WMDs from acquiring them. Funny how that ties in and proves necessary isn't it?

" Let them stew in their backward countries."

You are the sort of being that gives humanity a bad name. The above is exactly the sort of statement the "proves" to certain people that no accomodation is possible with America and therefore the "operations" they are plotting are justified. Also the above is just the sort of thing that drives the moderates into the arms of the extremists.

It is also the sort of thing some people stereotype ALL Americans as believing. Thankfully that stereotype isn't true.

[momishuli]

Opinion:

There is no way for Saddam to win this war. What he can do is make it costly for the U.S. in lives and equipment. Surely, he stands no chance fighting on conventional lines against high quality U.S. troops who possess massive armor and air power. To minimize air and armor advantage, it appears to be a logical option to entrench in cities and establish strong points in dense urban areas. Yet, in my opinion, this would only delay the outcome. Despite Saddam's hopes, the U.S. will likely choose to carpet bomb cities and will not engage in street-battles. The U.S. military is not known to care for civilian casualties when they are forced to chose between their own men and the enemy's. Although cruel, such is war.

Another option for Saddam would be guerilla warfare. Obviously, terrain in southern Iraq is not suitable for such operations, yet towns and villages can still provide for good post-raid hide-out (given the support of local population. Actually, I doubt if any section of Iraqi troops have any experience/training in commando operations). If Iraqi people's hate for the U.S. can overcome their hate for Saddam, this could really make life difficult for U.S. command and their troops. Such situation may force Americans to employ brutal tactics against local supporters which may make things still more difficult. Non-regular warfare is a very difficult animal to tackle for a regular army. However, this would not change the fact that the U.S. troops control and administer Iraq/Oil.

In either case (I can not see any other way of reasonable resistance on Saddam's part) Saddam is bound to lose, along with millions of innocent civilian Iraqis (in short term).

Yet the real chaos will start after Saddam falls; it doesn't make any difference if there is no war and he chooses exile, runs away, a military coup etc. The fact remains. That region will surely fall into a state of war eventually involving Turkey (where I am from), Iran, Iraq, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. I can not help but wonder: is it worth it? Who will really benefit from this chaotic, anarchic situation in the oil reserves of our world which will cost millions of lives? Who benefits from big wars? I know who don't: you and me, the "commoners."

I sincerely hope that time proves my words are full of crap.

[Nidan1]

Fionn:

All your points are well made and well taken.

However, when defining "terrorism" below, I think

you might miss a point about how the nature of "terrorism" as a policy of nations and groups has changed over the last quarter century or so.

"Terrorism is NOT an indiscriminate weapon when utilised by nation states. Whilst it is true that precisely who gets killed or injured is often rather random it is also true that when nation states engage in terrorism in order to display antagonism towards eachother or send some other message this terrorism is quite carefully metered."

"Terrorism when ordered by nation states is most commonly a form of "limited war" akin to the sparring which nations used to engage in on their borders with possible belligerents."

When you refer to the terrorism as ordered by "nation states" I would think that the heavy bombing of European and Asian cities during the second World War would qualify. It was indiscriminate in most cases, and while an argument could be made that industrial targets were being hit, Germany, Russia, and England dispersed their manufacturing plants, and therefore most bombs and rockets fell on civilian areas.

After the Second World War, and during the Cold War, "Wars of National Liberation" and "Civil Wars" often included acts that could have come under the definition of terrorism. The only difference was the fact that most underground groups performed their acts against Government establishments or against the military. The Haganah,the Palmach, Fidel Castro, the Viet Minh and Viet Cong, could all be labeled as "terrorists" but they, for the most part did not direct their acts specifically at civilians or other non combatants.

The kind of terror we have seen in the last 20 years or so, and primarily by Islamic groups of one sort or another, has been directed at civilians. This is where the definition of "terrorism" IMO has changed considerably. There is no real answer to this phenomenon, and there is no concrete "enemy" to strike back at.

When people are willing to kill themselves, and take others with them, just to make a point, you are dealing with real danger. And, when a third party state, such as Iraq can use these groups as surrogates to attack places they could otherwise not do militarily, this creates a real and unique threat to the West, otherwise not seen.

The unfortunate circumstance vis a vis the US and Iraq, is that the US has really offered no concrete proof that Saddam is in bed with Al Qaida or that he has weapons of terror. I would think that because George W. is making such a big issue of this, that he knows something that he is not telling us. I really hope that is the case. I dont want to have to live through another "Gulf of Tonkin" charade, just so my country can go to war with someone. The real danger Iraq poses IMO and I hope it will find vindication, is that Saddam is supporting and supplying twerrorsts groups, and he plans to give them biological or chemical agents that can be man portable and released in civilian centers in the West or elsewhere. That is my fear, and maybe by preempting him by attacking, we could head off such a horrible event.

[ January 04, 2003, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Nidan1 ]

[Lumbergh]

Originally posted by Fionn:

[QB]Interestingly it is probable that with a "missile defence shield" in place the relative importance of biological weapons increases since a single nuke getting through can only destroy one city whilst a single biological warhead getting through could, in the absence of appropriate ( by which I mean ruthless, tyrannical and bloody) control measures actually spread throughout the whole country, thus destroying it.[QB]

Could you fill us in on what that warhead would have to be filled with? Sounds like it's filled with the Andromeda strain to me. Smallpox? Isn't that why people are/have been/will be vaccinated? Anthrax? Even the "state of the art" stuff seemed eminently less threatening than a nuclear warhead when it was potentially on my mail!

But I know, there are other agents out there. What are they, and are they more lethal than the above?

Because, to me, it seems like a nuclear weapon is a "sure thing", whilst a biological weapon is a very dodgy and quite possible worthless thing. A 500kt nuke on NYC *will* kill 5 million + people with a likelihood of 1. That same warhead filled with smallpox has the potential to kill many more, but it also has the potential to kill a mere few thousand.

Also, why shoot bioweapons after a nuke strike if everyone is already toast? Especially given Soviet overkill doctrine against US airbases, that is, a very large (10mt IIRC) groundburst with multiple spaced airbursts to destroy any scrambled bombers. Add to that the fact that they had redundancy on targets, and most of the airbases and missile silos are located upwind of population centers, and you have massive, massive fallout casualties.

A detailed coverage of this is in Citizen Scientist by Von Hippel. One of the best non-classified studies of a nuclear war.

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by Lumbergh:

Could you fill us in on what that warhead would have to be filled with? Sounds like it's filled with the Andromeda strain to me. Smallpox? Isn't that why people are/have been/will be vaccinated? Anthrax? Even the "state of the art" stuff seemed eminently less threatening than a nuclear warhead when it was potentially on my mail!

As far as smallpox vaccinations are concerned. The last time anyone in the US was vaccinated was back in 1971. Since then most places on earth have seen the end of smallpox (except as bioweapons), and no one has been vaccinated for it until recently. Those vaccinated prior to 1971, may or may not be immune anymore. (I wouldnt want to find out). There is already controversey about the new issues of smallpox vaccines, and remember we now live in "politically correct" America, if someones kid dies from a smallpox vaccination, can you imagine the fallout...no pun intended.

Bioweapons are scarey, and if someones wants to release one in a city, it really doesn't have to be 100% effective, the chaos alone could paralyze the country. They could also use nerve agents, look what happened in Japan with a small amount of Sarin gas. You're right about nukes, someone could easily detonate a small "dirty" nuclear weapon, and that is a real fear we all have.

[laxx]

Momishuli,

interesting point. but i doab think US will carpet bomb Iraq, CNN will make sure it does not happen.

[Fionn]

Momishuli,

From speaking with a lot of Iraqis ( docs and other health care workers and their friends) including both those who support Hussein and those who don't I think it is safe to say that the concensus is that once America invades it'll collapse like a house of cards. Some individuals or very small groups might fight on but organised resistance will end very quickly. There is a realisation that they can't win and therefore there is little point in dying for a hopeless fight.

Nidan1,

I would agree that terrorism has changed somewhat in the past few decades but I think it is only a change in "ways and means" and not a fundamental shift. IF they could strike at military targets succesfully repeatedly I think they would do that. Certainly many terrorist organisations/ freedom fighters ( depending on where you stand) have flirted with purely economic or socio-political campaigns ( the IRA had a campaign in the late 80s against British economic targets... carried out with a remarkably light loss of life althoug, of course, there was some unfortunate loss... is one good example of this) but I get the feeling most of them would still seek primarily military targets IF they felt they could hit them succesfully. It is a testament to the effectiveness of countermeasures that terrorists are having to employ the indirect approach more and more.

" And, when a third party state, such as Iraq can use these groups as surrogates to attack places they could otherwise not do militarily, this creates a real and unique threat to the West, otherwise not seen."

Countries have been doing this for centuries. What is new nowadays is that the surrogates used aren't "disaffected ethnic or religious groups" within the target country but entire population masses both internal and external to the country/culture being targetted. (IMO)

Lumbergh,

Ah, biological warfare. An interesting and much misunderstood area...

1. What would the warhead be filled with:

Well, if it were me I'd go for something airborne, easily transmissable ( ideally an average of 10 to 50 transmissions per infectee), with a relatively prolonged incubation cum infective period ( so as to allow maximum chance for passing it on and moving to a new area before your symptoms appear). I would also want to pick something with little to no herd immunity.

From those points of view I'd say smallpox would be an excellent choice. It has killed more humans than any other bug ( and than most other bugs combined) and has a proven track record of transmissability and lethality/ long-term hospital stay... Remember that once a hospital is full those who become infected will end up getting very little treatment and so even mild cases will then kill... You really want to overload the hospital system quickly so that many of those who could be saved won't be saved.

As to the Soviet plan.. MANY Americans live in areas which weren't worth nuking. How do you get rid of this widely dispersed ( from the point of view of nuke strikes) population? Wouldn't a really infectious plague spread from traveller to traveller be a really good way to go? Yes, you bet it would. People vastly over-estimate the effects of nukes. I've read the papers and, to be honest, even in a full-blooded nuclear strike you'd get a lot of survivors in all the areas far away from cities and military bases( at least until disease and nuke winter set in).

As far as how effective a smallpox weapon would be. Let's do some math. Let us assume you infect 20 people ( all volunteers prepared to die for Allah). These people make it their business to travel widely when infective ( particularly in aeroplanes since they feature recirculated air which is medically proven to greatly increase the risk of catching TB and other airborne pathogens ( such as smallpox) ). Western studies showed that someone with smallpox who was relatively stationary and NOT TRYING to infect others would infect an average of 20 other people. Let's assume that doing all they could they could only infect 30 people before becoming so sick they were hospitalised. Let us assume that the INSTANT the 20 were hospitalised they were correctly diagnosed and the govt figured out what had happened. Well, tough luck, you've got the 20 guys in the first wave but unfortunately there are 600 more out there who don't know they have the disease AND have, undoubtedly, been passing it on as they travel through airports, busses, more aeroplanes and through the air conditioning in their apartment buildings and/or offices (ever notice how flus and colds seem to work their way through high-rise office buildings? Well, smallpox is more infective than either of those two so it would work even more quickly AND would miss fewer people.).

By the time those 600 came down let's assume they only infected 10 people each ( HIGHLY unlikely since modern living and working conditions make it likely they'll infect more than 20 rather than less). You'll still have 6000 people walking around with the disease infecting others. Those 6000 people will be popping up in hundreds of discrete areas and the possibility of them overwhelming the govt's ability to isolate infections is real.

NOTE: The govt will only begin to be able to isolate infected areas once the 2nd wave begin getting sick. Unfortunately by that time the 3rd wave is already infected but not symptomatic. Smallpox vaccine if given within 4 days of infection can help prevent you becoming very infective and possibly dying BUT the odds of it reaching the 3rd wave by their 4th day of infection is minimal. What this means is that you'll get almost uninterrupted carryover from the 3rd to the 4th wave. Even working as quickly as possible and with no mistakes it is likely that more than 50,000 would be infected before government measures to form isolation cordons ( by means of mass vaccination of entire cities/towns containing infected individuals) can begin to take hold.

With any luck mass vaccination around sites of infection can create human firebreaks wherein there are areas of high herd immunity and little travel such that the infection burns itself out.

Best case scenario in the situation outlined above ( assumes they have good weaponised smallpox) is probably about 12,000 to 20,000 with 30,000 to 40,000 scarred survivors and an equal number of unscarred survivors.

Unfortunately the best case scenario will not happen.

The key issue here is vaccination. If you're vaccinated and it "takes" then you are safe. IF you only got vaccinated when it hits your city then you'd best hope you didn't get it more than 3 or 4 days ago cause otherwise you're in deep trouble. Also the lethal force required to ensure the security of the physical cordon around quarantined towns/cities ( to prevent infectees fleeing the cities) will cause civil liberties and morale problems for America.

In short a nuke gives you a limited but guaranteed kill count. Bioweapons give you a potentially vastly greater effect but, if something goes wrong, the whole thing may fizzle. Generally though I think it is fair to say that the military would rather see one city nuked than be faced with 20 martyrs who have infected as many citizens as they could. Why 20? Simple, Al Qaeda has shown it can et a group of 20+ guys to sign on for a suicide mission so I presume they can mobilise the same numbers again.

2nd note: If you are infected with smallpox and get on a plane there will be NO findings on x-raying your luggage or searching you since YOU are the weapon and all you need do to function is to breathe and cough.

[Coffin 'Enry]

I have followed this thread with keen interest, a first class debate, and perhaps I could chime in with my two pennyworth.

I would take gentle issue with Fionn’s statement that there are British puppet states in the Gulf. The days when such things existed are, I would suggest, thankfully and rightly over. What are now known as the United Arab Emirates may once have suffered from or enjoyed (depending on your point of view) British protection – they were once known as the Trucial States – but I think the real world means that the US now has far more influence than Britain.

The only possible exception to that would be the Sultanate of Oman which still has, I believe, close military and political ties with the UK. The present ruler Sultan QUABOOS was formerly a serving officer in the British army and was put on the throne in a British engineered coup some thirty years ago. UK forces fought for the Sultan against the Yemani inspired insurgents for many years (which to take to take PAK_43’s point above could, arguably, be the second successful counter insurgency operation by regular troops), and as late as 1997 the head of Omani Special forces was a serving British SAS officer on secondment – might still be for all I know.

As a fine point of interest in the late 90s I had a conversation with a senior representative of a US agency who was bemoaning the difficulty he had in trying to gain access to High Ups in the Omani security organisation. When I asked such an Omani why this was he told me that the country was very wary of accepting US aid because of all the strings that went with it. In a nutshell, his view was that the US wanted to tell them how to run their country whereas the Brits were seen as trusted people who would provide advice and assistance when asked for it but otherwise kept out of the way. Only one man’s view and maybe he was unrepresentative but he held a senior post and seemed genuine so perhaps there are lessons there. However I digress.

Fionn’s last post provides, I would suggest, all the reason needed to remove by any means any regime which has an antipathy to the west, a biological weapons programme and a ruler who is immune to normal standards of diplomacy and civil society. If there is plausible evidence that Sadam’s Iraq has biological capability then his proven links with fanatical groups (yes such links do exist and are in the public domain though not directly with Al’Queda) then the scenario posed by Fionn is, I would argue, justification enough regardless of, in my view, the more debatable issues of oil.

Cheers

[Lumbergh]

Fionn,

Jesus, that is a bit scary. I could do without smallpox, thank you very much. 20 people infected with smallpox would be quite a strain to control. Still, it registers as a minor threat with me compared to nuclear weapons. Smallpox *might* exist in Iraq, who *might* attempt to give it to Al-Qaida. I doubt they would use it in the manner you described, though--there would be a high chance of the virus infecting people in the home country, and if you think smallpox loose in the US is a disaster, wait until you see smallpox loose in Pakistan. Still sounds like the CDCs worst nightmare. How long would it take to innoculate the whole country? Do you think vaccinating everyone is worth it if it kills 3,000 people, more than September 11th did?

As for nukes, well, there are thousands of them in the wild, ill-maintained and poorly secured. That the Bushies haven't expended massive, massive amounts of money to secure these weapons is beyond me. And as soon as North Korea has an ICBM, they can vaporize my family whenever they want to.

[Fionn]

Coffin,

Absolutely excellent points. Well made and absolutely correct (although I may disagree with some as far as interpretation goes). Thanks for joining in...

To deal with the points you raise:

Yes I was referring to Oman. Unusual for someone to pick up on that. You are correct re: the "secondment" of serving British troops and their important positions within the Omani military ( and let's not forget the Royal Air Force officer with close ties to the ruler ( about which there have been rumours which I'm sure you've heard ). Add into that the fact that he owes his power to British support (in both the distant and recent past) and I think it is fair to call him a puppet regime.

OTOH I would agree with your implicit assertions re: British conduct of the relationship vis a vis likely American conduct of a similar relationship. It appears to me that the british are much more subtle and rarely ask for the sorts of things which would be extrmely difficult for the regime to provide. IOW I think that Britain has more experience and subtlety in dealing with puppet regimes and recognizes that nowadays the true puppet state ( one which will do ALL of one's bidding even if it is against its own interests) no longer exists.

"If there is plausible evidence that Sadam’s Iraq has biological capability then his proven links with fanatical groups"

Most countries on the "wrong side of the tracks" will cultivate links with others on the wrong side of the tracks. That is simple reason. FEW of those countries will actually cultivate those links and begin plotting things. I think that acting on links is "questionable". Still,

Lumbergh,

I think you miss the point. I pointed out the absolute "best case scenario" and still saw no way to get casualties down below 100,000. The best case scenario for a nuke is a fizzle resulting in either no casualties or at most a few thousand. The worst case scenario for the sort of nuke they "might" be able to smuggle in is, at most, 4 or 5 million while the worst case scenario for smallpox is the almost total destruction of Western ( American and Europe since many of the infected air travellers will travel on to Europe and cause infection there) culture. I trust that clarifies the relative importances for you. Also you are many times more likely to be targetted by smallpox than a nuke.

" I doubt they would use it in the manner you described, though--there would be a high chance of the virus infecting people in the home country,"

Medically speaking this is untrue. It would be extremely easy to ensure this doesn't happen:

1. Fly everyone out to a European city. Get them together in one room and infect them all with the pathogen ONLY in that room ( smuggling the pathogen is easy. It would require less than a test tube full of pathogen to achieve all I outline).

2. Then send them all onto pre-booked flights the next day. On those intercontinental flights they will be busily infecting the other 300+ passengers.

Virtually guaranteed exposure ONLY of Europeans and those with business in America. There are a few other things they could also do of course but there's no point giving everyone any but the most obvious pointers.

"if you think smallpox loose in the US is a disaster, wait until you see smallpox loose in Pakistan."

LOL! You are missing the entire point here. Smallpox in the US would likely be WORSE than smallpox in Pakistan. You have higher population densities, greater use of recirculated air and more travel. All of the above mean that smallpox would spread more quickly in the US than elsewhere. Also you have FAR more immunocompromised ( anyone with HIV or AIDs, cancer, on long-term steroids or with organ transplants of almost any kind) people than Pakistan. You can kiss almost all of those immunocomprised people goodbye because few of them will be great subjects for vaccination if said vaccination has to happen as an emergency measure.

The only reason infecting Pakistan would be worse is because they would, presumably, have poorer medical facilities. OTOH, as I will point out below, advanced US medical facilities will quickly be overloaded.

" Do you think vaccinating everyone is worth it if it kills 3,000 people, more than September 11th did?"

Again, best case scenarios never happen. I was painting the best case scenario in an effort to imprint upon you the fact that IF it did happen it would almost certainly be worse than what I presented.

A single nuke cannot destroy the American culture and societal cohesion. Neither can killing several thousand people in a couple of buildings. Both are, of course, tragedies but neither single act is a threat to the country since they are not self-perpetuating.

Smallpox is like the most deadly little von Neumann machine conceived and it has destroyed cultures before. I strongly suggest you read a bit about the Central American cultures and what happened to them when FAR less deadly pathogens hit them when the Spanish arrived.

i'd also point that your seeming faith in medicine is touching but as a qualified doctor I must tell you it is misplaced.

If I know someone has smallpox there's actually quite a bit I can do. I can vaccinate their close contacts, I can isolate them, I can try to treat them. OTOH my hospital may only have 600 beds (only a tiny fraction of which are isolation beds suited to treating people with such infectious diseases ( they need special air supplies separate from those supplying the other wards etc). It serves maybe 200,000 people. What happens when just 10% of them get sick? What happens to the 19,400 people who cannot get hospital beds? What happens when the limited stock of vaccine runs out? etc etc

In short I know nukes are more spectacular but you need to be a LOT more scared about biological weapons.

Anyways, let's hope it never happens and let's hope the US and European govts are both prepared and prepared to be ruthless if it does.

[Lumbergh]

Well, it certainly sounds like you are more scared of smallpox than even I am.

Anyhoo, I'm not going to worry about it since there are clearly smart medical people advising the US government. Presuming that the docs told the government the same assessment that you did, then the gubment would have to make a calculation about what the expected likelihood (since you're talkin' about Von-Neumann) of a smallpox attack was. Clearly, the expected likelihood is very small, since if it were not, they would be vaccinating everyone, NOW. Not just medical personnel. So would their buddies like the UK.

Amazing how we can percieve risk. I am a lot more worried about getting smallpox and dying than getting hit by a car when i ride my bike, but it is so much more likely that I will die from a bike accident.

[Laox]

I love all this assumption that Saddam has Nukes hidden, and chemical weapons ready and waiting. If the west KNOWS that, then presumably it has told the inspectors where to look. They have not found squat, and the "evidence" that Iraq had something, was never presented to the world either. Meanwhile Nth Korea is quite open about what it has, and what it intends to do, and Bush says he thinks he can solve that situation with diplomacy. Yeah right.

So the end result is it looks just like bullying a resource rich country that is in no state to challenge the US in any way, or even local neighbors .. for revenge, and/or access to oil and a regional presence (more bases).

I think you'll find this opinion, as badly as it goes down with the republican "chickenhawks", is the majority world opinion now, at least amongst those with half a brain.

Of course if the war schedule is fixed, and goes ahead without cause, expect to find the CIA go in after the tanks, to ensure suitable post action justification can be found.. the winner always writes the history, after all.

[Fionn]

Lumbergh,

A good point. re: relative risk. I also think that it is interesting that humans, when faced with truly terrible situations, tend to "shut off" certain implications of the situation.

E.g. You choose to make certain assumptions re: preparation which act to give you a reason to not worry about what might happen. It is a little akin to the psychological process of learned helplesness IMO but nonetheless an essential thing to do in these circumstances.

I'd also point out that when govt's don't know what the hell to do sometimes they just fall back on the "let's act like we know what we'll do and hope to avoid panic that way" approach

As to me being scared of smallpox. No, I'm not in the least scared of it. I've seen enough suffering and agonising death to be relatively innured to it. We all have to die of something and I refuse to get emotionally invested about my own possible demise when I don't get so invested etc about the deaths of others. To do so would be hypocritical and totally out of keeping with how I live my life.

OTOH I don't have to "fear" it to combine my medical and military knowledge and see the rather terrible possibilities in front of us.

LOL Laox,

Come on now you don't buy the line that the Iraqi scientists were using specialised variable pressure chambers to study camel pox ( a variant of no harm to humans) in order to come up with smallpox vaccine ( a vaccine freely available on the world market if they wanted to purchase it). No, their story is that they wanted to come up with a vaccine to smallpox ( which they could easily just purchase at a great deal less cost) by testing camelpox but NOT smallpox .

Alternately those same chambers are absolutely essential in any programme aimed at coming up with weaponised smallpox. Saddam doesn't love his camels enough to invest those sort of resources protecting them

[Coffin 'Enry]

That Saddam 'had' something can be found in the reports of the UN Inspectors. I would specifically draw your attention to their final report after they were kicked out in, what was it, 1998.

Fionn has made some very good points about the difference between capability and intent and how it is possible (my interpretation) that the US and UK governments are currently trying to manipulate the public perception of the two.

However, I really must take issue with this idea that possession of Iraqi oil is behind the present crisis though. Due to UN sanctions imposed with the intention to ensure Iraq complied with the terms of the ceasefire after the last Gulf War very little, in the great scheme of things, Iraqi oil has actually been traded for the last decade. Therefore the world has got used to its absence and adjusted accordingly. I find the idea that the US will go to war, and therefore spend billions, in order to get access to Iraqi oil, so as to oil drive the oil price down, well, frankly, silly – the sums just do not work.

That oil is important for governments in considering their attitude to the Middle East is, I take it, a matter of common agreement (Fionn’s non-articulated, but almost certainly valid criticisms of western energy policy not withstanding). No western power would have lifted a finger for Kuwait if it had not been sitting on vast oil reserves. Morality is not generally the business of governments, though the politicians that form them will usually pretend otherwise.

On the subject of which, Fionn, I would very much like to explore your views on the Gulf states in greater depth, but this is not the place. Perhaps you would drop me an email at your leisure?

Cheers

[Cpt.Kloss]

Some people stated that each country can ensure/enforce its national interest by any means - even aggresion against other countries.

Well, this justifies any counteractions, taken exactly from the same reason by Arabs.

So it is a big difference between acting in own interest and in the interest of all civilized world. Keeping a current course of action - when anything blows up in US again, the rest of the world will say: "well...you are wageing war..expect casualties".

And stop understand war as only strictly military actions. Current century gives more and more opportunities to harm other countries in different way than sending troops.

As for haughty declarations as "we will prevail": well -personaly I wish you that -, but what history shows no empire prevailed as dominant superpower...against time. What if in the next 20 years China starts introducing your policy?

I must also disagree that once induced hatred can easily be calmed. No, it can last for ages.

I think that regardless of military might it is not wise policy for any countries to make enemies out of half of the world.

regards

[laxx]

*** off topic ***

somehow, when i read the above posts on pan-arab vs US perception, i can't help but think of Singapore. Things has somehow gotten tense over the last 2 weeks with our relationship with our neighbour Malaysia.

first it was the issue of the disputed rock Pedra Branca, that got the populace of malaysia into a frenzy, some of them tried to reach the island to protest. Our gunboat turned them off. malaysia freaked at that.

then someone notices that Tim Huxley, a noted SE-Asia military "expert" from Hull University wrote a book on how the tiny island of Singapore would take a pre-emptive strike at Malaysia (5 times the population, 30 times the size!) and win if the water supply from Malaysia to Singapore got threatened. You can read the dooms-day scenario here from a frenzied malaysian website here: http://www.usj.com.my/bulletin/upload/showthread.php?threadid=3115

Well, now Malaysia are calling for increased vigilance and somehow I think the defcon in SE-Asia moved up a notch.

By granting the US docking rights in Singapore, we are tainted with the same brush: that Singapore is the puppet of the US and the Jews. Some of the malaysian press went as far as accusing Singapore of being the Jewish state of SE-Asia.

[['nzn]]

To laxx: your repeated attempts to compare soviet-german situation in the 40s to todays us-iraq situation are ridiculous in my opinion. if you really (excuse me pls if i got it wrong) think that stalin was doin some bad thing to the world trying to fend off hitlers invasion in russia then you should widen [as well as deepen] your view on the topic *a very little bit* before explicating your global politics discoverings in public.

mho

nzn

[ January 06, 2003, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: ['nzn] ]