Steissd,
You are right that these smart bombs, of which there are two main types, are less likely to cause collateral damage. However, neither is perfect. The older smart bombs such as those used in the gulf war were mainly lased guided. This means someone must constantly paint the intended target with a laser upon which the bomb homes in to until finally striking the target. These have two main weaknesses. Bad weather can degrade the laser reflection resulting in invalid target acquisition. The 2nd is initial invalid target acquisition. (the guy pointing the laser has the wrong target)
As regards the first failure, what determines the seriousness of collateral damage is the type of area in which the intended target resides. If it is a lone Radar station in the desert the failure's risk of harming citizens is low. But if the target is, say, the Iraqi's Defense Ministry located in Baghdad... civilian casualties could result.
The second type of smart bomb works a lot like a cruise missile in that it uses GPS technology (latitude and longitude) to guide the bomb dropped by the aircraft. However, This type has problems also. The correct coordinates must be given to the bomb. The missile that struck the Chinese Embassy in the Balkan conflict was of this type. In addition there is always Murphy's Law to consider in which anything can go wrong. The point is, there will always be collateral damage and it will never be totally acceptable.
I know that a lot of people feel that war is wrong and that killing is wrong. I agree, but to pursue this thinking no matter the consequences is naive.
We should not try to solve the world's problems by force. But what of others that feel this is the only way, such as terrorists and Despots? Should we let them have their way? This world has and will always see moments like Munich where bullies such as Hitler are hopefully appeased in the name of peace. But wait! That didn't quite work did it?
It is after all a fine balance that must be struck. In that balance those who would sue for peace are just as valuable as those who propose war. Just as our leaders must make responsible and forward thinking decisions we must, as members of democratic societies, be responsible to educate ourselves as to not only the facts of a situation but also about our enemies mind set and his actions in the past.
Respectfully,
JM
Steissd,
Yes. I, of course, agree. In addition I think it is important for those who would like us to believe this situation is a "Rush to War" by the Americans realize this is not true. It is hardly a "rush" when we have given Saddam 12 years to comply with numerous UN resolutions. Lest we forget: About 12 years ago after we spent 40 days of air attacks which destroyed Saddam's Military infrastructure and decimated a large part of his ground forces, when we pushed him out of Kuwait into Iraq, when we on the verge of taking Baghdad and toppling his regime, Saddam agreed to a cease fire, blah, blah, bah, and to DISARM. He has, after 12 years, failed to do so. Why do some people think " just give him a few more months, he'll come around"? If Saddam thinks that he can postpone this situation "just a little more" he will. The French only feed his hopes with such solutions as "Let's triple the inspectors!" (Why? So 3 times as many people can be made fools ?) or "We will get him to get the Iraqi Legislature to pass a resolution to promise to disarm" (I am not making this up). If we must have his permission to have his legislature pass a resolution, why can't we just eliminate the middleman? Who runs Iraq? Even if they passed such a resolution, isn't that still way short of what we demanded and Iraq agreed to 12 years ago?
The French do us, themselves, and, most importantly, the Iraqi people a disservice by not standing by the rest of the EU and America. In doing so the French actually make war much more likely. The coalition will invade Iraq if they do not comply with 1441. Saddam is the only one that can prevent the destruction of his country. There are only three questions in my mind now. Does Saddam understand this? If so, Will he do a Hitleresque last stand and bring down his whole country or will he just bail out and leave his top people holding the bag? If he stays to fight will he use those Weapons of Mass Destruction?
JM
About French stance on the Iraqi problem: I want to propose a link to an interesting article of Thomas L. Friedman in the NYTimes:
Vote France Off the Island[/b][/color][/i].
It seems to me that Saddam is not going to disarm. He still hopes that the "world public opinion" will prevent the U.S. military operation against Iraq. Will he use his WMD? He will try, and it depends on the U.S. Air Force whether he suceeds: his inventories may be bombed out prior to his being able to shoot any non-conventional munition.
Steissd, as RE your post of: Sun Feb 09, 2003 3:19 pm
where you state:
"It seems to me that Saddam is not going to disarm. He still hopes that the "world public opinion" will prevent the U.S. military operation against Iraq. Will he use his WMD? He will try, and it depends on the U.S. Air Force whether he succeeds: his inventories may be bombed out prior to his being able to shoot any non-conventional munition"
Your first two sentences are the subject of my main concern with the mind of Saddam. To us, given all the info that we possess if in Saddam's shoes, we know what we would do. But let's think about his last run-in with the U.S., both sides know how that turned out. Why would he think the military clash would end any differently? I guess what I’m trying to ask is : Is he getting the right information? Are his Generals and Top aides feeding him a line? It has been said by those who were in his regime that he is surrounded by two types of advisors: Intelligent men who are cowards and Brave men who are stupid. Who translates the CNN reports to him? I must admit that I have trouble understanding the Byzantine mind.
As regards the last part of your statement: The WMD are worrisome. I would like to think that the U.S. knows their location but remain doubtful.
Best-case scenario is that we know exactly where they are and can destroy them if there is an attempt to move or deploy them in the conflict.
Blowing them up is not the best way to destroy them, it just spreads them out. It would be better if they were located and dealt with in an organized manner. But you are right, if we must, we will have to first render them unusable by Iraq, then deal with them afterwards.
JM
Technically, it is possible to burn out storages of the WMD without its being spread with help of deeply penetrating into the ground tactic nuclear weapons.
About Iarqi leader not being well-informed: it seems to me that Saddam knows English enough to watch the CNN/ABC/NBC/Fox broadcasts and to listen to speeches of Messrs. Bush, Rumsfeld and Powell, and to come to conclusion that these people really mean what they say.
Now I must repeat the words put in the title of the topic. I'M SORRY about my bad words toward the Americans:
>And American voters wouldn't like to see any action without the UN's approval...the percentage of American UN-lovers IMHO must be close to that ones of the Europeans...
Yesterday I got the real numbers - more than 60% of American citizens support the war on Iraq without the UN's approval. It's an excellent news! The Americans proved themselves as a really great nation! I'm glad to see that the Americans know pretty well: nobody is going to help them, the war on terror is an American war. Don't think that kind Puti-Put or uncles from the UN will come and defeat the terrorists. Nobody is really worried about the US but the Americans themselves. Nobody is going to do their job. All these fairytales about "the world anti-terror coalition" are not more than horsestrading. Thankfully the period of horsestrading is close to be over. Now China, Russia and other big "America's friends" must see that only REAL ADOPTION OF DEMOCRATIC VALUES will allow them to get America's friendship. And even awfull Shiraq's grimacing won't help them anymore.
----------
>I just saw a story about an Iraqi family. A man with a wife and 4 children trying to decide how to protect them if the bombs start falling.
Don't you think that this guy may have some problems with local security services for his "alarmism" and "defeatism" if only he isn't a specially trained actor?
DocentP wrote:I'm glad to see that the Americans know pretty well: nobody is going to help them, the war on terror is an American war. Don't think that kind Puti-Put or uncles from the UN will come and defeat the terrorists.
Absolutely true. Russia, Germany and France have economic interests in Iraq, and these contradict the U.S. objectives. Considering their position while making a decision means to pursue their economic goals on expense of the national interests of the USA. These countries are not rogue, but they need their money.
steissd wrote:It seems to me that Saddam is not going to disarm. He still hopes that the "world public opinion" will prevent the U.S. military operation against Iraq. Will he use his WMD? He will try, and it depends on the U.S. Air Force whether he suceeds: his inventories may be bombed out prior to his being able to shoot any non-conventional munition.
For his WMD inventories to be bombed out, first they have to know where they are. So if the US already has this knowledge, why the charade of the inspectors? This whole things smells more putrid every day.
steissd wrote:BTW, it is not very likely that the American bombs will fall on the residential neighborhoods: U.S. did not practice carpet bombing since WWII.
I'm sorry, but this must be a joke. Vietnam anyone?
It's true that there were surpsrisingly few casualties in the war on Yugoslavia - less than a thousand, I believe. Even in Afghanistan, casualties were much lower than had been predicted beforehand.
But Iraqi's have different memories. The Gulf War may have involved a record-low number of Allied casualties - but I remember estimates of over a hundred thousand Iraqi deaths. While CNN focused on the lasershow of "smart bombs", elsewhere war was very old-fashioned and bloody.
How much so, we'll never know, as it was also the war with the smallest possibilities for journalists to do news gathering of their own in recent times, as a stringent off-limits US army policy - probably learning from the Vietnam experience - had most world press relying on the US "news briefs" and analyses.
Nimh, there is a unique opportunity to avoid any Iraqi casualties, both military and civilian: immediate and unconditional surrender of Saddam Hussein.
Immediate resignation of the Bush administration would achieve the same end.
Well, your scenario is less realistic than voluntary exile of Saddam.
Less realistic in a plastic made up world.
And it is less necessary: no one is able to defeat the USA, thanks God.
George Bush Jnr is the biggest threat to world peace in the last 50 years. He's a greedy warmongering moron.
I wonder how many Americans realise that due to this thread and the statement above, it's likely that I will now never be permitted to enter the United States. The paranoid fascist government of the US will be monitoring my internet communications, and would consider me to be a negative influence on their citizens.
That is your assumption. Make an application for a tourist visa, and tell us about results (I guess, you need not go to the USA for this purpose). I cannot believe that your permission to enter the USA can be affected by personal name-calling against the President. I am sure that Mr. Bush is aware of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and he respects it. As a private citizen he may, possibly, sue you for defamation, but I am sure that the U.S. governmental offices will not undertake anything against you.
