The US, UN & Iraq II

Well, guys, mostly guys, anyway.

Thank you timber. As one of the distaff wimps in this conversation, not long off the fence and inclined to get back on it at any time, I appreciate the toning down. You may have felt that my post about the after-odor of testosterone to be inappropriate, but you guys are hurling words of weaponry at each other.

This entire business is difficult enough to deal with with that in the foreground of the discussion. That obfuscates many posts. Hope I can stay here.


sumac

Kara, this article is a mere speculation without any proofs. BTW, fuel-air explosives produce a powerful shock wave that is especially efficient in the closed bunkers killing personnel staying there. These weapons are surely not new, they exist since '50s (there were several generations of fuel employed in these weapons, and the last generation implies pyrophoric metals (Mg, Al, Ti, etc.), mixed with oxidizers (NH4NO3 and the like)).
There are no direct proofs of usage of neutron bombs that are mainly anti-tank weapons (they were introduced as a Western response to overwhelming superiority of the USSR in number and quality of tanks).

When I can disengage for a moment from the visceral revulsion I have at bush and his "policies", and just stand back and look at this whole puddle with Iraq - I am amazed at how totally Bush has attached his entire presidency to this coming war. I mean, ALL his eggs- economy, domestic security, EVERYTHING has been made secondary to his rush to war. Again, if I can manage enough objectivity to appreciate it, this is going to be momentously interesting.

"Rush" to war - he has been rushing since last October <sigh>

steissd, I know it is speculative. It still sends shivers.

I have thought the same thing, snood. I wish I could stand way back and watch it all happen, sorta detached like.

I hope you stay here too, sumac ... I need all the help I can get, particularly on my side of the fence

As to the mini-nuke story, well, I read the article ... plenty of "Bad Science", conjecture, and real "Military Sounding" words and terms. Lots of errors there, too ... of the sort which cast doubt on the credentials of the presenters of the information. One such was an apparent confusion between Fuel-Air Weapons and Thermobaric Weapons ... two completely different categories. In fact, the bomb, the MOAB, is technically not a "Fuel-Air" Device, as it' in common with the Daisy Cutter, incorporates its own oxidizer (for any who are interested, the components are ammonium nitrate, a fine metallic powder, styrene, and binders, along with a purpose-specific detonator). I have seen BLU 82 Daisy Cutters do their thing a lot more "Up Close and Personal" that I would care to have, and I have seen very high quality film of a variety of nuclear and thermonuclear weapons (the Tactical Deployment of which was among my areas of training).
Just ain't no comparison, partner ... none at all.

I could go into much more nit-picking disection, but that would bore hell out of most folks. Suffice it to say I am highly dubious of the probity of the claim.



timber

It sends shivers only to people that have slight idea of the warfare. By the way, the "mysterious" internal bleedings are characteristic to severe shock wave injuries as well. No radiation needed, just many small blood vessels are being torn, including these in throat, lungs, intestine, esophagus, liver, etc., and this completely explains symptoms in both dead bodies and survivors.
Low-grade uranium cannot be used as a main fuel for nukes, this is true. It is used as a part of the inner lining of the thermonuclear (hydrogen) bomb, but the latter weapon cannot be called low-yield; on the contrary, its blast is much more powerful than this of the fission (atomic) weapon. But it is extremely flammable, and it may be employed in the fuel-air explosive charges of the third generation as well. In such a case it may be considered a chemical explosive, and its radioactive properties are responsible only for possible side effects (radioactive environmental pollution, for example).
I am a former officer in the Soviet military, so the article did not make on me the same impression it makes on the "professional civilians".

One thing I read recently on Nitrogen bombs, if they decide to use them - Tanks and other motorized vehicles are made out of some sort of spent uranium refuse that super hardens the metal. If the vehicle is around a nitrogen explosion, this will stimulate the remaining uranium and make it radioactive again. I was infantry, didn't like them death traps anyway - yech!

steissd, I do not know what a "professional civilian" is, so I will speculate that it is those of us who have never served in the military. Your former profession surely does lend credulity to your comments above. However, I am more interested in your views on the morality of this pre-emptive attack that my country is planning.

This, from Tom Friedman today.

March 12, 2003
Grapes of Wrath
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Nitrogen bomb??? What is this beast all about? Maybe, you mean the neutron bomb? Well, neutrons beam may result in transformation of the U-238, but its contents in armor are so low, that this will not make a tank a secondary nuclear bomb. But the same neutron beam is efficient in killing all the crew. I remember the period when the USSR strongly supported movement against the neutron bomb that was active in Europe in late '70s (I was a teenager by this time, but I already liked to read newspapers). The Soviet position was explicable: this weapon neutralized all the Soviet superiority in the armored vehicles. But what made the young Europeans protest against deployment of defensive weapon that could protect them against enormous tank hordes in case of war, I still have difficulties to understand. These guys and girls considered themselves being independent liberals and pacifists, but in fact they supported agenda of the Soviet Department of Defense.

Sorry steissd, yes - neutron - thanks!

I didn't mean to say that it would become explosive, but active as in radiation. There is a lot of this super harden metal used in buildings also - therefore, negating some of the reason for use - kill people but leave super structures and equipment (ie, the non expendable stuff) alone. Life is considered expendable in a combat situation.

Surely. But implementation of the Douhet doctrine (massive Air Force activity in order to demoralize the enemy and to make its army to surrender without waging urban battles) by the USA may minimize both Army casualties and collateral damage. BTW, Mr. Rumsfeld points that the main mission of the new conventional bomb, MOAB, is making Iraqis to surrender without making serious war.
The source: Huge U.S. bomb tested at North Florida air base seen also as psychological tool.

steissd, the uproar over the nuetron bomb stemmed from the civilian perception that a weapon which killed people while causing relatively little physical damage would be employed against cities and the like ... the concept of its efficacy as an incredibly potent anti-armor weapon was largely unknown, and of no particular interest, to the protestors, who essentially lobbied against a boogeyman that didn't exist.


That sort of stuff happens all the time.



timber

BillW, I'm unaware of the use of depleted uranium in other than military application in the realms of munitions and armor, where its exceptional density and extraordinary hardness are particular benefits. I can't imagine the utility of a super-dense, hard-to-shape, outrageously expensive material in normal building construction.

steissd, More hysteria than valid public information exists as far as nuclear weapons go. That's actually pretty good, I suppose. The real implications of nukes are terrible enough in themselves, even if the fears of the uniformed are misfounded. As an officer in Soviet service, I'm sure you received training in operating in a nuclear environment, and I expect you will largely share my assessment. Correct me if I'm wrong.



timber

Tomorrow, after I get my thoughts together a little better, I will lay out a wish-list scenario for what probably will be coming, very soon. I would appreciate it if people would knock holes in my assumptions, etc., as I know very little.

Snood -- You made a really good point back there aways about Bush hanging (one hopes literally) his presidency on the war, or so it would seem. May he crash and burn. But I doubt it. This is the bail-out kid from way back. He has never been allowed to fail publicly -- or rather, he's never had to suffer the consequences of personal and professional failure. In the meantime -- have you noticed this? -- there has been an increase in the predictions of blowback even in the mainstream media, so called. I think the diplomacy blitz of the past couple of days has been "ordered" by Bush 1, whadaya bet...

Then I thank all involved for the clarification. I'm not sure it isn't just one facet of what I assumed you were describing, but I can accept that you see it as "scripting" the Presidency and understand why you think that's a bad thing.

Again, thanks for clarifying.

It really is good practice to plan for contingencies, and to have not only means to cope with them but prepared statements to announce them. There is potential for abuse, yes ... but it is good practice nonetheless. There are plenty of more substantial concerns to be addressed, by far.



timber

timber

I think everyone having been in the military forces within the last 50 years or so got trained to operate in a nuclear environment - we had a "nuclear alarm' at least once per week (which was really getting 'funny' when there was at the same time 'fire on board' and 'aircraft attack').

Walter - you don't object to news services keeping prominent peoples' biographies for quick reference in case obituary must be prepared? Or to ladies travelling with black dresses in case they must attend a memorial service? Truly I see no distinction between the above and the "canned" statements mentioned here.

Of greater interest right now is the fate of Congressman Moran of Maryland, who was told in no uncertain terms not to run for re-election after being quoted as saying "... we wouldn't be getting into this war if it weren't for the Jewish lobby.."

Btw, their cohorts do rather seem to be crowding this thread - the radiotechnician is my favorite, with the alleged medic who doesn't know a T-70 from a tractor a close second <G>