The US, UN & Iraq II

Timber - DU is used in ships' hulls to stabilize; ballast of sorts. It's not dangerous unless pulverized and ingested or inhaled.

Blair is determined to take us to war and risks everything, including my vote.

timber wrote



I presume you meant uninformed. Please don't assume that all those who are against this war and question the wisdom of using nuclear weapons are ignorant of their construction, capabilities or effects. I think it quite possible that the US military could use low yield nuclear weapons against Saddam's hardened infrastructure, and might want to develop a cover story they can sell to "embedded" journalists who wouldn't know a fuel air explosive from a neutron bomb if their career depended on it.


Hoft wrote



Agree. I asked before what contribution Israel was making, considering they will be one of the major beneficiaries of this war. As yet no response.

I doubt that anyone wants to have the knowledge of Israel's planned participation known....I'm sure I wouldn't, if I were either party.

Also hope that Tony Blair doesn't throw himself on his sword over this issue. He is too good an international leader to lose.

And as to my earlier cryptic post about laying out some scenarios, forget it. An arrogant senior moment. Perhaps Ash could do it, but not I.

Timber wrote:
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.

Hoft wrote:

Timber - DU is used in ships' hulls to stabilize; ballast of sorts. It's not dangerous unless pulverized and ingested or inhaled.

Hoft
There seems to be no end of your
expertise in everything from crop dusting to the use of Depleted Uranium----to bad it all seems to be suspect.

BTW--I'm still waiting for evidence of your flight experience as a crop duster pilot during a "summer job". Somehow I can't quite imagine the owner of a $200,000 aircraft turning it over to a kid out of school looking for a "summer job". I'm sure you can provide evidence for your claim. It would certainly do wonders for your credibility.

Agree with both Steve and Sumac. One of the great unknowns for quite a while has been the full extent of our relationship with Israel, the quid pro quos, the mutual backscratching. It's something we might consider demanding -- tough, because of the angry shouts that any questions about Israel amount to anti-Semitism. At some point we're going to have to shout back require open books.

I was listening to an analysis (on NPR) of the pressure being put on Vicente Fox to support us. And it made me wonder how much more many foreign leaders are risking to stop this war than we-the-people are -- than the American people are. Yes, we are marching and protesting. But Vicente Fox is putting his leadership, his country's economic progress and its relationship with its closest neighbor on the line... I was glad to see that Chirac was at least getting a lot of kudos in Europe... And although I've kind of wanted to see Blair crash and burn, I tend now to agree with Sumac that his leadership can be useful.

Tartar wrote:

"It made me wonder how much more many foreign leaders are risking to stop this war "

I'm sure it never occurred to you that it is pure greed and opportunism----they want the Administration to "sweeten the pot"
in their individual deals with Washington. Some would call it extortion-----I call it " global power politics".

Yeah, I meant "Uninformed ... thanks for catching my typo, Steve, I appreciate that. Sorry there's no prize ... my typos are too frequent to make awarding something to those who spot them uneconomic

I don't doubt that the US COULD use even sub-kiloton mini-nukes, however, I doubt the US WOULD use them, let alone their larger cousins, for a variety of reasons both practical and political.

As to confusion between a nuke's blast effect and the blast effect of a fuel-air device (which is NOT what the MOAB or Daisy Cutter are), or a a slurry-suspended explosive (which is what they are), I submit the differences are quite discernable even to the uninformed. A true fuel-air device vaporizes a hydrocarbon fuel, such as kerosene or gasoline, and is dependent on atmospheric oxygen, as well as requiring stable atmospheric conditions ... they don't work in even modest wind, light rain, or cold temperatures. Characteristically, their blast is accompanied by a prominent orange-yellow fireball, similar to a propaner explosion, which quickly devolves into a thick, expanding smoke cloud of distinctly "oily" appearance. There is usually little evidence of ground debris in the cloud, though flame effect frequently may be noticeable flickering within the cloud as it expands. Slurry explosives have a much bigger, much brighter, much briefer, more yellow (higher temperature) blast flash, which generates a distinctly grayish smoke cloud incorporating significant ground debris and no evident post-detonation flame effect. The blast flash of a nuke is blindingly white, incredibly intense, and accompanied by an awesomely energetic and debris-laden smoke cloud of enormous proportion. I really see little room for confusion.

Essentially, the device which Tim McVeigh used in Oklahoma City was a slurry-suspended explosive, commonly known as Anthol, which has wide application in agriculture; its great for removing tree stumps and house-sized rocks. I've made it and used myself for that very purpose a few times. The military version is considerably more potent, causing instantaneous overpressures in excess of 1000 PSI across a fairly wide immediate effect circle, and the shockwave penetrates deeply into the earth, imparting a "Heaving" motion quite disruptive of subterranean structures such as tunnels and caves. Massive internal injury is to be expected among those in proximity to the blast, and is consistent with the reports of symptoms cited in the article. But again, that's just nit-picking. I get bothered by what seems to me to be unfounded or misinformed hysteria; there are plenty of real things to worry about. There is no need to fabricate concerns ... the practice is, however, seemingly hugely entertaining to many.


I agree The Holyland Situation is inextrably intertwined with Middle Eastern violence and unrest, by the way. I hold little sympathy for Israel's behavior or for that of The Palestinians. Neither has shown much movement toward settling their differences over the past half century or so. Perhaps a base from which The US can project power throughout the region will have beneficial effect, and get things rolling on "The Roadmap" peace plan. There is mention of just that being among US intentions.



timber

Subject: France




In 1966 upon being told that Charles DeGaulle had taken France out of NATO and that all U.S. Troops must be evacuated off of French soil President Lyndon Johnson told Secretary of State Dean Rusk: "Ask him about the cemeteries Dean!" So at end of the meeting Dean did ask DeGaulle if his order to remove all U.S. troops from French soil also included the 60,000+ soldiers buried in France from World War I and World War II.

DeGaulle never answered.

HofT is a pilot, and is employed as one, which calls for her to flit about the planet, frequently disrupting her access to The Internet for reasons connected both with remoteness and security. The nature of her employment is established to my satisfaction. As to her "Credibility", well, that's pretty well established as far as I am concerned as well. She and I sometimes disagree, but she does know her tech stuff, particularly the military stuff. Her references always check out, and she "Talks the Talk". I've known her for a long, long time, and have been involved on many discussions with her on a couple of forums. She and I also correspond regularly via e-mail, and frequently have discussed things of interest only to active pilots. BTW, I'm a licensed pilot, too. Oh, and the 22 Year-Old daughter of the local cropduster is one of his better, and more requested, pilots. She really lays it right to the fenceline. She's a vicious poker player, too, damnit.

Can't believe that out of old Lyndon. Good story, and I hope it is true.

Sumac, Johnson's remarks on the matter have been widely published, and are included in both his own memoirs and in Rusk's, among others. It happened.



timber

Timber

Regarding the MOAB which penetrates bunkers with overpressure ----am I correct in saying that this might be the only means available(except tactical nukes) to take out the North Korean Artillery just across the DMZ?

I realize it would be almost a suicide mission for the C-130 (the only aircraft capable of droping these things but perhaps with simultaneous "other" happenings and our capability to take out missile sites plus a few dozen F-16s flying cover we might be able to pull if off -----if that becomes necessary. I'm just trying to visualize a way to prevent all those South Korean deaths in the event Kim Jong il insists on war.

Timber

I stand corrected on Hoft and I apologize to her----what you wrote about depleted uranium vs what she wrote really made me question her credibility.

Shee-it, tartarin. I put my marriage on the line. Is that good enough for you?

timber, you have zoomed to the top of my list. Pilots rule.

Timber

Since you are very quick to correct injustices on this forum ---how come you didn't say a word when Hoft called me a liar about my flying record????

Uh-oh, Kara. Hang in there!

perception, I missed that exchange between you and HofT. Sorry ... I'll try to be more attentive. Still, I'll likely miss lots of things ... feel free to PM with concerns you think I might have overlooked ... NEW ones, though ... lets not drag up the past.



timber

Kara, you and your husband put politics above marriage? To me it's a distant second to friendship.

Tartan,

You recently made the following statement when referring to the President of the United States:



For Bush to "crash and burn", the impending Iraqi excursion will have to be a dismal failure. The casualties, both military and civilian, will have to be horrendous (50K+). Fighting will go on for a long time, and expand at least throughout Southwest Asia. Kim Jong-Il would need to push the Korean Peninsula into open hostilities again, causing thousands more casualties. Terrorist attacks on the United States would have to increase ten fold. These are the sort of things you are wishing for so that the President of the United states will "crash and burn"?

In these times you're fervent prayers should be that those believing that the war will be short with only limited casualties are correct and you are wrong. The odds seem to break down sort of:

Pull-Out (positive result): Saddam disarms and recognizes Israel, Iran and North Korea, seeing that the US is no threat also disarm and they cease supporting terrorists. The UN becomes an effective world governing organization. The US military never has to fight again, anywhere, anytime. The Republican party disappears. The odds: 5% (I'm giving some extra weight to the proposition just because of my prejudices against the possibility).

Pull-Out (negative result): France and Russia lead effort to lift sanctions after Saddam swears he has complied with all UN resolutions. Money floods into Iraq and Saddam rebuilds his nuclear program. Israel uses an atom bomb to take out Saddam before he can lead a new Jihad against Israel. Iran continues with its nuclear program, and the DPRK tests one of its dozen nuclear devices by firing it aboard a TD-1 missile into the Bering Straight. Terrorism increases, as the radical Islamic factions smell blood in the water.

The President of the United States is unable to respond after the debacle of March 2003, and the UN is unable to meet any of the challenges without US troops. Bush becomes a dead-duck politically and the US government is stalled and ineffective until the next Presidential election. Bush is defeated, and the new Democratic President swears before the world that the United States will never deploy beyond its borders unless attacked and it is crystal clear who the guilty party was. American allies and clients abandon us in droves. The U.S. returns to an isolationist policy, and begins a long decline as a world superpower. Odds: 20%

March Engagement (negative result): The fighting goes on a long time, with many casualties, and spreads to encompass many nations in open warfare. Many of the negative results of the pullout alternative would also appear in this negative result. Bush loses the election. This is the scenario that Tartan seems to be wishing for in the quote above. Odds: 25%
March Engagement (positive result): The fighting goes as predicted by the military and administration. War is averted on the Korean Peninsula, and Iran scales back its nuclear program. Friends, allies and clients are strengthened, and more countries want to get on the US bandwagon. Deprived of safe-havens, radical Islamic terrorist attacks decrease everywhere. As world stability returns there is an economic upturn in the U.S. that spreads throughout the world. Bush MAY win the next Presidential election, but there is a 50-50 chance that he won't even run. Odds: 50%

The odds of pullout are about 25%, not very good at all. Given the professionalism, skill and capability of American arms compared to those of Saddam, fighting should be short and winning certain. However, war is a risky business and there is always some chance that things will go horribly wrong. The reader should not take any of these four alternatives as anything more than rough approximations of the four possible outcomes before us. In actuality, nothing so pure and complete is probable as the descriptions I've given to illustrate the analysis.

Perception,

Though I don't know Helen beyond what I read here in her posts, her knowledge of military matters seems genuine and accurate. There has been a lot of misinformation regarding nuclear explosives and the recently unveiled MOAB.

The MOAB, if my understanding is correct, has at best a yield of around .4K. That is about the size of a sub-kiloton weapon that conceivably could be used to destroy Terror Weapons buried in deep bunkers, though I believe we have sub-kiloton munitions down to around .1K. These are very small and controllable, though the political fallout from their use would be very negative. The MOAB, with around .4K yield might be a good alternative to nukes for destroying deeply imbedded Terror Weapons. We do have, as Timber mentioned, other munitions in our inventory that carry similar punch. Some of you may remember that a few months ago we talked eliptically about these little-known weapons. The Japanese bombs were 10-15k, and today visitors to Hiroshima ground-zero are exposed to less radiation than they do when micro-waving their popcorn.

Nitrogen Bombs are a non-start, Nitrogen as an element doesn't lend itself well to bomb technology. Nitrates can render extremely large explosions, but tend to be bulky and not easily adapted to military needs. I think the writer may have intended to talk about a neutron bomb. These are high energy weapons that have relatively small blast and heat effects. The high energy neutrons can kill occupants inside a first rate tank without also destroying a good part of the countryside. Steissed was correct in his remarks about the neutron bomb. I remember discussing this weapon with one of it's designers in the early 1960's.

In an earlier post, in the preceding thread, I discussed the four principle effects of nuclear weapons. They are: Blast, Heat, EMP, and Radiation. American bomb designs have been developed to feature each of these effects, while minimizing the other three -- though understandably blast and heat effects tend to remain closely related.