The US, UN & Iraq II

All right already -- May he trip (fatally) on a pretzel. But above all, Asherman, May this war never take place.

quick stop by to inhale some DU

Just heard on NPR news (not yet in Reuters or Google news): Bush has agreed to a delay.

Really, Asherman? The odds of a pullout for whatever reason are looking a bit higher than 20% to me.

Tartarin,
a link:

Bush Open to Delaying U.N. Iraq War Vote
58 minutes ago


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030313/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_28

Roger,

I place the odds at about 25% (5% positive effects, and 20% negative effects). If you assign higher odds to the pullout, then the odds associated with fighting go down proportionately. The relationship of positive to negative effects of a pullout would also have to be adjusted. I can't believe that the positive effects of a pullout would ever reach above 5% because it depends so much on an idealism unsupported by human history. That essentially means that the odds of negative effects will also increase. To illustrate if the odds on pullout become even: Pullout (positive)= 5%; Pullout (negative)= 45%; Fighting (negative)= 17%, and Fighting (positive)= 33%.

Given the premises and risks, I remain convinced that US military action in Iraq is necessary and worth the risks involved.

Tartan,

If the war doesn't take place now, there will probably be a larger and much more costly war in the relatively near future. There are consequences of every action, or failure to act. I don't want a war either, but I would rather fight now with all the odds in our favor than to be forced to fight later when the odds have shifted.

Asherman

Since Timber failed to see my question to him regarding possible use of the MOAB to destroy the personnel manning the artillery pieces in North Korea----do you see the possible use of these weapons to neutralize the artillery in the event of war with North Korea?

I see very small chance of positive effects under any senario, Asherman. If my assessment is correct, we may just as well choose the least expensive alternative, hopefully, without leaving the Emirates and Kuwaite totally exposed to allegedly nonexistant Iraqi weapons.

Percy,

I expect we will use any weapon in our arsenal in any appropriate circumstance. The use of high yield (relatively) conventional weapons are a viable alternative to the use of small sub-kiloton nuclear weapons. US doctrine currently calls for sudden, overwhelming and lethal force that gets "inside the opponent's decision cycle". (I thought you might like the referrence to your favorite fighter thinker). What is sometimes overlooked, is that we don't expect to kill ants with sledgehammers. There is an escalation of force that says you only utilze that amount of force appropriate to the problem. Nuclear weapons are at the top of the elevator, and only will likely be used in retaliation.

Asherman

Yes I liked that reference to John Boyd---it seems he is getting some long overdue recognition for his conceptual thinking regarding warfare.

Asherman and Timber-----this thing regarding Hoft and her statement that depleted uranium is used as balast in ships is quite contradictory with Timbers statement regarding the cost. Now someone is wrong and should "fess" up.

3. Current Uses of DU

DU is currently used in kinetic cartridges for the Army’s 25mm BUSHMASTER cannon (M2/3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle), the 105mm cannon (M1 and M60 series tanks) and the 120mm cannon (M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams Tank). The Heavy Armor variant of the M1A1, the M1A1 (HA), also employs layered DU for increased armor protection. Army Special Forces also use small caliber DU ammunition on a limited basis. The Marines use DU tank rounds in their own M1-series tanks as well as a 25mm DU round in the GAU-12 Gatling gun on Marine AV-8 Harriers. The Army uses small amounts of DU as an epoxy catalyst for two anti-personnel mines: the M86 Pursuit Deterrent Munition and the Area Denial Artillery Munition.[66] The Air Force uses a 30mm DU round in the GAU-8 Gatling gun on the A-10. The 20mm DU round developed by the Navy for use in its shipboard PHALANX Close In Weapons System (CIWS) remains in service; however, since FY 1990, the Navy has procured only tungsten rounds for the CIWS. The 20mm DU rounds remaining in the inventory will be used until the supply is exhausted or ages beyond its service life.[67]

DU is also used in numerous commercial applications:[68, 69]

ballast and counterweights
balancing control services on aircraft (civilian and military)
balancing and vibration damping on aircraft
machinery ballast and counterweights
gyrorotors and other electromechanical counterweights
neutron detectors
radiation detection and shielding for medicine and industry
shielding for shipping containers for radiopharmaceuticals, radioisotopes, and spent nuclear fuel rods
chemical catalyst
X-ray tubes
glass and ceramics for brilliant colors

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du/du_tabe.htm

Looks like Guinea is maybe on board. There's a relief! Apparently they are only getting lower Manhattan and an insignificant portion of the Auto Worker's Pension Fund.

Meaning, of course, there is no motivation but greed.

Roger,

Even when if the problem does not have any discernable "positive" effects (a normative conclusion), we try to select the alternative that has the least "negative" effects, the lowest cost in lives and treasure. In my analysis above, if you compare the two negative effects - which is the most costly in the long run? In my assesment the negative effects of Pullout are 20% and the negative effects of fighting are around 25%. These are comparable odds given ALL the options. The positive effects of Pullout are really, really low, and the postitive effects of fighting are about two to one over the possibility a negative outcome in fighting. Those are pretty good odds for going ahead. The potential for things going wrong are about the same as the negative effects of pullout, yet the probability of positive effects are 2:1.

BTW, before the events of the last few weeks the odds of positive v. a negative outcomes for fighting were very much higher. The popular pacfist movement, though well-meaning, substantially strengthened Saddam's hand as support for US/British action was softened. The odds further shifted and risks were increased when a second front south from Turkey had to be scrapped. The loss of surprise and the narrow front along which we will have to advance makes the military option more difficult, costly, and risky. However, even if the US goes it entirely alone, the odds for a positive outcome still are greater than the negatives of all the other options. I still think we should have launched the attack on 02-03MAR when everything appeared optimal. Oh well, no one listens to old duffers anyway.

Then if DU is not dangerous ----- what's all the hysteria about "spent" shell casings scattered all over Iraq?

Ul

You are indeed the "resident" fact finder----thanks

I am sorry for having delayed my response, Timberlandko. Your question was posted at 05:37 Israeli time, so I was asleep.
Of course, I was trained to operate under conditions of limited nuclear war, and I was told by my commanders not to share any parts of my knowledge with civilians, since this might undermine the efficacy of the Soviet propaganda. And after such a training I found many of statements of the professional fighters for peace regarding nuclear weapons being at least ridiculous.
By the way, they USSR was the only country to perform a military training exercise with usage of real nuclear weapon. It happened in 1956, if I remember well. The nuclear bomb (ca. 10-15 megaton yield) was exploded 300 meters above the surface, and after hallf an hour the soldiers were ordered to launch an offensive in the area of explosion. This was a training exercise of the ground forces, and about 70 thousand of personnel participated in it; the Secretary of Defense Marshal Zhukov personally attended these manoeuvres.

Generally depleted uranium is not regarded as hazardous. However, whenever a bullet is fired some small portion of its mass is lost. Those microscopic and smaller bits of residue can, if inhaled, cause a problem. Depleted casings may contain some residue that is a health risk, and they shouldn't be handled carelessly. Most people put the risks of contamination so low, that nothing much is done about them.

Asherman wrote:

I still think we should have launched the attack on 02-03MAR when everything appeared optimal. Oh well, no one listens to old duffers anyway.

Even John Boyd didn't get much credit at until after his death-----not wishing you an early demise but that's history's way of dealing with intellectuals.

Steissd,

The US also conducted atomic tests with Army troops close to ground zero, and with simulated assaults into the zone of destruction shortly after blast. I'm sorry I've forgotted when the last such test/training exercise inside a nuclear enviroment took place. Certainly, we had stopped doing that before 1960.