| Author |
Message |
    
Paul Grant (Paulgrant)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 06:11 pm: | 
|
I don't usually start these threads but I just had to ask if any of you folks were aware of "Shock and Awe." Apparently, as reported on CBS, the New Zealand Herald, the Free Republic conservative forum as well as the liberal Alternet forum, the Pentagon has devised a plan for attacking Iraq. It calls for launching between 300 and 400 cruise missles a day (more in two days than were used during the first Gulf War) targeted at Baghdad, a city with a population of over 5 million.
Sources from the Pentagon, quoted in a CBS report say "the sheer size of this has never been contemplated before. There will not be a safe place in Baghdad." The effects will approximate that of a small thermonuclear device in terms of the scale of destruction. The expressed goal of an attack of such magnitude is to destroy the Iraqi people "physically, emotionally, and psychologically."
I read, in one news report that an estimated 2/3rds of the city's inhabitants would be killed or injured. On the liberal site alternet.org they compare an attack of this size to the attack on Guernica by the Germans during the Spanish Civil War. Picasso immortalized the horror in his painting of the event which was the first time that an airforce was used to intentionally bomb civilian targets. It was Hitler's prelude to the Battle of Britain.
Do a google search if you want to learn any more about what it seems we have in store for the civilians of Baghdad. I just wonder if, during the course of our leader's State of the Union Address, he proffers the notion that out beef is not with the people of Iraq but rather their leader. "Shock and Awe" would be an interesting way of showing it.
Flame away!!! |
Doubtful
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 06:16 pm: |
|
Don't believe everything you read. |
Eric N (Grnrvr)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 06:16 pm: |
|
I hope they have a cruise missle cam some where on the net so I can watch. |
Paul D. Morgan (V22guy)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 06:34 pm: |
|
Paul,
If that is true, which I doubt. You had better buy a lot of defense stocks. |
Peter Matusov (Pmatusov)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 06:44 pm: |
|
Paul, not all are publicly traded 
peter |
Paul D. Morgan (V22guy)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 06:51 pm: |
|
Hmmmm. Well Damn.
A lot of people don't realize that building a cruise missle is the same as building an airplane. It takes a while to complete and defense contractors don't go building Cruise Missles like Ford builds exploders, there must be a contract in place. So, if we launch 3-400 missiles a day, our inventory will be depleted quickly.
Now, don't get me wrong Peter, I am all about President Bush unleashing a Blitzkrieg at Baghdad. I just don't see how we can do it from a logistical standpoint. |
Paul Grant (Paulgrant)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 06:55 pm: |
|
Paul,
I found it on the CBS News site and did a google search which also turned up a report by Reuters. I was surprised to find a thread on Free Republic which is one of Mark's (Mark and Bev) favorite sites. It is also being discussed on the alternet which is a liberal site. CBS says that there are several thousand cruise missles already in the Guld and that this sort of attack is expected some time in March.
I'm in no position to know what is true and what is not when it comes to the mainstream media. I remember all the outrage created during the first Gulf War then everyone was reporting on Iraqi troops throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators. No one bothered to check on the only source for that information, a teary eyed Kuwaiti who just happened to be the daughter of the ambassador to the US. The story was false but there was never any real attempt to make it know. Nor were we ever told that within days of the Iraqi invasion, the Kuwaitis had hired a prominent Madison Avenue Ad Agency to help manage spin and offer up a steady stream of salatious horror stories in an attempt to inflame the west.
All any of us can do is read as much as we can from as many sources as possible in an effort to strike our own balance.
BTW, are you French? LOL |
Paul D. Morgan (V22guy)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 07:31 pm: |
|
LOL....I am so not French! |
Greg French (Gregfrench)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 07:33 pm: |
|
"Fighting for Peace" is like "Fucking for Virginity" |
Paul Grant (Paulgrant)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 07:41 pm: |
|
OK, here's another twist. ABC Radio's "Prime" has quoted WIlliam Arkin of Johns Hopkins University (reputed to be a foremost expert in nuclear warfare) saying that he has seen war plans that call for the use of nuclear weapons for bunker busting deeply reinforced centers of command and control. He also mentions there use as a preemptive strike eliminating Iraq's WMD.
I just don't know what to believe anymore! |
Leslie N. Bright (Leslie)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 07:46 pm: |
|
Greg,
The more you do, the more little virgins Momma keeps poppin' out......
-L |
Greg French (Gregfrench)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 07:47 pm: |
|
Those "Bunker Busting" mini nukes were in Popular Science a few months ago.
It uses a bunker buster bomb to penetrate into the mountain, then sets off a small nuke to blow the shit out of the underground tunnels and stuff that thy like to hide in.
Effective, but Not a good idea if you ask me...
which you didn't. |
Dana Giles (Dana_G)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 08:07 pm: |
|
the shock and awe concept, to my understanding is valid. It is NOT targeted at the iraqi people as your first post presented it. It is designed to demoralize the Iraqi military, and remove their desire to fight. The overall effect should cause far less loss of life (civilian and otherwise) than a long war of attrition.
If we wanted to lay waste to Baghdad we could simply carpet bomb it with dumb bombs out of B-52s. The purpose of using weapons like cruise missiles is to eliminate military targets with as little collateral damage as possible. Ask alternet.org why we would waste so much money on guided weapons if our goal was to obliterate the civilian population. Little logic flaw there in the liberal argument. |
Dana Giles (Dana_G)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 08:30 pm: |
|
Alright here's the CBS websight with the story (I used them as opposed to Fox so no one could accuse me of quoting a conservative network) I think you will find their wording a little more realistic than altwhoeverthehelltheyare
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/24/eveningnews/main537928.shtml |
Dana Giles (Dana_G)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 08:38 pm: |
|
I guess that what gets my blood boiling about all of this is the fact that people think George bush is worse than Saddam Hussein, and somewhat on par with Hitler. Folks, if that were the case do you really think he would ever have made it into national politics? yes, please remind me about the popular vote bit, but if he were truly that evil do you really think he'd have even gotten 47% of the popular vote, do you really think the American populace at large is that gullible/stupid/etc? Furthermore, do you think for a minute that unless Iraq were actually landing troops on US soil and bombs on US cities that your military would support mass genocide against the iraqi people?
When quoting something concerning the "shock and awe" concept it is necessary to take the perspective of where one obtains the information into account. Those at alternet.org aren't as concerned with accurate quotes as they are with discrediting Bush. |
Paul Grant (Paulgrant)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 08:39 pm: |
|
Dana, it was actually the CBS News site that had the informaton and the quotes from Pentagon sources. The Alternet, along with Free Republic, was only reiterating what was stated by CBS. I guess we can credit them for 'breaking' the story. Regardless, the sheer number of cruise missles launched into a densely populated urban environment will, undoubtedly, be responsible for large civilian casualties. And I have to add that quotes like the ones in the CBS report which claim no place will be safe in Baghdad and that the effects will be as devastating as a nuclear weapon provide little reassurance.
Another thing, Dana, you needn't be so quick to label everything in the black and white of liberal and conservative. I have heard some very staunch anti war rhetoric from individuals all over the political spectrum. |
Paul Grant (Paulgrant)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 08:43 pm: |
|
I'd also like to add that all the quotes that I cited in my initial post are there for all to see in the CBS report. |
Dana Giles (Dana_G)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 08:51 pm: |
|
Paul,
There is dissent on both sides, but by and large by my experience, (and I'm debating the issue on several venues at the same time) The lines of division on the issue fall along party lines.
Nuclear weapon devastation is measured in kilo or mega tonnage of explosives. you launch enough ordinance, you reach that weight, simple math. 800 missiles spread around the country of Iraq...note not all aimed at Baghdad will not have the same effect as dropping a nuclear device and leveling the entire city.
many of those weapons will be aimed at knocking out the military infrastructure throughout Iraq and their air defense systems so when my brethren fly over in bombers they won't return in body bags. |
Paul Grant (Paulgrant)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 09:17 pm: |
|
Dana, your brethren are my brothers and sisters too. I don't want to see ANYONE lose their life if it can in any way be avoided. That is why I believe that we need to allow the UN's inspectors to have the time they feel they need to do a comprehensive job.
We should not take it upon ourselves to act unilaterally because it will only weaken us in the long term. Are you prepared to fight everyone in possession of WMD? Where do we draw the line. If, in the outrage to follow our unilateral intervention in Iraq, the Pakistani president falls, do we target them? What about Syria, what about Israel (don't even get me started on the Palestinians). Hell, what about France! LOL
I truly fear that we are prepared to set in motion events that can very quickly get out of control (remember the war games this summer in which half of our Gulf fleet was sunk). Wars can be wildly unpredictable and they tend to set in motion forces that would never have been considered at their onset. |
Jake Hartley (Jake)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 09:18 pm: |
|
Paul;
I doubt if this is true, more likely a bit of well-written PSYOP to shake, rattle and roll the world, and specifically the Iraqis into thinking that we are about to do the big one on them. The US has NO reason or will to kill huge amounts of civilians intentionally in a war like this. True, during WWII we incinerated lots of Germans ad Japanese (forget about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we burned more to death in the incendiary bombing of Tokyo), but that was total war. We have no reason to do that here when the actual ground combat may be over in 100-200 hours.
As far as using tactical nukes on these super well constructed bunkers out in the desert, why not? Would you rather see US forces take numerous casualties assualting it WWII style? These bunkers contain, purportedly, chem, bio, and maybe nuke weapons, why not get them gone before they can get out of the ground. Why wait until Saddam lets a scud go to Tel Aviv loaded with Sarin or Smallpox?
It boils down to this: WAR AIN'T PRETTY! If you don't have the stomach for it, stand out of the way of those who do. Weapons of war are grim, destructive devices meant to defeat the enemy, a choice that when a country makes, should be done as quickly, effectively and totally as possible.
Veteran, US Army
Gulf War, Bosnia, Somalia |
Curtis N (Curtis)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 11:57 pm: |
|
Jakes speaks good stuff. On another front: I never have been too concerned whether I get killed by a conventional bomb or a nuclear device. Same applies to death by carpet bombing or cruise missile. Either way I am still dead and likely suffered less than than the death of a chem or bio agent. If I were being shot at, I would prefer a cruise over conventional with the hopes my enemy was aiming at military sites.
Paul, there is a lot of shit that is said to sensationalize a war that has not happened. Some is PSYOP, and some is truth. The first thing to realize is that anyone who is reporting speculation is just trying to influence your feelings or those of others. You can read, absorb, guess, and assume all you want, but it does not make it real.
You can also be assured that most of the speculations and reports you hear are wrong. The guys who draw up battle plans have literally thousands of scenarios. The one they actually use will be a surprise and will likely not be decided on until hours before the attack. Saying that someone saw a "war plan" is like saying someone saw a page in a football team play book.
That being said, we are going to war. That is a fact. My opinions probably differ from yours as far as the right time, but that is inconsequential. The fact that war is hell is truth. Question all you want, but have faith that our nations leaders will ensure we do it in the best manner possible. They know a lot more about what is going on than the public and they will ultimately be accountable for thier actions.
Keep the faith,
Curtis |
BW
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 01:10 am: |
|
Paul Grant,
It has been over a decade since the Gulf War. Saddam has not disarmed and apparently has no intention on doing so now.
The UN has not found the weapons of mass destruction that we know exist and may never find them.
Knowing these facts, what would you do if you were the President of the United States? Do you expect President Bush to cross his fingers and hope that Blix and his teams find the weapons before Saddam uses them again?
Again, what would YOU do? |
Greg French (Gregfrench)
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 07:30 am: |
|
"Nobody Hates War More than a Warrior"
U.S. War Veteran...Proudly Serving since 1987 |
Jake Hartley (Jake)
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 07:50 am: |
|
"Nobody Hates War More than a Warrior"
Amen Greg, that's why if we have to do it, we need to do it right the first time and kick the bad guys ass enough to end it then.
US Army, 1981-2001 |
Tom Rowe
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 11:02 am: |
|
"I doubt if this is true, more likely a bit of well-written PSYOP to shake, rattle and roll the world, and specifically the Iraqis into thinking that we are about to do the big one on them."
Very good point. I can't remember the details, can't find the article right now, but....
Not long ago it was announced that there was being created, here in the states, a dept of misinformation, to feed false stories to the press. There was of course a big stink about it so the person in charge of it, Cheney maybe, I forget, said, fine, it's gone. Then said off the cuff, inessence, sure, the dpet is gone by that name, but we're still gonna do what we think needs to be done.
It could very well be a "leaked" story. On the otherhand, I wouldn't be supprised if it were true.
Assuming it *is* true, I agree that cruise missles are for "surgical" sttikes, but at 3-400 per day? I find it difficult to believe there are that many military targets in Baghdad |
Greg French (Gregfrench)
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 09:37 pm: |
|
Jake...
Yeah..f we have to I'll probably be involved...again.
But do we have to?
Is there an alternative?
I hope so. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page