I dont feel like getting into this US vs Iraq argument right now, but I will provide some facts relating to previous posts in this thread:
1. M-1s do not currently use reactive armour. We did use some M-60 MBTs in Desert storm that had reactive armour though.
2. Stealth is relative. Stealth planes arent invisible to radar, they just have much reduced radar signature, meaning that they show on radar only at very short ranges.
3. Many BVR kills were recorded in Vietnam and since by the US. There were free fire zones in Vietnam where fighters could use their long range missiles BVR, and in Desert Storm, AWACs and much improved IFF allowed the ROE to be modified to allow some BVR shooting. We also have something now called NCTR, the way it works is classified, but suffice it to say that it can tell what kind of plane the radar is looking at by using some cool gee-whiz computer trickery.
4. Most experts would agree that between the original F-16 and Mig-29, the Fulcrum was better in many ways. However, the current block Viper is WAY ahead of the latest model Fulcrums. The original F-16s couldnt carry long range A-A missiles, had inferior radar, and were less powerful than they are today. Current F-16s are more reliable, have vastly more capable radar systems, and carry the awesome AMRAAM missile. The Mig-29 hasnt been improved that much in the past 20 years. The Mig-29M finally got some improved avionics, and a glass cockpit but it still lags way behind the F-16 in almost every way. The F-15 is superior to them both in every respect except ultimate manouverability in a close in fight. The best Russian fighter isnt the Fulcrum though, its the Su-27 Flanker (not including prototypes such as the Mig-142 which will probably never be built, and the Su-35, which isnt operational yet). The Flanker is superior in many repects even to a new F-16, and even in some ways to the F-15. Pilot skill and tactics are the main thing in air combat though, as we all well know from AH. Besides, even if Iraq had 100 really good Mig-29 pilots and he was somehow able to get 100 Fulcrums into the air, we have 1,381 F-16s, and 737 F-15s (not to mention all the USN and USMC Hornets and Tomcats). Soon we will have the F-22 which is light years beyond any current fighter.
Saddam would be stupid to even try to counter the might of the US head on. He would be better served by using assymetric tactics to try to counter some of our weaker areas in which he may have some relative strength. Fortunately, we are aware that this is exactly what he will probably try to do, and we will be extra vigilant in countering the few strengths that he has. It is critical that he does not acquire nuclear weapons however. This would provide him with a weapon that we really cannot counter at this point, although he wouldnt have the means to deliver it to the US. His most likely target would be Israel. I dont know if he is really irrational enough to use nuclear weapons against Israel, but I do know that if he gets nuclear weapons, the Israelis will probably not sit around and play waiting games. A scenario where Israel launches a preemptive war against Iraq could be disastrous in the powder-keg of the Middle East and might result in a full scale war in the region. We would most almost certainly side with Israel in such a case, and many of the other Middle Eastern nations would possibly side with Iraq. I dont think there is any doubt about who would win in the end, but such a war would be a tremendous disaster in terms of human life lost, and material cost.
Hopefully the Arab nations will realize that Saddam is a loose cannon, and cooperate with our efforts to remove him from power. A short, wellplanned campaign, using good intelligence, special operations, and airpower might succeed in rapidly toppling Saddam. Contrary to what you might think, Saddam would probably be easier to find than Osama has been, due to the larger train that he is forced to carry around with him. With real-time intelligence literally getting better by the day, we wait until we know where he is, launch a rapid strike to take him out, and have a plan ready as to how to fill the vacuum created. This is all much easier said than done (if it was easy it would have already been done), but a bad situation is brewing on down the road if he develops WMD beyond what he already has. Hopefully the bugger will just die a natural death soon, and somebody more reasonable will take his place.
By the way, I disagree with the assertion that armour always lags behind weaponry. The race between arms and armour goes back and forth. First one will be ahead, then the other, as engineers and designers work to overcome new technologies. Want an example? Stealth again provides us with one. It was practically invincible when it first was used, setting engineers worldwide scrambling to find a way to defeat it. Now there are at least 5 technologies that offer a way to counter stealth at least to a large degree. However, stealth technology isnt static either. Large advances have been made in this field as well, negating many of the efforts that have been made against it. The B-2 is many times larger than the F-117 yet it has almost the same radar signature (actually it has a slightly smaller signature).
Wow, this wasnt supposed to be a long post, and I wasnt supposed to get into this argument. Oh well, I like a good debate too much to be able to stay out of one.
