War in Iraq

[bounder]

My tuppence ha'penny (2 cents in US  money):

Its not all about oil - although as the article said, it would be foolish to assume that oil is not a huge factor behind the reasoning of the US and UK.

It's a highly unpredictable situation. It could go one of several ways.
=====
The most optimistic outcome is that after a sudden and totally enveloping aerial attack that breaks up the Iraqi C&c structure coupled with a competent psych ops campaign, allied troops move over the border to witness mass desertions by disaffected conscripts. The only resistance is form the republican guard who are quickly outnumbered.

The conflict is over within months, and a caretaker government is installed with free and fair elections to follow.

=====

On the other hand, the disaster scenario is also a possibility. Saddam knows that if the allies invade with the explicit objective of 'regime change' he will either die or be captured.

Staring this fait accompli in the face as the allied invasion begins, his fury dictates his actions and he does his level best to turn the entire middle east into a giant bloodbath.

The invasion drags on for months as the iraqi scorched earth policy leaves huge population centres contaminated, public support sags as poison gas victims die on the television.

Israel, suffers a direct hit from an iraqi warhead and replies immediately with a tactical nuclear strike. Syria and Egypt kick off at Israel, US UK kicks off at Syria and europe runs for cover.

=====

And every outcome inbetween (and some more extreme ones too)


That's the chief difficulty with initiating armed conflict: the politicians have to light the blue touch paper and retire. After that their input is er, less valuable. They may direct their forces (usually against the advice of the military), but the course of the conflict is competely out of their hands.

If I lived in the US, I'd be a whole lot more sanguine about the war, but living in europe, in a lovely suburb that is about 50% muslim, I have my fears for the can of worms being opened by the Blair Bush axis of 'good'.

[Dowding (Work)]

Have I missed something? Who declared war?

No matter what Tony Blair is saying, right now the Labour government over here has a revolt on its hands with deep splits in the Cabinet. The British people is largely against action pre-emptive of any UN inspectorate operation.

The US is on its own right now, if it wanted to attack immediately.

I've read the dossier published yesterday. Nothing really that new in it, more flesh on the bones of established fact. It made me chuckle when it went on about Saddam and his use of chemical and biological weapons; it was the West who gave him the technology and know-how in the first place!

I agree Saddam is a threat to the region, which brings me onto my next point.

Fdiron - if you see the Middle East as a powder keg, then what do you think will happen when the US et al steps in and forces a regime change in Iraq? What do you think the reaction of the Arab world will be?

What kind of government would be set-up in Iraq? What kind of plan is in place to take the country through the transitional phase? How are you going to deal with the inevitable tussle for power?

[Curval]

Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
I agree Saddam is a threat to the region, which brings me onto my next point.

Fdiron - if you see the Middle East as a powder keg, then what do you think will happen when the US et al steps in and forces a regime change in Iraq? What do you think the reaction of the Arab world will be?

I for one want to see Sadaam taken out.  But, the US historically has been VERY VERY bad at "regime changes".  In fact I can't think of one that didn't lead to bigger problems - post WW2....can you?  (Afganistan doesn't count becuase it is too early to tell)

[Tac]

Panama was kinda well done.

Too bad Noriega didnt have the advantage of being halfway over the world and surrounded by nations led by nutcases like himself.

[hardcase]

Good scenario..saddam..says ok..king's X , i give up

Bad scenario, saddam tries to kill everyon including the population of iraq. I wonder what saddam will do...the delimma or the questions.

No one thinks the air war will change the regime. Ground troops are already on the planning boards. Lot of body bags this time. This Bush will get the ending his father avoided. CB and dirty nukes maybe? Saddam hides, so, if he uses WMD will we? Where exactly would you use em? Bagdad? What is Saddam is in...basra? Bomb Basra. Kill of of Iraq?..Kiss all the oil goobye.

Cruel fate, we nuke the very oil fields Cheney wants.

hardcase

[N1kPaz]

is that 1.39 per gallon gas prices are unacceptable


i want 79 cent regular unleaded or else.... im sick of these ridiculous gas prices. sick of it.

[Nefarious]

Originally posted by N1kPaz
i want 79 cent regular unleaded or else.... im sick of these ridi
culous gas prices. sick of it.

Commute, take a bus. WALK!

I cant wait till there is no gas. We will use the roads to build our homes.

Zapkin

[Tac]

Im pretty sure Saddam will go full out, not give up.

If he's attacked he'll very likely send a few missiles to Israel to pull them into the conflict..and Israel has already said it would lob a nuke back this time around.

In either case Israel gets involved, then all the arab nations in the area team with saddam.. attack israel which in turn nukes them as well when they start losing ground (IDF is mighty, but against ALL arab nations nowadays? looks quite tough)...

Nice mess.

Not to mention we'd get all the fruitcake terrorrists planted throught the world blowing up stuff or using nastier things.

I'd go the easy way, bankrupt their economies or send an assassin team in or just attach a 100lb bomb to a drone and fly it down hussein's throat.

[Eagler]

when replacements are in place, it''' be surgical

over in less than a month

and the cry will be "Who's Next?"

[Replicant]

Originally posted by sshh
I was sure that Exocet will not do much trouble for modern Aegis ships. Besides that I am not sure how Iraq could get in 65km range anyway. Some Russian missiles could penetrate it and are not so range limited. But it is not something to expect from Iraq.

I don't know if Iraq have Exocets, but if they do then they are more than capable of sinking a US ship.  I remember reading a MOD article on, I think, Argentine Super Entendards (sp?) practising with the US Navy.  They'd do the usual circuits and land on their carriers but they'd also practice dummy attacks.  On more than one occasion they'd have scored a hit on a Carrier fleet, whether it was a corvette or larger ship, but a ship is a ship, and to the bottom of the sea it would have gone.  What's the distance of the horizon? 17 miles?  Not much time for any reaction to a missile closing in at Mach 2 - 6?

So, whatever the capabilities of Iraq are, never ever under estimate your foe.  If you do then you may just end up dead.

[N1kPaz]

but at the current rate that our armed forces (USA) are technologically advancing, we will be flying x wings before long...hehehehe

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Replicant
What's the distance of the horizon? 17 miles?  Not much time for any reaction to a missile closing in at Mach 2 - 6?

Why would the distance to the horizon matter?  Can't they victor in SAMS over the horizon with AWACS?

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Replicant

I don't know if Iraq have Exocets, but if they do then they are more than capable of sinking a US ship.  

While it is very true that you shouldn't underestimate your enemies, you probably shouldn't over estimate them. The USS Stark, an Oliver Hazard Perry Frigate, was struck by two Exocet missile fired by an Iraqi Mirage. The missiles cause major damage to the ship (ok, the missiles diddlyed the ship up hard core) But they did not manage to sink it. Now imagine that instead of an OHP, it was an Aegis Destroyer or Cruiser.

Getting hit by an excocet sucks, but it's not a garunteed sinking. Of course, the British lost two (?) ships to exocets in 1982, so that's worth noting as well.


[edit]
Exocets are sub mach also btw
[/edit]

-Sikboy

[Replicant]

Originally posted by Thrawn


Why would the distance to the horizon matter?  Can't they victor in SAMS over the horizon with AWACS?

Reaction time.  The missile will be just above sea level closing in at, say mach 5, and only within 17 miles would the fleet radar be able to pick it up on scope.  Having said that, they then have to identify the object which then takes time.  The self defence phalanx would kick in and try to shoot the missile down but they're not successful all the time, especially if something is obstructing it's sight of aim.  What is the standard blockade size, something like 3 miles?

As for the AWACs, I very much doubt they could pick a missile up at just above sea level, be very hard to pick it out from the entire surrounding clutter.  If aircraft are 'Link 16' enabled then they could display their results to defending aircraft immediately.

[Replicant]

Ah, didn't know Exocets were sub-mach.

The Argentine had four Exocet missiles I think, one failed, and the other three scored hits, sinking two ships, disabling the third.  Remember that not all ships are cruisers/destroyers etc., they could be valuable auxillery ships.

Anyway, the argument is that any anti-ship missile is more than capable of sinking a ship, whether it be Iraqi or US etc.