Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: senna on September 24, 2002, 06:37:18 PM
-
Well looks like were gona fight after all. Ready everybody?
-
Lets just get it over and done with.
-
It wouldn't matter if Saddam kissed chimpys bellybutton in the middle of Mecca during noon prayer...
He's determined to steal their oil for his corporate cronies and cabinet thugs.
-
Originally posted by weazel
It wouldn't matter if Saddam kissed chimpys bellybutton in the middle of Mecca during noon prayer...
He's determined to steal their oil for his corporate cronies and cabinet thugs.
ROFL The Weazel show is the best!
-Sikboy
-
the USA does not steal oil , it pays $28 a barrel for it ( latest price on north sea crude)
-
Try to see the big picture. What happened the last time that some allied countries let a former enemy build up and violate its treaty? World War II broke out, thats what.
The U.S. lost 219 servicemen & women in the first Gulf War. It was the first time in history where it was safer to serve in a war than it was during peace time.
The middle-east is a powder keg right now. Sitting back and take an isolationist stance is not a good idea.
-
stealing oil for his cabinet..you talking about Cheney right?:D
Always easy to be warlike when you are NOT the one going to die for some political reasons. If Saddam uses the WMD he is suppose to have, we back him into a wall, then you can shout hoodiddlyingray for us, as the body bags come rolling back.
hardcase
-
Originally posted by fdiron
Try to see the big picture. What happened the last time that some allied countries let a former enemy build up and violate its treaty? World War II broke out, thats what.
The U.S. lost 219 servicemen & women in the first Gulf War. It was the first time in history where it was safer to serve in a war than it was during peace time.
The middle-east is a powder keg right now. Sitting back and take an isolationist stance is not a good idea.
Would that be the big picture where the U.S. can no longer deter aggression (http://www.catoinstitute.com/cgi-bin/scripts/printtech.cgi/commentary/index.html)?
-
How could "Iraq" side destroy US ships ? What kind of missile they were permitted to use and how it could be guided ?! :confused: Or all this is just another BS to get more mooneys ?
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_10.html
The shortcomings in the U.S. military were pointed out in the Millennium Challenge exercise launched last month, Middle East Newsline reported. The exercise sought to simulate a U.S. attack against a Middle East enemy that resembled Iraq.
Officials said in the simulation U.S. naval forces were decimated by an Iraqi missile and weapons of mass destruction strike. The Iraqi side in the exercise used cruise missiles to overwhelm the U.S. Navy's GS radar and sink the entire simulated Blue Armada fleet of 16 ships.
-
YeahShss
Let's send 100k boys and girls real close to saddam so that he can kill em real easy like with any crude delivery system. If he is such a threat dont go knocking on his front door. Never attack where he wants you to..Sun Tzu
hardcase
-
"How could "Iraq" side destroy US ships ? What kind of missile they were permitted to use and how it could be guided ?! Or all this is just another BS to get more mooneys "
Exocet missiles.
Ask the British how pissed they were when a couple of cheap argentinian fighters plinked a few into some of their frigates and sent a few ships to the bottom during the Falkland war.
Besides, if Iraq ever gets to shooting at ships, its most likely to just send an chemical warhead in the general direction, take an entire carrier group outta action if it cant launch its fighter planes 'cause the air is fulla poison.
(but then again, Baghdad will be glowing a few minutes after heehee)
-
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.
-
is cheap oil.
sorry but it is true.
bye Saddam
:p
-
Let's send 100k boys and girls real close to saddam so that he can kill em real easy like with any crude delivery system.
Come on, you've been watching too many war movies/drinking too much. Even if the U.S. decided to throw out all of its doctrine and invade Iraq with just troops, most, if not all U.S. APCs and tanks have NBC systems.
-
Just out of curiosity, any modern war experts know of a seige struggle that may resemble the possible Bagdad scenario? I imagine if they did end up fighting, the city would be blocked off and a siege would be underway?
what about all of the people?
-
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'.
-
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?
-
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)
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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. :p
Zapkin
-
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.
-
when replacements are in place, it''' be surgical
over in less than a month
and the cry will be "Who's Next?"
-
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.
-
but at the current rate that our armed forces (USA) are technologically advancing, we will be flying x wings before long...hehehehe
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
an exocet would not get within range of a carrier, thats what the F14 does , it shoots down planes with exocets on them. the F14 is called 'fleet defense fighter"
hardcase said "their shipping body bags ""Lot of body bags this time"", how many 'body bags" did they ship for the gulf war ? 30,000, how many did they use?
what makes you think saddam could put up a fight? he lost 90% of his tanks and arty in the gulf war , what has he replaced them with ? toyota pickup trucks?
the "mother of all battles " took 100 hours, how many hours will this take?
<< Nevil Chamberlan gets off airplane , holds up piece of paper"" i have in my hand a paper signed by Mr Hitler, guarantying peace in our time ""<< crowd applauds "" yeah , peace in our time "" hoo rah, no war "" pip pip hurah, no war with germany""
-
You are assuming of course that any impending War would have you fighting Iraq alone.I doubt this will be the case with Israels involvement.
-
Anyone have a guess on when the invasion is going to happen?
-
These scenarios, with saddam using his "movie of the week" weapons on us, are laughable. We have a real life military. And, they are one of the best, if not THE best in the world. Iraq does not stand a chance.
What is not funny, is that we inevitably will loose troops. I am still sceptic al about whether saddam is worth the lives of even a small number of our young people. I am willing to be convinced. But. So far, the Bush administration has produced nothing that looks like a "Smoking gun" to me. To make matters worse, we all know if they had such evidence, it would be in the media instantly. I have seen nothing but innuendo, and supposition come out of the White House.
Lest you think I have given up my conservative ways. Let me point out that most of the Democrats opposing this. Are doing so only because they know that Americans rally around the President in times of war. I belive some Dem's are sincere. But most just don't want to see Jr. gain the political advantage this would give him. As usual, its the lowly ground pounder that is caught in the middle, and expected to do the bleeding.
-
Originally posted by Replicant
Anyway, the argument is that any anti-ship missile is more than capable of sinking a ship, whether it be Iraqi or US etc.
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about exocet missiles being able to sink ships. WRT aux ships, they most likely won't be operating outside of the Aegis screen.
-Sikboy