Re: Missile -launchers in iraq
hi, Blitz comes with high casualities.Shock and awe technique can use troops paratrooping into baghdad.But casualities are always unacceptable to the U.S. So they do it the conventional way. Sarath. --- Ken Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tyler Durden wrote: > > [...] > > > PS: Anyone notice the conceptual similarity > between "shock and awe" and > > "blitzkrieg"? > > Yes, similar in some respects, though not the same. > "Shock and awe" > (terrible name for a quite sensible idea) was about > a military force > which is overwhelmingly stronger than its opponent > attempting to win > quickly and with minimum casualties on either side > by rapidly and > completely disrupting the enemy's ability to respond > intelligently. > > Blitzkrieg (not a word the Germans used officially > in 1939 & 1940 - I'm > told it was coined by an Italian journalist) was > about a quick victory > over an opponent of similar strength to oneself, by > a deep and rapid > penetration, close co-operation between arms, and > continual > re-evaluation of objectives by field officers on the > ground. > > Blitzkrieg is one of the roots of S&A - but it has > others including the > punitive expeditions of colonial times, the British > attempt to support > indirect rule in Iraq by airpower alone in the > 1920s, the massive aerial > bombardments of Germany and Japan in WW2, the nukes > at Hiroshima and > Nagasaki, unrelenting Israeli pressure on the > Palestinians, and even US > actions in places like Grenada and Panama. > > The US has *not* used "shock and awe" in this > campaign. If it had it > might have thrown everything at Iraq in the first > few hours - all the > MOABs, all the cluster bombs, all the > bunker-busters, all the B1s, B2s, > B52s can drop. It might have sent airborne troops in > on the first day, > ignored Basra, dropped men in Baghdad. The ideal > "shock and awe" opening > to the war would have had the citizens of Baghdad > see those 3000 > missiles go off more or less simultaneously, in the > first 30 minutes, > not the first 3 days, a ring of fire round their > city, to the > background of the exploding bombloads of 100 B52s. > The TV and radio and > military communications would have been knocked out. > The presidential > palaces and guards barracks would not have been just > hit, but removed. > The dazed citizens would have wandered into the > streets in the morning > to find them already patrolled by Americans. If > Saddam Hussein had > survived the bombing he'd have woken screaming to > see not his own > bodyguard but the SAS. > > In fact the war has been run like a classic tank > campaign, a blitzkrieg > - tightly controlled armoured penetration over > narrow fronts, avoiding > easily defensible places, keeping on the move, > attempting to catch the > enemy in the open and destroy him by rapidly > bringing together local > massive concentrations, but just steaming past an > enemy unwilling to > fight or hunkered down in cities or fortifications. > Guderian or > Tukachevsky or Tal would have recognised the > strategy instantly. > (Zhukov or Montgomery might have wanted larger, > heavier formations). > The tremendous advantage given by the total air > superiority has been > used just ahead of the attack, as a sort of updated > version of the > moving barrage of WW1. > > It has actually been quite a successful blitz. They > are still making > better time than the Germans did on the road to > Warsaw. > > I don't know why they are not trying the shock and > awe strategy. I can > think of a number of possibilities. They aren't > mutually exclusive. In > declining order of likelihood: > > - perhaps they have a greater respect for the Iraqi > military than they > let on > > - maybe, despite the hype, the battlefield > technology is not yet in > place, or not in great enough strength. The news > over here has > mentioned British marines trying to find the launch > sites of the > missiles aimed at them and that hit Kuwait. The > pre-war propaganda was > all about JSTARS or whatever spotting the launch > site instantly and > targeting retaliation within seconds. But we're > still using blokes with > binoculars. > > - maybe shock and awe is a bad idea anyway. It might > just be too risky. > If you throw everything you have got at them on day > one, what do you do > if they don't cave in on day two? OK, you make sure > you have enough kit > to keep on doing it - that's actually part of the > doctrine - but sooner > or later it runs out. And there are loads of other > countries out there > who need their dose of S&A. It is a very expensive > kind of warfare. > > - it could be that the military is just too innately > conservative for > the much-hyped S&A > > - perhaps there are some new tricks they didn't want > to use in sight of > Iran - which (rumour has it) the PNAC types want to > invade next (I hope > to God they don't) > > - perhaps they're saving it for a final attack on > Baghdad > > - ma
Re: Missile -launchers in iraq
Tyler Durden wrote: [...] > PS: Anyone notice the conceptual similarity between "shock and awe" and > "blitzkrieg"? Yes, similar in some respects, though not the same. "Shock and awe" (terrible name for a quite sensible idea) was about a military force which is overwhelmingly stronger than its opponent attempting to win quickly and with minimum casualties on either side by rapidly and completely disrupting the enemy's ability to respond intelligently. Blitzkrieg (not a word the Germans used officially in 1939 & 1940 - I'm told it was coined by an Italian journalist) was about a quick victory over an opponent of similar strength to oneself, by a deep and rapid penetration, close co-operation between arms, and continual re-evaluation of objectives by field officers on the ground. Blitzkrieg is one of the roots of S&A - but it has others including the punitive expeditions of colonial times, the British attempt to support indirect rule in Iraq by airpower alone in the 1920s, the massive aerial bombardments of Germany and Japan in WW2, the nukes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, unrelenting Israeli pressure on the Palestinians, and even US actions in places like Grenada and Panama. The US has *not* used "shock and awe" in this campaign. If it had it might have thrown everything at Iraq in the first few hours - all the MOABs, all the cluster bombs, all the bunker-busters, all the B1s, B2s, B52s can drop. It might have sent airborne troops in on the first day, ignored Basra, dropped men in Baghdad. The ideal "shock and awe" opening to the war would have had the citizens of Baghdad see those 3000 missiles go off more or less simultaneously, in the first 30 minutes, not the first 3 days, a ring of fire round their city, to the background of the exploding bombloads of 100 B52s. The TV and radio and military communications would have been knocked out. The presidential palaces and guards barracks would not have been just hit, but removed. The dazed citizens would have wandered into the streets in the morning to find them already patrolled by Americans. If Saddam Hussein had survived the bombing he'd have woken screaming to see not his own bodyguard but the SAS. In fact the war has been run like a classic tank campaign, a blitzkrieg - tightly controlled armoured penetration over narrow fronts, avoiding easily defensible places, keeping on the move, attempting to catch the enemy in the open and destroy him by rapidly bringing together local massive concentrations, but just steaming past an enemy unwilling to fight or hunkered down in cities or fortifications. Guderian or Tukachevsky or Tal would have recognised the strategy instantly. (Zhukov or Montgomery might have wanted larger, heavier formations). The tremendous advantage given by the total air superiority has been used just ahead of the attack, as a sort of updated version of the moving barrage of WW1. It has actually been quite a successful blitz. They are still making better time than the Germans did on the road to Warsaw. I don't know why they are not trying the shock and awe strategy. I can think of a number of possibilities. They aren't mutually exclusive. In declining order of likelihood: - perhaps they have a greater respect for the Iraqi military than they let on - maybe, despite the hype, the battlefield technology is not yet in place, or not in great enough strength. The news over here has mentioned British marines trying to find the launch sites of the missiles aimed at them and that hit Kuwait. The pre-war propaganda was all about JSTARS or whatever spotting the launch site instantly and targeting retaliation within seconds. But we're still using blokes with binoculars. - maybe shock and awe is a bad idea anyway. It might just be too risky. If you throw everything you have got at them on day one, what do you do if they don't cave in on day two? OK, you make sure you have enough kit to keep on doing it - that's actually part of the doctrine - but sooner or later it runs out. And there are loads of other countries out there who need their dose of S&A. It is a very expensive kind of warfare. - it could be that the military is just too innately conservative for the much-hyped S&A - perhaps there are some new tricks they didn't want to use in sight of Iran - which (rumour has it) the PNAC types want to invade next (I hope to God they don't) - perhaps they're saving it for a final attack on Baghdad - maybe they wanted to use all their nice tanks before they were obsolete. They haven't had a real fast-moving large scale tank battle in ages. They never got to fight the Russians, in 1991 they were mostly shooting at the backs of men running away. It would have been a shame to let an entire generation of big boy's toys rust unused. The RAF somehow found a role for the last Vulcan bomber in the Falklands... - perhaps the generals took one look at the likes of Rumsfeld and Cheney and Perle and the other PNACs and thought to themselves, wit
Re: Missile -launchers in iraq
On Monday 31 March 2003 11:40 am, Steve Schear wrote: > At 05:00 PM 3/31/2003 +, lcs Mixmaster Remailer wrote: > >On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:35:55 -0800 (PST), you wrote: > > > hi, > > > > > > >What's the US line on why Iraq hasn't shot nukes, chems and bio > >weapons at them? If an invasion and missile bombardment of > >Badhdad by the world's sole remaining superpower isn't enough, > >maybe they were saving them to repel Martians? Or what? > > Three scenarios spring to mind: > - they don't have them > - they have them but are unsure if or when is the best time to use them > - they have them and are waiting for the best time to use them > > steve - They don't want the US to be able to justify the invasion, "See we told you they had WMD, we had to go in." - Countries (outside of the Middle East) will lose their sympathy for IRAQ - They could lose the support of their citizens if they gas a bunch unintentionally. - Most important, using Biological or Chemical Weapons is a two-edged sword. They could do just as much damage to their own troops as to the US and UK troops if they make a mistake. -- Neil Johnson http://www.njohnsn.com PGP key available on request.
Re: Missile -launchers in iraq
At 4:05 PM -0800 3/31/03, Neil Johnson wrote: >- They don't want the US to be able to justify the invasion, "See we told you >they had WMD, we had to go in." If I were Iraq, I would make sure that any WoMD that survived the inspections were destroyed and all traces removed as part of an after-the-hot-war strategy. (I also wonder when some our other "good friends", like North Korea will decide that the US is committed enough to Iraq to try throwing their weight around.) Cheers - Bill - Bill Frantz | Due process for all| Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | used to be the | 16345 Englewood Ave. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | American way. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
Re: Missile -launchers in iraq
Neil Johnson wrote: > - Most important, using Biological or Chemical Weapons is a two-edged > sword. They could do just as much damage to their own troops as to > the US and UK troops if they make a mistake. Might be interesting to see what would happen if iran felt threatened by bush's aggressive stance - they could lob a few into iraq, and it would be a win-win for them (given they don't like the iraqis either)
Re: Missile -launchers in iraq
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:35:55 -0800 (PST), you wrote: > > hi, > > > on the first or second day of the war-iraqi missiles > hit kuwait-4 to 5 of them. > > After that there is no word of any more strikes in > kuwait or else where.What is Iraq waiting for? What's the US line on why Iraq hasn't shot nukes, chems and bio weapons at them? If an invasion and missile bombardment of Badhdad by the world's sole remaining superpower isn't enough, maybe they were saving them to repel Martians? Or what?
Re: Missile -launchers in iraq
At 05:00 PM 3/31/2003 +, lcs Mixmaster Remailer wrote: On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:35:55 -0800 (PST), you wrote: > > hi, > > > on the first or second day of the war-iraqi missiles > hit kuwait-4 to 5 of them. > > After that there is no word of any more strikes in > kuwait or else where.What is Iraq waiting for? What's the US line on why Iraq hasn't shot nukes, chems and bio weapons at them? If an invasion and missile bombardment of Badhdad by the world's sole remaining superpower isn't enough, maybe they were saving them to repel Martians? Or what? Three scenarios spring to mind: - they don't have them - they have them but are unsure if or when is the best time to use them - they have them and are waiting for the best time to use them steve
Missile -launchers in iraq
hi, on the first or second day of the war-iraqi missiles hit kuwait-4 to 5 of them. After that there is no word of any more strikes in kuwait or else where.What is Iraq waiting for? Regards Sarath. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
