HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tomas_e@LINK.Physchem.KTH.SE (Tomas Eriksson)
Subject: Japanese officers recieve training for UN service in Sweden
Reply-To: tomas_e@LINK.Physchem.KTH.SE
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:06:20 GMT

This week, a group of 35 Japanese officers commenced an intensive 
two-week course to prepare them to handle forces for UN peacekeeping 
duties. (A law which allows up to 2,000 Japanese military personell to 
participate in UN actions was passed recently, not without a lot of 
protests in the parliament and from various groups.) It is held (in 
English) by Swedish army officers with UN experience, at the Swedish 
army's war academy Karlberg in Stockholm, and at the UN service school 
at the engineer regiment "Ing1" outside Stockholm (where all Swedish UN 
personell, soldiers and officers, go for short and intensive training
immediately before leaving for UN service). Col. Bo Pellna"s is in 
charge of the course, and did not want to comment on the parts of the 
course which has to do with combat. Apparently, a requirement to be
chosen for participation in the course was proficiency in English. The
officers recieved intensive training in English before leaving Japan. 
The officers spent Tuesday as tourists in Stockholm, and looked very 
civilian (the wore suits, not uniforms...)

It is expected that the first Japanese forces in UN service will be sent 
to Cambodia.

Tomas
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tomas Eriksson                                          tomas_e@physchem.kth.se
            Surface Force Group, Department of Physical Chemistry,
               Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: Spratly Islands (War coming over oil?)
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 14:55:24 GMT

In article <14op6lINN8vm@agate.berkeley.edu> tedrick@whistle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes:
>Evidently tensions are heating up over the oil fields under
>the Spratly islands. If it comes down to war (possibly
>involving China, Vietnam, the Philippines, and/or Japan),
>who do you think will win? What are the comparative strengths
    
   I doubt that there would be a war. It is money everyone wants. If Japan 
wants it, they will do what they always do: pay off the other countries to
drop thier claims. Vietnam, the Philippines, and Tiawan don't have the
ability to stand up to China (if the islands are within range of chinese
airplanes. China doesn't want the political headache of military action.
   Most likely outcome: Peacful settlement with Japan makin secret payoffs.

DanZ


-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  

Newsgroups: alt.war
From: sdr57@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Attack on Iraq (tactical scenarios)
Keywords: chirigami-panikku desu neh!
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:11:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.105606.11479@osf.org> oaf@serverx.osf.org (Oded Feingold) writes:
>Tedrick:       >>  Anyone have good scenarios in mind for attacking
>               >>  Iraq?
>
>Some bonehead: >  A friend advocates a gigantic leaflet raid.  Send a
>               >  load of B-52s stacked with leaflets saying "Next
>               >  time... etc." and spray them all over Baghdad and
>               >  environs.    (etc)
>
>NO!  NEVER!  The embargo has created shortages throughout the Iraqi
>civilian economy.  You are proposing we ease their toilet paper
>shortage for free and call that a "warning?"
>
>What kind of Commie are you anyway, Mr. Alec?

Obviously you have not considered the variety of paper available to the
modern leaflet writer. The objection you raise can be met by the correct
selection of paper for the leaflet (there is a rapidly water-soluble form,
and, for the sadists on the net, there is the stuff containing ground
glass...never mind, I don't even want to think about it).

Seriously, Mr. Husayn is obviously not firmly in touch with reality as
it is known in the West. We need to get a response from people who are
in touch with reality. A massive bombing raid would do this; however,
such a raid would have unacceptable political consequences (leaving
aside the rest of the world, can you say "election year in the US" and
"disproportionate response to just keeping a few inspectors out"?). A
leaflet raid, with a few precision-guided bombs directed at appropriate
targets (say that triumphal arch with Sadaam's hands holding the swords -
the one for the war with Iran) would avoid this while reminding the
military that in any serious conflict with the West in general and
the US in particular, they are going to lose now and for at least the
next several years, however the issues of right or wrong might be
perceived. This would be more likely to produce the desired outcome
than anything else I can think of that would be *politically* possible
right now.
From: mcgrew@dropout.rutgers.edu (Charles Mcgrew)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Kuwait security question
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:36:36 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


	karr@ukc.ac.uk (K.A.R.Razzooqi) writes
          Can KUWAIT creat its own security depending on its own population
          and not to depend on outside protection?
          (and will it be able to defend it self?!)
          And if that is possible how can it be achieved?
          (I will appreciate all ideas)


... I doubt it.  Kuwait's population is only about 2 million people.
Up against nations like Iraq (~19 million) or Saudi Arabia (~17
million), or Iran (~56 million -- though Iran doesn't share a border
with Kuwait-- only Iraq and Saudia Arabia do), they don't really have
a chance.  Even massive fortifications (which are of limited value,
as we have seen) would probably not help.

   Some options:

   * Massive spending, with indigenous military forces, with an
embodiment policy like Switzerland (i.e. everybody).  Problems:
even with everybody in the military, its probably not enough.  Since
Kuwait isn't mountainous like Switzerland, keeping one's weapons
(including armored vehicles) to hand would be very expensive, and
probably destabilizing.  (Street toughs with their own AMX's? Yowza!)

   * Massive spending, but with outside (mercenary) troops.  Probably 
destabilizing too.

   * Treaties.  Big friends always help, and are often useful as
trading partners as well.

Charles
From: jaume@ldgo.columbia.edu (steven jaume)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Saddam planning a new invasion (bye bye Kuwait?)
Summary: Saddam vs Bush
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:16:17 GMT
Organization: Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory

In article <1581esINN3hp@agate.berkeley.edu>, tedrick@whistle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes:
> Damn! I wish I had been the first to get on the public record
> with this, when I first started thinking it :-)
> 
> Anyways, does anyone else have the uneasy feeling that our friend
> Saddam has his greedy eyes focused on Kuwait again? Rumor is his
> forces are massed in the south (to "supress the Shiites" :-)
> 
I'm not going to try to provide an answer for any of Tom's specific
questions, I'm not informed enough on these subjects.  But this subject
came up (in a more general form) in a lunchtime conversation at work
so I've decided to put my two cents work in.  The basic thread that we
came up with went like this:

a)  Does Saddam have personal grudge against Bush?  Probably.

b)  Would Saddam see a defeat of Bush in the upcoming election as a
    victory for himself?  Putting it another way, if Saddam is still
    in charge of Iraq in November and Bush is a lame duck, wouldn't
    Saddam consider that a victory?  (the winner is the last man
    standing?)

c)  Is Saddam willing to gamble?  When has he not been willing to gamble.

d)  How long can he hold out if Bush orders in the bombers????


I don't know if Iraq is physically capable of invading Kuwait again, it seems
it would depend upon what does he have left to throw into the fight, both in
terms of combat *and* support units (i.e. does he have enough gas trucks to
go anywhere outside his borders).  Another question which is probably just as
important is what can Saddam do to make Bush look bad so that Bush is more
likely to lose the election?  This could mean some miltary moves like Tom 
suggested, but wouldn't continued defiance of the UN just sort of war be just
as effective? 

Have fun with boys and girls.

Steve

P.S. How do you go about making a .sig anyway?
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: suggested war plan critique (was:Re: Saddam planning ...)
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:14:30 GMT
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.

In article <1581esINN3hp@agate.berkeley.edu> tedrick@whistle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes:
>
>    (which was: armored thrust on Baghdad aimed at driving Saddam
>     from power, killing him if possible.

     This hovers between silly and stupid. You must fight against your
enemies army, not it's civilian government. A likely outcome is to topple
the government. but leave the military command structure unharmed. You would
then be in the position of keeping long supply lines with an unfought army
on you flank.
     Directing your anger and frustration as well as your military effoert at
the leader of a country may be a feel-good tactic, but it can be a disaster
militarily. You need an enemy government to sign a peace treaty, if for no
other purpose. The last thing we want is to plunge the country into chaos
with large numbers of warlords with military hardware. 
    Military philosophy calls for the defeat of your enemies army, and then
dictation of the peace terms to the surviving government.

> Using our planes to kill
>     any Iraqi armored forces that try to move during the drive,
>     somewhat inspired by Rommel's tactics of decoying enemy tanks
>     into range of his anti-tank guns, our planes being the modern
>     equivalent, serving as mobile anti-tank artillery.

    It's time to wake up and smell the coffee. We must realize that the war
was not nearly as effective as we were led to believe in the weeks after the
war. The idea that air power can destroy your enemies groud forces is a
phantasm that many people continue to grasp for. It hasn't happened in history,
and the Gulf War was not an example.

> Splitting Iraq 
>     into 3 zones, Kurdistan in the north as our good ally, greater 
>     Kuwait in the south, US temporary occupation zone in the center, 
>     later converted to a democracy run by whatever Iraqi military we 
>     can find to serve as our surrogates during an interim period.)
>
    This is ludicrous, of course. It is at least as silly if not more silly
than imperialism in the 19th century. People have both the right and the
responsibility to arrange thier own affairs (self-determination). The US
has neither the right nor the responsibility to do it for them. If you think
that we do, then you take on the responsibility to appease every separatist
movement in everyethnic conflict around the world.
    We may object to the Iraqi governmetn, but that is a reason to not
trade with them, not a reason to attack and contruct a geopolitical
structure that seems better to us.


DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.
From: emery@Dr_No.mitre.org (David Emery)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Saddam planning a new invasion (bye bye Kuwait?)
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:58:35 GMT
	<EMERY.92Jul30091257@Dr_No.mitre.org> <1992Jul30.161327.24180@cas.org>
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

>	I haven't heard any suggestions from Republicans either.  It
>	is interesting to note that the Bush White House has not made
>       any contact with pro-democracy Iraqi dissident exiles.
>	Alec Chambers.

There was a meeting of Iraqui dissidents with James Baker yesterday...
				dave
From: karr@ukc.ac.uk (K.A.R.Razzooqi)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Kuwait security question
Date: 31 Jul 92 09:01:56 GMT
Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.




         Hello everybody,

             I have a serious question to everybody and that is :-

          Can KUWAIT creat its own security depending on its own population
          and not to depend on outside protection?
          (and will it be able to defend it self?!)
          And if that is possible how can it be achieved?
          (I will appreciate all ideas)


    Kutaiba




    
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Re: suggested war plan critique (was:Re: Saddam planning ...)
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:27:28 GMT

In article <EMERY.92Jul30115351@Dr_No.mitre.org> emery@Dr_No.mitre.org (David Emery) writes:
>>Military philosophy calls for the defeat of your enemies army, and then
>>dictation of the peace terms to the surviving government.
>
>This depends on which military philosopher you follow.  Clausewitz, in
>particular, points out that the goal is not necessarily the
>destruction of the enemy's army, but rather its will to resist.

    Perhaps a matter of semantics. I think the terms are pretty much the
same. I think Clausewitz was the one to say you need to disarm the enemy.
It doesn't matter exactly how you choose to defeat the army. The soldiers
can be killed or forced to surrender, or disarmed by a peace treaty; but
they must be defeated in a real sense.

>
>The U.S. and U.N. achieved their objectives, of removing Saddam from
>Kuwait.  Toppling Saddam was not a U.N. goal, and the U.S. policy said
>this was a "bonus".  

    It is in this that we see the problems arising. We didn't defeat the
Iraqi army. They pulled back. It appears to be a UN victory, but we are 
stuck in a quagmire. We have the problem of enforcing the peace treaty,
and the neccessity to defend Kuwait from a repeat. Objectives may have been
achieved, but nothing was really changed. Iraq is not forced to obey UN
dictates. Each conflict will require a threat of another war to make Iraq
concede.

>
>We could have certainly destroyed more of Iraq's army by engaging the
>Republican Guards as they pulled back towards Basra, but it is unclear
>how this would have contributed to our basic objectives.  I think it

    The mistake was to think we could accomplish goal without defeating
the enemy. It is philosophically wrong, and we will reap the harvest
from it. We can either leave the region alone, or begin to support
nebulous resistance movements, etc. Another quagmire.

>  I'm not
>convinced the coalition would have held together with CNN coverage of
>the defeat (massacre, if you please) of the Republican Guards.
>
   You have a different opinion of the quality of news coverage than most
people. I am not aware that there was _any_ coverage of actual fighting.
The 'Highway of death' was actually a junkyard of brokendown vehicles.
So much for worry over public opinion.

  In summary, I would say that my opinions are very clear and simple. In
war, you should concentrate your effort (including defining your goals)
on fighting the enemy army. This should be attempted in the samllest
period of time with the lowest casualties possible, and (important=>) with
the least amount of damage to the enemy country. To do otherwise is to
essentially accomplish nothing.

DanZ


-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.
From: emery@Dr_No.mitre.org (David Emery)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: suggested war plan critique (was:Re: Saddam planning ...)
Date: 30 Jul 92 16:53:51 GMT
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

>Military philosophy calls for the defeat of your enemies army, and then
>dictation of the peace terms to the surviving government.

This depends on which military philosopher you follow.  Clausewitz, in
particular, points out that the goal is not necessarily the
destruction of the enemy's army, but rather its will to resist.
History has many examples of where defeat of an army does not achieve
the desired political results (the Gulf War is the most recent), and
also many examples where the political aim was achieved without
defeating (or even engaging) the enemy army.  

The U.S. and U.N. achieved their objectives, of removing Saddam from
Kuwait.  Toppling Saddam was not a U.N. goal, and the U.S. policy said
this was a "bonus".  

We could have certainly destroyed more of Iraq's army by engaging the
Republican Guards as they pulled back towards Basra, but it is unclear
how this would have contributed to our basic objectives.  I think it
would have been a good idea, but there was substantial risk in it for
the U.S, particularly given the media attention to the "Highway of
Death" (which had remarkably few actual bodies in it; mostly people
jumped out of their trucks and ran away into the desert.)  I'm not
convinced the coalition would have held together with CNN coverage of
the defeat (massacre, if you please) of the Republican Guards.

			dave
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: BBN II -- Murk-o-Vision World Update (Mau Mau)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 00:28:41 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.155027.22311@linus.mitre.org> bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.131627.22136@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de  
>(Phillip M. Hallam-Baker) writes:
>> In case you hadn't heard the traditional way to fight a war is to shoot
>> at the opposition, not your own lot. Perhaps if the US had learnt this
>> lesson the British casualties in the Gulf would have been halved.
>
>The so-called "friendly fire" casualties are far from unique to the Gulf.  At  
>least one instance I remember reading about was during the Normandy invasion  
>where we bombed our own forces ("Six Armies in Normandy" I think was the title
>of the book). Stonewall Jackson was even shot by his own troops!  

	Heh. It helps if one can easily distinguish the enemy from allies;
at Mannassas (sp?), officers tried to give orders to soldiers in the opposing
army, because the uniforms were similar enough to cause confusion (The two
armies sharing a common origin was the cause, I believe).

								James Nicoll
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: emery@Dr_No.mitre.org (David Emery)
Subject: Re: BBN II -- Murk-o-Vision World Update (Mau Mau)
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
	<1992Jul24.131627.22136@dscomsf.desy.de>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:27:07 GMT

>In case you hadn't heard the traditional way to fight a war is to shoot
>at the opposition, not your own lot. Perhaps if the US had learnt this
>lesson the British casualties in the Gulf would have been halved.

That's a pretty stupid, cheap shot.  I strongly suspect the author of
this 'comment' has no practical experience in the difficulties of
coordinating military activities.  

Considering everything that went on, the total lack of landmarks, and
the speed at which things happened, I'm somewhat surprised that there
weren't _more_ friendly fire casualties.  This is not to say that we
shouldn't try very hard to prevent friendly fire, and the U.S. goes to
great lengths (at least in the artillery community) to prevent such
occurances.  

				dave
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: roten@CUBA.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Roten)
Subject: Re: suggested war plan critique (was: Re: Saddam planning ...)
Organization: /cuba_b/dirbe/roten/.organization
X-Newsreader: GNU Emacs 18.57.1, GNUS 3.13, NNTP 3.10
	<1992Jul31.083734.24754@lin.foa.se>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 19:19:01 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.083734.24754@lin.foa.se> eriks@lin.foa.se 
(Erik Svensson FOA2) writes:

   dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:

   >> Using our planes to kill
   >>     any Iraqi armored forces that try to move during the drive,
   >>     somewhat inspired by Rommel's tactics of decoying enemy tanks
   >>     into range of his anti-tank guns, our planes being the modern
   >>     equivalent, serving as mobile anti-tank artillery.

   >    It's time to wake up and smell the coffee. We must realize that 
   >the war was not nearly as effective as we were led to believe in the 
   >weeks after the war. The idea that air power can destroy your enemies 
   >groud forces is a phantasm that many people continue to grasp for. It 
   >hasn't happened in history, and the Gulf War was not an example.

   You're right and wrong. Granted air power cannot destroy the actual 
   equipment. It can however destroy the formations so that the ground 
   forces can just mop up the rest. History is full of examples of units 
   being subject to heavy air attack and then just disintegrating. 
   There's a book called _Strike from the Sky_ by R Hallion that treats 
   this very subject.

Remember what happened to the God-forsaken Panzer Lehr division when it 
advanced towards the Allied armies moving through France?  By the time 
it got within range of Allied ground forces, the division had been 
reduced to a kampfgruppe by air attack alone.  The British favored 
Spitfires with armored cockpits for this chore ...

Air power CAN and HAS destroyed the actual equipment, in the right 
conditions and without effective contest of the air space by the side 
being attacked.  Of course, in cities, mountains, or forests, all bets 
are off.  



--
Charles Roten | Hughes-STX, Incorporated | 
  roten@cuba.gsfc.nasa.gov               | 'Use the Source, Luke!'
  7601 Ora-Glen Dr., Greenbelt, MD 20706 | 
  301-513-7805 (w),  301-317-0872 (h)    |            Obi-Wan Stallman
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: emery@Dr_No.mitre.org (David Emery)
Subject: Re: Attack on Iraq (tactical scenarios)
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:16:48 GMT

This might not work.  I understand that we created a problem for
ourselves by saying "We'll blow you away and it'll be terrible for
Iraq", and then conducted a rather bloodless, surgical air campaign.
Apparently people said (as they did in Germany and Japan in WWII, and
more recently Beruit and Sarajevo), "This isn't so bad, we can live
through this."  Such a reaction negates any psychological/propaganda/
terror aspects of airpower.

				dave

Newsgroups: alt.war