HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: BBN II -- Murk-o-Vision World Update (Mau Mau)
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:31:43 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Jul24.131627.22136@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:

> In article <5616@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>,
> mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
> 
> |>From article <1992Jul24.050033.18743@dscomsf.desy.de>, by
> |>hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker):
> |>> The US murdered more Vietnamese in the war than Ho Chi Minhs govt
> |>did after.
> |>
> |>Of course.  After the war, the North Vietnamese controlled everything,
> |>so 
> |>why murder anybody?  The question is, how many did *they* murder
> |>*during* 
> |>the war?
> 
> 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.
> Phill Hallam-Baker

 Aha!  Now the reason for the bitterness is out!  Actually, considering
we had nearly a 1000 airplanes and over 500,000 troops running around
in the rain, muck and smoke it's pretty amazing more friendly fire incidents
did not take place.

 BTW you didn't answer the question.  The VC and NVA had a nasty habit of
killing the folks they were supposed to be liberating (not by accident).  I'm 
not talking about the ARVN, either.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
*             *********************************************		       *
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
From: tedrick@whistle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: BBN II -- Murk-o-Vision World Update (Mau Mau/MacNamara)
Date: 30 Jul 1992 23:43:56 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: whistle.berkeley.edu

->The U.S. had a very good army with excellent
->unit cohesion based on a regimental system as in the UK until that
->idiot MacNamara came along and decided to treat soldiers like
->spare transmission bolts.  The resulting inability to form a coherent
->unit in Vietnam came from this decision.  It has nothing to do with
->the society.  Maybe you should compare small unit effectiveness in
->Vietnam with that in Korea or WWII.  The U.S.Army called MacNamara's
->decision Black Friday and they are returning to the regimental
->system.

Amen. MacNamara has been one of the banes of my life. He also
was responsible for choosing to supply the army with inferior 
weaponry during Vietnam as an economy measure (not to mention
his worst sin of all, introducing the quarter system at Berkeley,
fortunately now abandoned :-)

If MacNamara wasn't a Soviet agent, they should have paid him
anyway (couldn't have done more to ruin the country if he had
tried. Harvard management theory strikes again).

-- 
"Self-reliant always, impatient of drill and discipline, unsurpassed as a scout
and on the skirmish line the Southern soldier was the finest individual fighter
the world has ever seen. Taking naturally to guerrilla warfare as did their fore
fathers during the War of Independence, in battle he fought like a berserker."
From: tedrick@whistle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Attack on Iraq (tactical scenarios)
Date: 24 Jul 92 11:36:41 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: whistle.berkeley.edu

I'm not at all clear on what kind of attack on Iraq
Bush is planning. Can we get in some quick speculation
ahead of time to see who comes up with the best guess?

The most obvious scenario (to me :-) is a sneak attack
on Saddam Hussein's hideout when we have him located
and he thinks he's safe, perhaps using new earth-pentrating
warheads.

We might also see cruise missiles again (have the Iraqis
any defense against these things yet?)

Anyone have some good scenarios in mind?

-- 
"An army is composed of idle and inactive men. Unless the general has a constant
eye on them this artificial machine will fall to pieces. If my soldiers began to
think, not one would remain. All that can be done is give them 'esprit de corps'
and keep them more afraid of their officers than the enemy" -Frederick the Great
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: BBN II -- Murk-o-Vision World Update (Mau Mau)
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 13:16:27 GMT

In article <5616@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>,
mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:

|>From article <1992Jul24.050033.18743@dscomsf.desy.de>, by
|>hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker):
|>> The US murdered more Vietnamese in the war than Ho Chi Minhs govt
|>did after.
|>
|>Of course.  After the war, the North Vietnamese controlled everything,
|>so 
|>why murder anybody?  The question is, how many did *they* murder
|>*during* 
|>the war?

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.


Phill Hallam-Baker
From: tedrick@whistle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Saddam planning a new invasion (bye bye Kuwait?)
Date: 30 Jul 1992 06:15:56 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: whistle.berkeley.edu

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" :-)

Let's see, what interesting topics are there for discussion here?

1). What happens in case of an all out Iraqi armored blitz with
    his remaining tanks?

2). Does he stop at Kuwait, or go for the throat this time?
    (Saudi)

3). What allies does he have who can help out militarily or
    by making a distraction elsewhere?

4). Do we have the forces to stop him in place, or are we
    forced to bluff?

5). How does his timing depend on domestic (USA) politics?

6). When this all shakes down, do we get to try my pre-Desert Storm
    plan? :-)

    (which was: armored thrust on Baghdad aimed at driving Saddam
     from power, killing him if possible. 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. 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.)

(LOOK! NO CROSS-POSTING! :-)

-- 
"Self-reliant always, impatient of drill and discipline, unsurpassed as a scout
and on the skirmish line the Southern soldier was the finest individual fighter
the world has ever seen. Taking naturally to guerrilla warfare as did their fore
fathers during the War of Independence, in battle he fought like a berserker."
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: Spratly Islands (War coming over oil?)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:26:36 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.124413.21265@menudo.uh.edu> HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
>In <1992Jul25.002623.19227@nuscc.nus.sg> ccchen@durian.iss.nus.sg writes:
>
>> 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
>> >of the naval forces of the various countries? What about
>> >the role of air power? Might China threaten a land invasion
>> >of Vietnam in order to get their way in the Spratlys?
>> >
>> 
>> I don't see why Japan has anything to do with this.
>> Japan has neither the right nor the military power to occupy the
>> Islands.
>
>  The latter may well be correct, but since when has "rights" had anything
>to do with what a country might try if it wants something bad enough?
>
How about Japan is nowhere near the Spratly islands?  Japan is at East of
China, while Spratly Islands is at SOUTH of China, close to Vietnam.  

>semper fi,
>
>Jammer Jim
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: BBN II -- Murk-o-Vision World Update (Mau Mau)
Date: 27 Jul 92 11:26:46 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <1992Jul24.131627.22136@dscomsf.desy.de>, by hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker):
> In case you hadn't heard the traditional way to fight a war is to shoot
> at the opposition, not your own lot.

As for Vietnam: It's a characteristic of guerilla warfare that
conventional troops will have a very hard job of finding out who
excatly is in the opposition, and who not, and will accordingly start
spraying bullets around after some time.
-- 
Markus Stumptner                                mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna                 vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria             ...mcsun!vexpert!mst
From: mcgrew@dropout.rutgers.edu (Charles Mcgrew)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Spratly Islands (War coming over oil?)
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:40:02 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


	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?

  Some information: according to my (1991) CIA world fact book, the
Spratly Islands are ~100 small islets, reefs, and sea mounts with a
total land area of less than 5 square km.  Its primary "industry" (of
sorts, there aren't any people on it aside from military garrisons) is
guano-mining.  About 50 of the bits of the SI are occupied by 
forces from China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam
(talk about duty in the boondocks!) -- and there are 2 usable runways,
only one of which is over 1000m long.  All 'occupants' lay claim to
all or part of the SI.

   China has the largest navy, though it unclear if any of the
participants (I exclude Japan, who may pick up the pieces afterward,
but wouldn't fight for it) would be able to defend oil rigs/platforms
from counter-action by any of the others if they *did* "take" it.  (So
any direct action against other claimants would have to be pretty
general to supress the possibility of things like standoff missles
aimed at drilling equipment; I doubt anyone in any of the countries
would find the wider risks would outweigh the possible gains.)

Charles
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: c34657b@saha.hut.fi (Tuomas Viljanen)
Subject: Re: Naval survival
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 15:43:15 GMT

>quale@saavik.cs.wisc.edu (Douglas E. Quale)writes:

>Have heard it said that the Japanese had a somewhat condescending
>attitude toward damage control...something to the effect of, "we're
>samurai, not smiths!"  If true, it cost them big-time.

I do not whether this is true, but knowing the Japanese military philosophy,
this sounds credible. The Japanese have always emphasized attack and the
importance of destroying one's enemy at any cost and scorned upon defense
and one's own survival. They favored weapons and scorned upon armor; for 
example, the backplate of samurai armor was called "coward's plate", since no 
samurai would ever turn his back upon enemy, (but rather get to hacked into 
pieces). Losses, no matter how sever, were always accepted, if the enemy could 
also be harmed at the same time; own survival was not so important thing.

>It also helps to explain, beyond obvious propaganda reasons, why they claim 
>to ave sunk the carrier Enterprise so many times. Given their mindset,
>they probably were certain that no ship could've survived the punish-
>ment they inflicted on her.

Yes, supposing the Japanese thought the military philosophy and doctrine of
their enemies was similar to their own.

Japanese fighter aircraft design was, of course, the ultimate hallmark of the
Japanese military philosophy, which emphasised offense at the cost of defense
(light, unarmored, extremely manouevrable planes, which usually exploded at the
first burst of the Allied aircraft gunfire). Comparing F6F Hellcat and A6M Zero
explains wery well the difference of American and Japanese philosophy.

>Gregory Alan Gross      Welcome to life, where no good deed goes unpunished.



  ++ Tuomas Viljanen                     ++ For a battle like Crecy, you do  ++
  ++ Lahderanta 20 A 19                  ++ not need a military genius like  ++
  ++ SF-02720 Espoo 72 FINLAND           ++ Edward III. All you need is an   ++
  ++ 358-0-592175 or c34657b@saha.hut.fi ++ idiot like the Duke of Alencon.  ++
From: gtao@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Greg )
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: suggested war plan critique (was:Re: Saddam planning ...)
Date: 31 Jul 92 13:48:04 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

>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.

i meant to reply to this when it was originally posted...

what i was going to say is that Rommel strongly believed that air superiority
would be the decisive factor in desert warfare...that's all:)


*******************************************************************************
* Gregory Tao                      | E-mail to:  gt38091@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu     * 
* Univ. of IL at Urbana-Champaign  |        OR      gtao@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu     *
* Department of Computer Science   |        OR      gtao@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu     *
* --------------------------------------------------------------------------- *
*                                                                             *
*  	``Change, suddenly, is everywhere we look, sweeping empires and       *
*    ideologies before it, shaping a new era even as we watch. Such moments   *
*    are rare. Today we stand at such a moment.''                             * 
*                                                                             *
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.war,alt.desert-storm
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Morale in Baghdad (was Re: Attack on Iraq (tactical scenarios))
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:25:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.195731.25618@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>In article <EMERY.92Jul24101648@Dr_No.mitre.org> emery@Dr_No.mitre.org (David Emery) writes:
>>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.
>>
>    Hear, hear. I think this is exactly correct. The thoery prior to WWII
>was that strategic bombing would lead to panic and social paralysis. It
>didn't happen. So much for strategic bombing.

>    BTW, don't forget about London as a target (WWII).
>

	I take the point, but what I wonder about is the morale
	of the average Baghdadi(?).  How well are they faring these days?

	It is true that bombardment of cities only angers the civilians
	and the military and stiffens their resolve.  However, watching
	the military getting popped off tends to be demoralizing for
	the whole country.  There is no argument that the Iraqi military
	was humiliated in the field, what effect did this have on civilian
	morale?  Has the success in rebuilding roads and bridges been a
	boost to civilian morale, or has it been an immense strain?

	Food supplies appear to be adequate, but expensive.
	Surely the strain of finding food is having some effect?
	Ther have also been reports from reliablle sources that
	many Iraqis now consider Saddaam a U.S. puppet (because they
	didn't kill him when they had the chance).

	Reports like this suggest to me that many Iraqis are under strain and
	confused.  I think the time may be for psychological warfare rather
	than for dropping bombs.  Don't forget the propaganda value that
	civilian casualties would have for the Ba'athists.

	Alec Chambers


	P.S.  It goes without saying that any promises made in psychological
	warfare leaflets etc. would HAVE to be backed up.  The Kurds and
	the southern Shi'ites were left in the lurch.  The heartland
	Sunnis and urban Shi'tes would have to receive concrete support.
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: buckley@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (BUCKLEY  CHARLES RAY)
Subject: Re: Spratly Islands (War coming over oil?)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 05:44:53 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
>of the naval forces of the various countries? What about
>the role of air power? Might China threaten a land invasion
>of Vietnam in order to get their way in the Spratlys?
>

Well here's my .02 worth

Phillipines: With the shaky economy and the lack of US support Ramos will
have his hands full keeping coups from toppling him. Sending the troops
away will benefit him personally for awhile by getting rid of some of
his major rivals to a hostile island but a war would be very unpopular
and would probably lead to him being thrown out by a civilian.

Japan: With the types of ships they have as well as the size of the Defence
Forces, they would have trouble beating either Viet Nam or China militarily.
Politically, they had trouble getting the authorization to deploy troops
in UN operations. The political environment would be VERY hostile to a naked
land grab. I.E. it would be better for them to buy the islands than fight for
them.

China: Place your bets and take your chances. It all depends on the willingness
of China to lose the Most favored status with the US. I'd have to look at the
availablity of troopships to China, but a thrust against the islands as 
opposed to a land strike stand a beeter chance of success.
 My guess is that the Chinese would rather deal than fight for it, but they'll
be wanting a major portion of the pie. They're most likely to win a war where
they fight on the island combined. An invasion of Viet Nam by the chinese
would have to be a go-for-broke win which is not to likely. A better strategy
would be to use their numerical superiority and try for multiple fronts.

Viet Nam: Needs hard currency more than a war. Much more willing to deal than
to fight, but will fight if cut out. Can probably beat a chinese invasion of
homeland (particulary if they receive covert aid like in 1979), but ae pretty
landlocked.

Analysis: Deal most likely. China's the key. If it decides on war it will probably win but lose economically in the afdtermath.
>-- 
Charles Buckley
From: tedrick@whistle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Spratly Islands (War coming over oil?)
Date: 24 Jul 1992 11:23:01 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: whistle.berkeley.edu

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
of the naval forces of the various countries? What about
the role of air power? Might China threaten a land invasion
of Vietnam in order to get their way in the Spratlys?

-- 
"An army is composed of idle and inactive men. Unless the general has a constant
eye on them this artificial machine will fall to pieces. If my soldiers began to
think, not one would remain. All that can be done is give them 'esprit de corps'
and keep them more afraid of their officers than the enemy" -Frederick the Great
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Attack on Iraq (tactical scenarios)
Date: 24 Jul 92 19:57:31 GMT
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.

In article <EMERY.92Jul24101648@Dr_No.mitre.org> emery@Dr_No.mitre.org (David Emery) writes:
>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.
>
    Hear, hear. I think this is exactly correct. The thoery prior to WWII
was that strategic bombing would lead to panic and social paralysis. It
didn't happen. So much for strategic bombing.
    The most likely outcome is that we spend 20X to 40X more money on
bombs than we cause in damage. Remember, if Iraq shoots down a single
F117, they automatically win :-)

    BTW, don't forget about London as a target (WWII).

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: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Air power uses
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 21:13:54 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.200046.19851@m.cs.uiuc.edu> silber@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Ami A. Silberman) writes:
>dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>
>
> What airpower can do is
>disrupt enemy forces concentrating for the attack,

    Possibly. These concentrations would be the heaviest AAA covered
areas. Use of air power might be limited unless it was critical to strike
a blow.

> to pound a hole in enemy
>lines prepatory to an attack,

    Doubtful. This is liek WWI attemts to open lanes through bombarbment.
I don't think there is any examples of this working. Bombardment of any
origin seems unlikely to cause much destruction against a prepared position.


> and to make it very difficult for them to move.

    This is the best result of air superiority, especially in the desert.
Yet the Pentagon says they didn't destroy any scuds on the ground, so 
air strikes won't solve all the problems.

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