From: roten@CUBA.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Roten)
Subject: Re: Attack on Iraq (tactical scenarios)
Organization: /cuba_b/dirbe/roten/.organization
X-Newsreader: GNU Emacs 18.57.1, GNUS 3.13, NNTP 3.10
	<1992Jul31.071921.27367@unipalm.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 18:57:52 GMT

In article <1992Jul31.071921.27367@unipalm.co.uk> steven@unipalm.co.uk 
(Steven Vincent) writes:


>The problem with all these senarios is they fail to la associate the 
>respones with the initial action. If the UN really wanted to get their 
>point across they should plan an air strike before they go to inspect 
>the building. The inspection team shows up and asks to inspect the 
>building. The Iraq goverment has two choices.

>Yes you can: No problem the building is inspected and the Air strike 
>is called Off by the UN.

>No you Can't: The Air Strike goes in within 24 hours and Destroys the
>building and the UN Team go to the Next one.

>The main advantage here is that the Damage will be directly related to 
>Iraq's intransigence. The Disadvantage is that sooner or later Iraq 
>will decide to defend one of these buildings since they will know that 
>the raid will be coming. At that point we shall find out how 
>successful the blockade / imbargo has been at preventing Iraq from 
>replacing their Radar and SAM systems.

The problem with this scenario is that it ignores the neccessary 
preparation fo an air strike these days.  We CANNOT assume that Iraq (or 
any other country to be visited by unfriendly strike aircraft) has *not* 
managed to put together an air defence network.  So, before an airstrike 
on a suspect installation, we must do the following:

1) Locate the command centers of the Iraqi air defence network.  

2) Take them OUT, using F-117's and smart bombs, at night, when they 
   cannot optically aim their anti-aircraft guns.  

3) Send in Wild Weasel anti-radar ships (the US mostly uses F-4's for 
   that these days, though we do have a number of F-111's for that duty) 
   to put HARM missiles through any Iraqi radar emitters near the strike 
   area.  After the first few days of the Gulf War, Iraqi air-defence 
   radar operators became *very* reluctant to warm up their gear .. for 
   experience had taught them what to expect (i.e., a HARM up their *ss).  

To conlude, I suspect that if it becomes neccessary to try conclusions 
with Iraq again, it should be done all at once, and not by piecemeal 
airstrikes.  A second Gulf war will be a LOT shorter than the first one, 
since we now know that 

1) The Iraqi air force was a paper tiger even *before* it was eviscerated 
   in the Gulf War.  MIG-29's do not an air force make.  The pilots have 
   to be trained and enthusiastic.  Saddam Hussein evidently feels that 
   this exposes him to too much risk of having his pilots take HIM out.  
   This *has* happened before in Middle East coups ... but without an 
   effective air force *OR* cover (like forest) for the godforsaken 
   ground troops, a war in the desert against a modern army is 
   fore-doomed.  

2) Nobody in the West really feels too afraid of T-72's anymore, not to 
   mention Chinese copies of the T-62 (the Type 59), which make up the 
   bulk of the remaining Iraqi tank force.  Against M-1's , they do not 
   just melt.  They burn.  Even against well-crewed M-60's, they are meat 
   on the table.  And an Apache can take them out with Hellfire missiles 
   at ranges so great that they cannot even *see* the gunships that are 
   killing them.  

3) The Iraqi army has been *seriously* attrited, having had its best 
   assets converted to corpses and scrap metal in the Gulf a year and a 
   half ago.  

>Iraq is an international Criminal and should be so treated. I also 
>think that the UN should also act now to "enforce" or withdraw some of 
>the outstanding UN resolutions to do with Military Agression in other 
>parts of the World. i.e. Turkey / Cyprus, Israel / Lebanon, Indonesia 
>and other such places in The world. I am for a more consistant and 
>active UN role without the paralysing effectS of Security Council 
>Vetos.

IMO, the UN is only as effective as the degree to which the interests 
of its important members (and minor ones, for that matter) are aligned.  

Which means the US may have to fix this problem on its own .. even if it 
means taking some political flack.  

>===========================================================================

>The trouble with civilized behaviour is that it leaves you vulnerable 
>to the un-civilized in the world.    .......

>===========================================================================

True.  This means that one cannot treat with barbarians using the same 
rules one uses for the civilized.  And one *MUST* learn to recognize a 
barbarian when one is seen.  

--
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