Blunderov
Adept
Gender: 
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.00
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
  
|
 |
RE: virus: The military situation in Iraq
« on: 2004-11-11 18:52:13 » |
 |
rhinoceros
Sent: 08 November 2004 04:08 PM
Subject: virus: Arundhati on peace/war, justice, human rights
<snip>
[rhinoceros] In the next part, Arundhati Roy supports her argument of
the corporate new order by making extended references to the Iraq war.
Since your majority vote is still against Iraq war talk in the mailing
list, I'll post no more of that. However I believe that the list is
still in a "hostage" situation -- several general topics have to be
handled with castrated discussion. </snip>
[Blunderov]Yes. This is quite frustrating.
For one thing, there has been a tremendous escalation in the fighting in
Iraq. There have been comparatively heavy American casualties. The
tactical situation is grave - an asymmetrical urban war has arisen.
Urban warfare is well-known to be the bloodiest and most desperate
scenario.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/mout.htm goes into great
detail.
"Military thinkers and planners have long been aware of the pitfalls of
fighting in urban areas. As early as circa 500 B.C., Sun Tzu advised
that "the worst policy is to attack cities," and that advice has been
echoed in military writings and doctrine to this day. However, despite
that sensible advice, wars have been fought in cities repeatedly
throughout the centuries, from the sack of Troy to the battles of
Grozny."
[Blunderov] As anticipated casualties have been heavy but it's not
'just' the deaths that are important.
http://newsfromrussia.com/accidents/2004/11/12/57085.html
Fallujah assault: Soldiers keep dying
(Altogether)"More than 8,500 U.S. troops have been wounded in action.
Just under 4,000 have been returned to duty within three days. The
others were seriously injured, informs Washington Times."
[Blunderov] It seems to me that the only way in which the situation can
be brought under full military control is by massive reinforcement.
But his would deplete garrisons elsewhere - S Korea springs to mind.
Nevertheless this may be necessary in order to cobble together an
election which produces a USA friendly regime.
Then, I think, the USA will disperse its forces to very large bases
outside of the major urban areas in order to maintain staging positions
for the region in general and Iran in particular. They will continue to
support and train the new Iraqi regimes' security forces.
If the USA does wish to be able to attack Iran, it is vital for it to
have sufficient land based staging posts: naval operations in the
Persian Gulf are fraught with risk because Iran is well known to have
plenty of Russian 'Sunburn' anti-ship missiles in its arsenal.
http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm
"The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound
conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the
range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times
the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and
includes "violent end maneuvers" to elude enemy defenses. The missile
was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system.
Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an
incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a
fire solution not enough time to take out the intruding missile.
[Blunderov] A lot would seem to depend on the result of the election but
I shouldn't think the "correct" outcome is too much in doubt. Call it a
hunch.
Best Regards.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Author
Logged
