From: Jay Dugger (duggerj1@charter.net)
Date: Sat Dec 21 2002 - 22:54:04 MST
On Sat, 2002-12-21 at 20:59, Avatar Polymorph wrote:
> WHY SADDAM IS STILL IN POWER
[snip]
This didn't seem too clear. Did you only mean SH remains in power
because he hasn't failed his cronies and supporters too badly? That
answers why he hasn't yet left power, and counts as a rather different
question I think.
>
> WHY THE US WILL GO TO WAR
>
> As I have argued previously, I believe the US is really concerned to nip a
> non-Western nuclear arms race in the bud. China's 300 nuclear weapons are
[snip]
Perhaps.
>
> The invasion of Iraq will be a sideshow intended to force Iran and Iraq to
> halt nuclear weapons development. Without air power, Iraq will collapse
> quickly with a minimum of ground losses for the Americans and British.
I think you have it right.
>
> I would guess the next steps will be [as I have argued previously]:
>
> . further boosting of the limited ABM system (already announced for Alaska
> and possibly Europe)
You neglect Israel's anti-missile efforts.
>
> . an immediate request for Iran and North Korea to open their nuclear
> facilities to inspectors, followed by surgical bombing if this is refused
>
It seems unlikely USA-UK-UN forces would attack North Korea, even with
high-precision weapons. North Korea has a very potent threat; they
possess a large conventional army and a good delivery system for nuclear
bombs. Should Western forces threaten surgical strikes, Pyongyang might
attack, or convincingly threaten to attack South Korea and/or Japan. In
the latter case, they need only threaten to detonate a bomb in a high
air-burst off the western Japanese coast. Whether or not this might make
a militarily useful EMP, it would certainly generate mass disruption of
Japan's still-important and still-fragile economy through public fear.
Surgical bombing of Iran also seems unlikely. Iran grows increasingly
moderate with time, and military attacks would retard or reverse this
trend. In both cases, carrots will serve much better than sticks.
> . following resolution of Iran and North Korea, similar demands on Pakistan
> and India. There is a small possibility that India might be allowed to keep
> some weapons under supervision, but given the Pakistan-Indian animosity
> "even handed disarmament" is more likely.
>
"Even-handed disarmament" sounds much more likely than dictated
disarmament. Under UN auspices, this might even work.
> . long term development of satellite ABM, electro-magnetic pulse cannon
> technology, laser disabling systems (for attacking ICBMs) through ground,
> airborne and satellite platforms. Also increased development of automated
> bomber and fighter planes (probably some of this is hidden secretly in
> George Bush's request for nearly a trillion dollars of addition military
> spending last week).
These developments probably will come much sooner than you think.
Directed energy weapons (DEW) make up a very popular area of research
right now in military aerospace. (See many articles in the last two
years of Aviation Week.) According to AvLeak, antenna design and to a
lesser extent, power budget (inc. heat dissipation) make the main
problems now. Anti-missile lasers exist as the Tactical High Energy
Laser and the airborne theater missile defense projects. We will also
see some sea-based ABM work, and a little bit of sea-based DEW. I
strongly suspect that the increase in military spending will move
development systems into field trials, esp. for offensive information
warfare. The potential Gulf War Two would allow real-world use for many
weapons not yet used in battle.
UCAVs (Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles), while they have funny-looking
shapes and a futuristic appeal, mark more of an evolutionary change than
a revolutionary one. If you fly commercial airliners, you have already
flown under the care of a machine. In fact, an instructor at the flight
school I just worked at complained pilots returning for annual training
arrive with airmanship rusty from a year of letting the autopilot do
almost all the work. In fact, new Gulfstream jets come with footrests
for the pilot and co-pilot seats.
>
> THE MILITARY REALITY
>
> On a purely military level, there are only nuclear powers. In a "serious"
That oversimplifies to the point of falsehood. For example, in a
Russo-Chinese War today and ignoring outside intervention, the RSFR
would lose a great deal of eastern territory regardless of how many
nuclear weapons they used. China has some 203 million available and fit
for military service
(http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/ch.html) vs Russia's
30 million (same site, different page).
> war the west holds all the nuclear cards. America, Russia, France, the
> UK
> and Israel vastly outnumber China's nuclear forces, by a factor of 45 to 1.
> Atomic bombs can stop a fleet in the ocean, destroy a country's major
> cities, destroy tank forces and so on. No military opposition could
Atomic weapons can only destroy. Atomic weapons do not help in
counter-insurgencies, training local forces, military operations in
urban terrain (save eliminating a city), and they would have very little
use in littoral and riverine naval actions. Further, atomic weapons'
environmental consequences make them unsuitable for defensive
use--except in the most bitter of scorched-earth tactics. A defender
will not use a nuclear explosive to stop an advancing column of tanks at
the outskirts of a friendly city, and might not use it to stop them on
enemy territory downwind. Finally, atomic weapons can only destroy what
they can target. This is why the Cold War saw ballistic missile
submarines form a third of the nuclear triad.
> currently defeat the west under ANY scenario. (Note I am talking about
> defeat, not damage).
I agree with your conclusion, but not your premise. All the Western
powers combined might defeat any combination of other states. The US
alone might well defeat all the other Great Powers combined, and would
certainly do so if one excludes Russia from the opposing forces.
>
> America has only two choices, under the doctrine of worst-case military
> scenario: build up its own nuclear force and ABM systems (at extreme cost)
Why should America do that when it already has an overwhelming
nuclear advantage? Remember "...the west holds all the nuclear cards"?
Adopting a policy of treating any terrorist WMD attack on a NATO member
as a WMD attack on all NATO members from country-X-suspected-of-
behaving-badly should have a good chance of preventing such attacks.
--
Jay Dugger : Til Eulenspiegel
http://www.vibepusher.com/~jdugger
GE/TW>AT d--(++) s:- a>? C++++ UL++/S P- E W+ N+ w M-
PS+(+++) PE PGP++ t--- 5 X+ R+++ !tv b+++ e+ h*
Sometimes the delete key is your best friend.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:50 MST