Genie 0 #51 March 28, 2003 Quote Quote Wow lengthy.... I know! I even surprised myself when i read back! I do go on a bit dont i? Quote OK, I hear you. I understand, and agree with a gooddeal of what you said. However, I disagree with the notion that we shouldn't be there in the first place. But, we will never agree on that, so no sense in discussing it. Actually we arent really in disagreement on that one - I was very anti the entire concept and then had a big chat on the wreck with a guy who signs in as TomB and he gave me another point of view which moved me from anti war to understanding why it was going to happen and being very glad that i wasnt the one who had to make the decision. I think you got that from my comment that if you wanted to save servicemen then you shouldnt have sent them there - this point has been elaborated on much more articulately than i can manage so i wont labour it here. But, you need to remember that the coallition has lost 50 lives because we are being "TOO" careful. We are respecting the innocents much more than we need to under the Geneva Conv(sp). Under said convention we have the right to attack hospitals, churches, mosques, if they are being used by the enemy for defensive reasons. If they are using a human shield, we "Legally" can shoot, and the legal fallout is on the hands of the person taking the hostage. But we are not doing this (yet). I therefore suspect we wouldn't use NUKES. It would defeat our overall purpose. However, do know that that option is "ALWAYS" on the table. I would suspect you would see some real "Shock and Awe" if they use WMD, but you will not see nukes in Iraq. My opinion of course. *** And you have every right to give it! No i do appreciate your courteous reply - i was very freaked at the idea that a nuke could be used to shorten the war and save US soldiers and even more freaked that people seemed to be accepting that as a rational solution - thats why i jumped in. I may say Andy man said exactly what i wanted to say and in a much clearer and shorter form so im going to shut up now Genie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,772 #52 March 28, 2003 >Those bombs are 1/100 the size of Heroshima I believe.. Hiroshima yield was about 15 kilotons, or the equivalent of 15,000 tons of TNT. This bomb is around 10 tons. That's 1/1500th the yield. Still a lot. >Maybe you get lucky hitting an area that has the majority of them in >it and then send in the troops? I think that's what we're doing - strategic bombings where they suspect there are troop concentrations, headquarters etc then a street to street battle to 'mop up.' And while I hope all we have to do is mop up, I fear the worst is yet to come as we engage Hussein's best forces on their home turf. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cgross 1 #53 March 28, 2003 There is something you should read. I just posted it under "very long, but a good read" It is an eye opener on how things are really going. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kinaa 0 #54 March 28, 2003 QuoteDivide the city into sectors... Those bombs are 1/100 the size of Heroshima I believe.. Not sure exactly but I believe that bomb incinerates everything within 1500 meters in all directions.. Drop a bomb on one sector, BOOM.. The sheer terror factor alone might scare them into running. If that doesn't work hit another sector. BOOM. Maybe you get lucky hitting an area that has the majority of them in it and then send in the troops? Well listen to yourself! What or who gives you the right to decide about lives of those civilians that live in Iraq? You are now thinking about dropping the 10t bombs on populated area?? Isn't that use of weapon of mass destruction? A war crime? And you wonder why people of whole world are start to hate you?? BTW You are underestimating their will to fight. Cos as we can see they have strong will to fight against your army, no matter how the Saddam was dictator. Unless you don't destroy the whole city and kill them all you will never concur it. Bombs will not demoralized them. BTW I've lived in city, that was bombed whit anything, half ton bombs, heavy alt. planes...enemy was less then a mile from my apartment, I could see their positions from my window. They had MIG 29's we had nothing, they had thanks, they had everything, we had only infantry weapon. But we still won the war. There is no bomb or explosion that could cut up my will to fight. 'Cos my whole family is behind me, whole my life, everything that I have, my way of life. You are really underestimating them. 5mil city...It is impossible. We had a battle in war... Battle for Vukovar (35 000 ) in Croatia 1991. Edited to add: It was the border town with Serbia. 40 000 Serbs were attacking, 600 tanks, APC, planes full army, their guard brigades, paratroopers, special forces...At that time the JNA (serbs) was third army in europe. ~3000 defenders whit only infantry weapon, largest caliber was few anti tank rocket launcher OSA, you fire it from you shoulder...some RPGs They did not have any support, nor the artyllery, not air, nor did they get any supllies...The town was in total siege. After 3 months of siege and total destroying of town Serbs capture the city: Serbian loose: 10 000 -13 000 soldiers killed ~25 000 wounded ~200 Tanks, APC, ~25 airplanes Croatian lose: 1000+ soldiers 1500civilians 760 missing (civ. and sold.) 7000 captured (mostly civ.) So fighting against heavy armed 5mill city... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #55 March 28, 2003 QuoteWell listen to yourself! What or who gives you the right to decide about lives of those civilians that live in Iraq? You are now thinking about dropping the 10t bombs on populated area?? No.. Relax.. This is after they use chemical weapons and all the civilians that don't have chemical protection are dead already. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #56 March 29, 2003 all of the statistics you posted are in line, and correct for the most part. my question is "shouldn't someone (Wyatt Earp/Doc Holiday) have figured the human element into the PLAN" before we deployed anybody, anywhere? the stats you posted can only be tabulated after a war unfortunately. but i guess if the "kill ratio" is acceptable, what the hell?--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #57 March 29, 2003 You have to be fairly close and recieve more then just a few parts per million with most chemical weapons in order for them to be deadly. Most chemical weapons are designed more as an irratiant then as a fatal weapon. Its a whole lot more useful to have a weapon that injures 5000+ people then one that kills 500+. The 5000 are now taking up all your hosptial beds, are consuming all your time to pull them off the battlefield to treat or you are going to destroy the morale of your own troops if they have to fight next to their buddy that has skin melting off. All of a sudden you don't care about fighting, you just want to get your friend off the battlefield. If you do get into your chemical suit before your hit, you now are burdened by the suit and it takes away any mobility advantage you had since you have to be sure to be protected at all times. Chemical/Biological weapons if correctly can allow a fighting force of a few hundred to walk all over a fighting force many, many times their size. They can also be used as a denial of land tactic. Break open a drum of mustard gas in an area and your enemy now has to find another way around that place or is limited in their movements in the area. The range of the weapons and their effect is'nt like a nuclear weapon at all. The fatal radius is only going to be a few hundred feet across total and the effective range is almost always under a mile or 2 at the most. Kuwait City has charts drawn up showing if a Scud with a B/C weapon hits that depending on wind currents and size of the warhead large parts of the city never have to put on their gas masks.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #58 March 29, 2003 VX is MUCH more deadly than that phree... MUCH MUCH more deadly... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
r2hubert 0 #59 March 29, 2003 That is true the VX21 is deadly if you want to land it! -- Renaud SMA #9 "Mind is like parachute. It only functions when it's open." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #60 March 29, 2003 http://www.ilpi.com/msds/vx.html Wow.. This stuff is very unstable and it breaks down quickly.. VX , nerve gas several times more toxic than sarin but less volatile. It kills within minutes if inhaled or deposited on the skin; protection from VX would require both protective suits and masks. The compound was first prepared in the 1950s during research for new insecticides; its chemical formula is classified by the U.S. government as secret. VX contaminates for several days ground on which it is released. Accidental release of VX in Utah in 1968 caused the death of thousands of sheep, some of them as far as 40 mi (64 km) from where the gas escaped. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #61 March 29, 2003 Quote VX is MUCH more deadly than that phree... MUCH MUCH more deadly... Yeah, but only when used properly... and that's pretty tough to pull off. Consider the attack on the Tokyo subway, 300 people crammed into a tight compartment, you'd think it'd be a perfect opportunity for a gas attack. The attack only kiilled 7. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,772 #62 March 29, 2003 >VX is MUCH more deadly than that phree... MUCH MUCH more deadly... It is very deadly when used correctly i.e. with an airburst under ideal conditions. Under suboptimal conditions (wind, rain, groundburst, deteriorated materials, absorption on surfaces) it is dissipated pretty quickly. It's a good area-denial and terror weapon, but conventional weapons have proven to be far more deadly when it comes to killing a lot of people quickly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #63 March 29, 2003 I think the brits came up with it then traded it with the americans for nuclear technology. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #64 March 29, 2003 >its chemical formula is classified by the U.S. government as secret Thats funny.... its : CH3CH20-P(O)(CH3)-SCH2CH2N(C3H7)2 or simply C11H26NO2PS(On the CDC page if you want to confirm, good write up on VX there too) VX is problally one of the nastiest things thats been created as a weapon. It does'nt break down fast, its adhesive so if you spray an area it can take months before it will wash off a building. Liquid form is most common, but the gas form is availble too. Lethal dose tends to be about 50%. If inhaled, LD can be as little as 10mg, but it does dispurse like any gas and the further you are from the blast point the more air you would have to breathe in unprotected to get to that level. Smaller levels of the gas can casue nervous system injuries including a coma or loss of relxes/muscle control. Interesting letter to the SoD about VX in Iraq from '98 is hereYesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,772 #65 March 29, 2003 > "shouldn't someone (Wyatt Earp/Doc Holiday) have figured the > human element into the PLAN" before we deployed anybody, > anywhere? I don't think you can. The human element is unpredictable. I think they could have done a somewhat better job of explaining the risks (i.e. the statement by Rumsfeld that it could be over in six days or six weeks was probably a mistake) but I don't think you can ever predict beforehand what will happen in a war, beyond some broad generalizations. (Shooting at people almost always pisses them off.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #66 March 29, 2003 QuoteThe compound was first prepared in the 1950s during research for new insecticides Yeah...I'm sure the Nazi's that we secreted away to US research facilities instead of Nuremburg were working on insecticides. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites