So do I, I wish they would help liberate the people of Burma, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and around half the other countrys of the world as well but we all know its not going to happen.

 

As for the ships, I'd take all that with a pinch of salt, that story originated from an english newspaper and nobody outside the media seems to think its a big deal. I found this story more worrying http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/3453128?source=Evening%20Standard

Hmm...interesting take on this news story. What I've heard in the American press is these weapons would only be used if WMD were used on Iraq's neighbors, and they were considering 'mini-nukes' to minimize consequences and civilian casualties. I don't think you'll ever again see any nuclear weapon used on areas that were primarily civilian populated (like Nagasaki and Hiroshima). I think everyone knows that would be a terrible human rights violation. These 'mini-nukes' are supposed to burrow into the ground and destroy bunkers and underground military complexes...at least that's what I heard.

 

My thought is nuclear weapons, even 'mini-nukes', should be a last resort weapon. The US has many other weapons that don't have the physical and political side-effects that nukes have. Conventional weapons can do any job that needs to be done.

 

As you can tell, I'm not a fan of nukes...but I think they're a necessary evil to be used more as a deterrent than anything.

Yeah, what worries me, is that if these are the weapons that America is prepared to admist to having, what are the weapons they DON'T want to admit to having? Plasma weapons, high power lasers?

It's funny you'd bring that up...

 

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm

 

Isn't this what an Ion cannon does?

 

The fact that the Pentagon is worried about civilian reaction is very telling, I think.

Yes that is true. Basically they observed that the electro-magnetic pulse of a nuclear explosion overloads electrical equipment. The problem is, focusing the enrgy. If they could buil an ion cannon, then it would be brilliant, you'd get the comm advantage, without the damage of civilian infrastructure. I think they're right to lean against not using it now. Once they've refined it more it'll be better. It's very similar to moving from carpet bombing to precision guided missiles. A hard call, you have to weigh public opinion and effectiveness and the lives of your men and women doing the fighting for you, not a job i want.

I think if the US uses a nuke in Iraq you guys are going to find yourselves way way out there, civilian centers or no.

I totally agree. But I don't think the US will use nuclear weapons in this case. There's just no need for them.

Oh and concerning the E-bomb, I wouldnt get to worked up about its effectiveness, Iraq has very little electronic communications left to destroy. There were wargames ran last year by the US simulating an invasion of Iraq, dont know if you guys remember it or not, but the guy in command of the reds(iraq) used motorcycle couriers and pidgeons for communication and apparently they worked quite well. I havent time now to dig up the report I read on it but I'll try and dig it up later.

Good point, Gank! I remember in the '91 Gulf War, the communications and electronic installations were the first to be hit.

 

BTW, I didn't hear many details of the last war game, but that doesn't surprise me. I did hear that Iraq knows they won't be able to communicate with their troops once hostilities start, so they are issuing blanket orders to their outlying troops and relying on the loyalty of their commanders and troops. From experience, that's probably not such a good thing for Saddam.

Elvis: the E-Bomb description I found didn't mention nuclear explosions (at least in the current weapon). It did say that's how they discovered it.

 

Here is the link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78375,00.html

Oh and concerning the E-bomb, I wouldnt get to worked up about its effectiveness, Iraq has very little electronic communications left to destroy. There were wargames ran last year by the US simulating an invasion of Iraq, dont know if you guys remember it or not, but the guy in command of the reds(iraq) used motorcycle couriers and pidgeons for communication and apparently they worked quite well. I havent time now to dig up the report I read on it but I'll try and dig it up later.

 

Were'nt those guys 'playing as Iraq' brushed down for being to good, or was that some other exercise?

 

You mean they used 5th graders as the Iraqi military?

 

Just kidding...they may be poorly trained, but give anybody a weapon and they become dangerous.

Here we go sir,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,787017,00.html

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/vandeerlin/20021106-9999_1e6deerlin.html

First two links that came up, war games were called the Millenium Challenge 2002 and they did not go well for the blues, if I was a soldier going to war in the gulf this would have me seriously worried, especially seeing how publicised it was.

That's it! Yo, wild one Gank! I'm a Guardian reader, I wondered why it rung a bell! Cool one!

I read it sometimes but the arty farty stuff scares me. Bout the nearest Irish newspaper to it is An Phoblacht, go figure. (stick that in google if ya dont know what it means)

 

http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml

V.funny, but the scary thing is, it could well end like that.

I just hope they learned something from that.

You would hope so. An aircraft carrier, 2 helicopter carriers and 15 other ships lost in 2 days, not very nice. It appears do have been ignored though, on the grounds that Saddam would never use those tactics. I'd be surprised if he didnt.

Yeah, well now that it's on the media, Saddam would be a twat not to think about it, and the US military would be even dumber not to accept it might happen now that it's been suggested.