14 replies to this topic

[the 'Hawk]

^ Hey, why not?

I mean, it's as good a time as any, isn't it?

Edited by Cait, 24 September 2012 - 01:57 PM.

[CJ AEGIS]

http://www.cnn.com/2...l.un/index.html

Quote

"Everything we have seen and heard indicates that, instead of cooperating actively with the inspectors to ensure the success of their mission, Saddam Hussein and his regime are busy doing all they possibly can to ensure that inspectors succeed in finding absolutely nothing," Powell said.

Powell's key points on Iraq

Quote

Links to terrorism:
Powell asserted that Iraq has had high-level, long-standing contacts with the al Qaeda terrorist network. He said al Qaeda fugitives from Afghanistan have found safe haven in northern Iraq and al Qaeda associates are operating in Baghdad. Powell also said an al Qaeda fugitive linked to the October killing of U.S. diplomat Laurence Foley in Jordan has found "safe haven" in Iraq and has plotted attacks in Europe.

The mention that the Security Council must act once again or become irrelevant once again shows that if the UN wants to avoid becoming the next League of Nations they better act.  France and Germany have once again called for more inspections and that force should be a last resort.  It look like though from comments it confirms that Bulgaria is also onboard for forcing Iraq to cooperate.

[Bad Wolf]

I was listenning to one of those political commentary radio shows (I was in a cab) and the question the commentator kept asking was "Why now?  None of this is new.  Why now are we suddenly so interested in this?"

[Godeskian]

Was any eveidence presented?

Powel merely saying he has proof isn't quite good enough in my books

[Delvo]

There are several reasons why now. One is the steady rise recently in Muslim terrorist activity, leading up to and including September Eleventh and a handful of foiled attempts since then. Another is that Iraq's technology has advanced and is on the verge of getting really nasty in new ways, especially nuclear, and meanwhile it's also been increasing its ties to terrorists, which means that before long Iraq will potentially be not only a much more serious threat to all Middle-Easterners but also an assured source of extremely powerful weapons for terrorists. The last time Iraq was thought to be this close on its nuclear program, that facility was bombed; it's now been just about long enough to catch up again starting over, and they've also made comparable advances now in other weapons of mass destruction, and Islamic terrorism has developed a stronger foothold in mainstream Arab and Muslim culture than it had before.

True, this has been the case for a few years; it's not exactly sudden. But the fact that we were too slow to move on it before does not constitute a reason not to fix it now, which is how most people asking this question seem to mean it. Even if you cross the line slowly enough not to be sure exactly when you crossed it, you still have to recognize THAT you have crossed it; sooner or later the frog has to hop out of that pot, even if it hasn't QUITE YET reached a deadly temperature.

The real question isn't "Why now" but "Why not sooner". And this leads to another answer to "why now": Because we DIDN'T do it sooner. And again there are multiple reasons why we didn't.

One is that the American people did not take the threat of terrorist Islam seriously before. They should have, but it took a somewhat bigger (and closer to home) terrorist act than usual to wake them up to reality. Another reason is that in the 12 years before GW Bush was elected, we only had 2 other Presidents; the first one presided longer ago and might not have had much reason to act, and for whatever valid or invalid reasons did not treat the situation seriously (perhaps because of a Cold War perspective on what threats to the USA look like), and the more recent one presided for 8 years without taking the threat of Muslim terrorists seriously (and also never faced a public that took it seriously).

Also, consider the whole "War on Terrorism". Most of the world didn't mind the action against Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, because that organization had caused the event that made most Americans (who hadn't already caught on before) see the danger. But terrorism is the real enemy, not Al-Qaeda, and it's much bigger and more widespread. So after that, you have to decide what targets to hit and in what order to hit them, knowing that international support will be less because while these other terrorists are indeed the enemy and a serious threat, they didn't attack us on September 11th. And you have to do it with little clue how to find these targets and do this kind of war against a diffuse enemy instead of a country, largely because your intelligence agencies have been stripped down to nearly nothing over the years by domestic politics. So, given the fact that the overall war on worldwide terrorism has to move on beyond Afghanistan, obviously we have to do SOMETHING next, and it's just a question of WHAT. So the question "Why attack Iraq now" becomes "Of the choices for where to go now, why does Iraq top the list?". And here's why:
1. It's a country, the kind of enemy we can already identify and locate and already know how to fight.
2. We're still trying to put back together the kind of intelligence needed to locate and identify most terrorist targets, and studying what kind of action to take and how to take it when those enemies are identified and located. It's a different kind of war that we need some time to get ready for.
3. Iraq is one of the major powers of that region, and even scarier when you consider the WoMDs. Faced with multiple opponents, picking off the most powerful one first is good basic tactics; it's the most disruptive thing you can do to the whole group and it takes away the possibility of the big tough one getting you while you're distracted with a smaller target.
4. Sort of tied in with #3; in the event that the destruction of one enemy causes "retaliations" from other enemies, those other enemies will not be Iraq (the most powerful one), because that will have been taken care of FIRST.
5. That event is less likely to happen with Iraq as the primary target anyway, because Iraq is the scariest and least popular country in the neighborhood. Their neighbors don't like the idea of Iraq attacking them (especially with WoMDs), and the most religious in the area aren't fond of Iraq's not putting much emphasis on its reiligion. Our elimination of Iraq's current regime makes them safer, and our "freeing" of many devout Muslims of their sect in Iraq demonstrates that we're not crusading against them. Some Middle-Eastern countries have already signed on with the USA in this, and others are putting on a show of objecting but will be happy to sit back and watch it happen, and will subsequently be more amenable to helping us with later phases of the war.

[Delvo]

Godeskian, on Feb. 06 2003,07:31, said:

Was any eveidence presented?

Powel merely saying he has proof isn't quite good enough in my books

What do you want him to do, bring in a mask and some tanks of something and open it up to kill a bunch of UN members to demonstrate? Or would you then just say that he got the stuff from somewhere outside Iraq? (...or whatever else you think it takes to find a way to claim that there's still really no evidence... since the standards keep getting changed every time the previous standard of proof is met yet again... and nevermind of course the fact that it's Iraq's responsibility to prove it doesn't have the stuff, not the other way around...)

Seriously, if you don't believe the actual weapons and nuclear research notes the inspectors have found, the intelligence reports quoted, the videos and recorded conversations he played back, and the statements of Iraqi defectors and other associates from various other countries (and one other thing I know I'm forgetting) and insist on calling them "not evidence", you might as well take a pacifists' version of the Institute for Creation Research's membership oath (in which one swears to deny the meaning or existence of any evidence one is presented with that doesn't lead to the prescribed conclusion).

[Han]

You know, all this is nice and all, but is anyone in the Bush Administration noticing what's going on in North Korea?

N Korea warns US of pre-emptive action

Crisis Timeline

N Korean defector's warning for leader

Things are heating up and if Kimmy feels like he has nothing to lose...

Um..is Canada in range of N.Korean missiles?

[Godeskian]

With NK the us is truly playing with fire as there is good reason to believe they have active nuclear ICBM's.

they would to well not to push him into firing first as Kim Il Jong can take out the entire US battlefleet in one shot and still have (projected by the us at least) one or two shots left.

LA and SanFran anyone

[Delvo]

Of course they've noticed, and have been working on it; have you paid any attention at all? They're just not reacting the same because it's NOT the same.

North Korea has some bombs with which it could already retaliate, as mentioned above, unlike Iraq, where the idea is to PREVENT them from becoming like North Korea (which is another reason "why now", and in fact means that this delay for over a year with Iraq has just bought them time to get closer). But on top of THAT, there are diplomatic possibilities with North Korea, which don't exist with Iraq. Not because its leader is any less of a nut, but because he feels the pressure of other, bigger, stronger countries in his neighborhood and knows how easily several of them could wipe out everything he has. China wants its puppet to stay in line and not create a war China's not ready for. Russia, Japan, a handful of other Asian countries, and maybe even Australia can also have some influence there and don't want NK to start a war either. And the fact that North Korea's already got big guns and missile launchers at its southern border, with which it can be expected to throw everything it's got to try to wipe out South Korea within minutes of any war's beginning, will make it pracitcally impossible for NK to find any allies, since nobody wants to be complicit in that. Who in the Middle East is willing to really put any pressure on Iraq and stand up to them, until the current regime has been smashed by the USA and its allies first?

What NK's up to is a mugging. Nukes are how they intend to get food. Iraq Muslim terrorists aren't trying to get anything from us. They just want us to not exist. That puts the former in a situation where we can succumb to their threats and live peacefully for a while (and hopefully really take care of the threat later in smaller actions that don't require an all-out war), and the latter in a situation where they'll try to come and get us no matter what we do.

[CJ AEGIS]

Quote

Godeskian: they would to well not to push him into firing first as Kim Il Jong can take out the entire US battlefleet in one shot and still have (projected by the us at least) one or two shots left.

Hitting even a single carrier battlegroup with a ballistic missile is something that gives someone real headaches when attempting it.  Suffice it to say a CVBG is fast enough and maneuverable that you can't target an ICBM accurately and fast enough to actually hit it with much success.   On top of that you have the small issue of the fact that ships are amazingly survivable to even nuclear weapons; just look at the Bikini Atoll tests that the US carried out at the end of World War II.  You have to get a detonation fairly close to them to inflict enough damage to sink one.

If North Korea tried to use a cruise missile or aircraft delivery system they'd have to deal with the AAW warships and the carrier's own defending aircraft.  A CVBG isn't a pushover when it comes defending against air threats.

 

Quote

LA and SanFran anyone

Three points.  

This all the more reason that we should get the NMD system in place and operational as soon as possible.  

Second point is I suspect if things start to heat up to the ball dropping stage Kim will wake up to find that his nuclear arsenal and production facilities were visited by B-2 bombers during the night.  These are liquid fuel missiles and you can't keep the fuel in the tanks or the caustic fuel will eat them.  Suffice it to say it takes a little bit of time to fuel the missiles.    

Third point is that would be one "amazing" shot for North Korea to hit SanFran or LA.  They'd have to launch the thing from quite far out in the Pacific to do it.  The Taep'o-dong-2 has a range between 4,000 and 6,000 km on the extreme high end.  That means they could hit a good portion of Alaska but even Hawaii would be beyond their range.  On top of that none of these missiles supposedly exist yet and are just a project North Korea is working toward.  The Taep'o-dong-1 is an older missile and has a much shorter range and can hit most of Japan but not even come close to reaching the US.  The real threat is to Japan and South Korea rather than the CONUS.

[Godeskian]

Delvo, on Feb. 06 2003,07:58, said:

What do you want him to do, bring in a mask and some tanks of something and open it up to kill a bunch of UN members to demonstrate? Or would you then just say that he got the stuff from somewhere outside Iraq? (...or whatever else you think it takes to find a way to claim that there's still really no evidence... since the standards keep getting changed every time the previous standard of proof is met yet again... and nevermind of course the fact that it's Iraq's responsibility to prove it doesn't have the stuff, not the other way around...)

Seriously, if you don't believe the actual weapons and nuclear research notes the inspectors have found, the intelligence reports quoted, the videos and recorded conversations he played back, and the statements of Iraqi defectors and other associates from various other countries (and one other thing I know I'm forgetting) and insist on calling them "not evidence", you might as well take a pacifists' version of the Institute for Creation Research's membership oath (in which one swears to deny the meaning or existence of any evidence one is presented with that doesn't lead to the prescribed conclusion).

and with that i'm out of this thread

Delvo, i didn't see the speech and just asked for some informtion, rather than give it to me you start attcking me, insulting my beliefs and more then i have no interest in continuing this conversation

[Godeskian]

CJ AEGIS, on Feb. 06 2003,23:57, said:

Hitting even a single carrier battlegroup with a ballistic missile is something that gives someone real headaches when attempting i.

If North Korea tried to use a cruise missile or aircraft delivery system they'd have to deal with the AAW warships and the carrier's own defending aircraft.  A CVBG isn't a pushover when it comes defending against air threats.

 

Quote

LA and SanFran anyone

Three points.  

This all the more reason that we should get the NMD system in place and operational as soon as possible.  

Second point is I suspect if things start to heat up to the ball dropping stage Kim will wake up to find that his nuclear arsenal and production facilities were visited by B-2 bombers during the night.  These are liquid fuel missiles and you can't keep the fuel in the tanks or the caustic fuel will eat them.  Suffice it to say it takes a little bit of time to fuel the missiles.    

Third point is that would be one "amazing" shot for North Korea to hit SanFran or LA.  They'd have to launch the thing from quite far out in the Pacific to do it.  The Taep'o-dong-2 has a range between 4,000 and 6,000 km on the extreme high end.  That means they could hit a good portion of Alaska but even Hawaii would be beyond their range.  On top of that none of these missiles supposedly exist yet and are just a project North Korea is working toward.  The Taep'o-dong-1 is an older missile and has a much shorter range and can hit most of Japan but not even come close to reaching the US.  The real threat is to Japan and South Korea rather than the CONUS.

CJ. as you seem willing to actually talk to me reasonably, i'll answer your points as best i can

I was under the impression though that nukes weren't exactly precision weapons. presumably a nuclear warhead detonated some distance away fromt he actuall carrier itself would still produce heat, a EMP wave, a shockwave and lethal radiation. So there might not be a need to target any one part of the battlegroup. I would have thought that it would have made it a lot easier top destory the carrier group.

Regarding a preemptive strike by NK,

poiint 1. yes, but it isn't up and runnign now, given the timeframe of the heartup in NK, there might be enough time to produce one
point 2. Yes, but not if he launches first.
point 3, point. you make a compelling case.

however, i am still abandoning this thread. If you want to talk more, then please PM me,

[CJ AEGIS]

Quote

Godeskian:  I was under the impression though that nukes weren't exactly precision weapons. presumably a nuclear warhead detonated some distance away fromt he actuall carrier itself would still produce heat, a EMP wave, a shockwave and lethal radiation. So there might not be a need to target any one part of the battlegroup. I would have thought that it would have made it a lot easier top destroy the carrier group.

Well I wouldn’t exactly call a nuclear weapon a precession weapon either.  The thing is, that think back to that picture of the Nimitz crash turning, that carriers and other naval warships are incredibly tough structurally. I’m sure jon is up more so on the details of the Bikini Atoll tests so if he has anything more to say or if I get something wrong I’m hoping he notices and comment.  With Operation Crossroads the Navy attempted to discern the effects on surplus ships from World War II.  

In Test Baker they detonated an 8kt device within 300 yards of the WWII vintage carrier Saratoga.  The blast pushed the carrier sideways for a distance I forget but it was rather impressive.  The blast did cause the structural failure of the flight deck and resulted in her sinking thought it took 8 hours.  The thing is carriers now are even tougher than old Sara.  The battleships Nevada was similarly attacked and sank either 4 or 8 day later due to damage.  So it takes a very close hit to inflict damage on a carrier.  
Now any good ballistic missile has a CEP; basically how big of an area you can expect the missile to land in or how much it can miss by.  The Nodong has a CEP of 190 meters while the Hwasong 5 has an estimated one of 450 meters.  So theoretical either could inflict damage needed to sink or heavily damage a carrier if it was stationary and waving a big kick me sign.  The thing is no carrier in her right mind would do that.  The first problem is the North Koreans have to find the carrier and track it long enough while they fuel their missiles; mind you it takes a rather long time to fuel most liquid fuel missiles.  The second thing is finding and tracking a US CVBG at sea is a situation that is rather hard when you don’t have satellite support and even hard when you do have it.  They are highly mobile and can cover large areas of the sea at speeds in excess of 30 knots plus they have their own AWACs and fighter cover.    
Now the next problem is that a carrier isn’t going to stand still and it takes time for a ballistic missile to be programmed and then reach it’s target.  Except your target is constantly moving as you try to program your missile as to where to hit.  The next problem is the issue that the SPY-1 radar of the Ticos and Burkes can track ballistic missiles so the carrier is going to have some warning.  The thing that would concern me the most is the EMP knocking out aerials and delicate antennas.  The vessels are sealed against radiation with filters and other protective features so fallout can be dealt with in addition they have a high-powered “sprinkler system” ** that washes the flight deck and superstructure.  All together tagging a carrier with an ballistic missile is an extremely outside chance.  

CVN 75 undergoes water washdown:
http://www.nns.com/n...25_washdown.jpg
 

Quote

Godeskian: point 1. yes, but it isn't up and running now, given the timeframe of the heartup in NK, there might be enough time to produce one

Considering that NK currently doesn’t have anything in terms of ICBMs that can reach the US there is a margin of error form getting one in service.  

Quote

point 2. Yes, but not if he launches first.

The thing here is that it comes back to the missiles being liquid fueled and having a significant delay in prepping them.  I can’t find figures for the varieties of missiles North Korea has but it often takes hours for these missiles to be fueled and prepared for launch.  Making it a significant window of opportunity if someone is watching for you doing that and are ready to take them out.

[jon3831]

CJ AEGIS, on Feb. 08 2003,10:14, said:

I’m sure jon is up more so on the details of the Bikini Atoll tests so if he has anything more to say or if I get something wrong I’m hoping he notices and comment.  

Oh, fine, invoke me when I don't really have the time to do any confirmation research or anything...

Quote

With Operation Crossroads the Navy attempted to discern the effects on surplus ships from World War II.

Ahh... Crossroads... One of my favorite series... "We will not detonate the atmosphere. We will not crack the earth's crust allowing the oceans to run out. I am not an atomic playboy as some of my critics have labeled me..."

Anyhoo...

Quote

In Test Baker they detonated an 8kt device within 300 yards of the WWII vintage carrier Saratoga.  The blast pushed the carrier sideways for a distance I forget but it was rather impressive.  The blast did cause the structural failure of the flight deck and resulted in her sinking thought it took 8 hours.  The thing is carriers now are even tougher than old Sara.  The battleships Nevada was similarly attacked and sank either 4 or 8 day later due to damage.  So it takes a very close hit to inflict damage on a carrier.

I think you're thinking of shot Able... Able was the surface test, and IIRC, Sara and most of the surface group stayed afloat (except for the ship where the weapon itself was).

Baker, IIRC, was something like 500-1000 feet underwater. The shockwave blew the keels out of most of the ships, including Sara, Nevada, and one of the big German battlewagons...

Although... All of this is off the top of my head, and I don't have time to post this, let alone go off and research it, although I believe the High Energy Weapons Archive at FAS has a nice writeup on both shots.

Quote

The thing that would concern me the most is the EMP knocking out aerials and delicate antennas.

Most of the radio equipment would be radiation hardened anyway, I would imagine... That and they have one heckuva grounding system...

Quote

The thing here is that it comes back to the missiles being liquid fueled and having a significant delay in prepping them.  I can’t find figures for the varieties of missiles North Korea has but it often takes hours for these missiles to be fueled and prepared for launch.

Funny thing about rocket fuel, too...

It's volatile.

Fueling is the most dangerous time, 'cause of all that fuel running around... All it takes is a spark...

And as a consequence of weight issues... Missiles are incredibly fragile. It wouldn't take much to knock one out of commission...

[CJ AEGIS]

Quote

jon383: Oh, fine, invoke me when I don't really have the time to do any confirmation research or anything...  

You know the plan.  Pass it up the chain of nuclear command.

Quote

jon383: I think you're thinking of shot Able...  

Yep I convoluted the two tests together.  My fault for trying to type in a rush.

Quote

jon383: IIRC, Sara and most of the surface group stayed afloat (except for the ship where the weapon itself was).  

USS Gilliam and four other ships were sunk according to the HEW with 5 other vessels either sunk or with heavy damage and a 520 ft airburst.  

Quote

jon383:
Baker, IIRC, was something like 500-1000 feet underwater. The shockwave blew the keels out of most of the ships, including Sara, Nevada, and one of the big German battlewagons...

Baker according to the HEW was 90 feet down; though for some reason it itches in my mind that I’ve heard deeper.  Prinz Eugen was the German vessel.  

Quote

jon383: Most of the radio equipment would be radiation hardened anyway, I would imagine... That and they have one heckuva grounding system...

Quite correct.  I was figuring a lucky enough shot to actually inflict damage from the shockwave, as unlikely as that maybe. I have a hard time seeing North Korea manage such a shot with the limited capabilities they have.    

Quote

jon383:
And as a consequence of weight issues... Missiles are incredibly fragile. It wouldn't take much to knock one out of commission...  

The advantage of having TLAMs or solid fuel ICBMs…  

If anyone wants to see a interesting picture.  The following is a satellite photo of the Korean peninsula at night.  The spot that look as black as ocean above SK is NK….

http://www.globalsec...k/dprk-dark.htm