On the Brink: Will Saddam destroy his missiles?
Lupus Domesticus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the Brink: Will Saddam destroy his missiles?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2789345.stm
We're nearing crunch time, folks; in the Middle East equivalent of the dusty main street of an old western town, two gunslingers face each other, eyes narrowed, fingers twitching at the hilts of their six-guns.
Who's going to make the first move?
Cowboy Dubya says Badass Saddam has to destroy his al-Samoud missiles, or he's gonna shoot him.
But Badass says the missiles are legal. Will he destroy them anyway?
If he doesn't, he's going to get shot.
But maybe he figures he's going to get shot anyhow, so why should he get rid of something he can shoot back with?
Could this be the excuse Cowboy has been looking for? Either the genuine excuse, or the one that lets him shoot first without having to give up the intelligence he claims to have but doesn't want to share?
Or will Badass, mad as, Saddam take the initiative, and shoot first himself? If he does, what's he going to shoot at, and what's he going to shoot with?
If he Scuds Kuwait with mustard, or anthraxes Israel or al-Samouds Turkey, thus proving the doubters wrong, will Cowboy nuke him in return?
If he hits anyone with conventional weapons, will he get nuked anyway?
If Badass gets nuked, will North Korea figure it's next on the list, and nuke Uncle Sam?
If Cowboy shoots first, without nukes, will Dear Leader Kim still nuke Uncle Sam?
The stage is set. The streets are empty. Sherrif Blix is hiding in his office. The town clock ticks towards high noon.
Cowering in the saloon, Fritz and Pierre are still talking about peace. But maybe the shooting was always going to start at 12 o'clock, with or without the missiles?
We're nearing crunch time, folks; in the Middle East equivalent of the dusty main street of an old western town, two gunslingers face each other, eyes narrowed, fingers twitching at the hilts of their six-guns.
Who's going to make the first move?
Cowboy Dubya says Badass Saddam has to destroy his al-Samoud missiles, or he's gonna shoot him.
But Badass says the missiles are legal. Will he destroy them anyway?
If he doesn't, he's going to get shot.
But maybe he figures he's going to get shot anyhow, so why should he get rid of something he can shoot back with?
Could this be the excuse Cowboy has been looking for? Either the genuine excuse, or the one that lets him shoot first without having to give up the intelligence he claims to have but doesn't want to share?
Or will Badass, mad as, Saddam take the initiative, and shoot first himself? If he does, what's he going to shoot at, and what's he going to shoot with?
If he Scuds Kuwait with mustard, or anthraxes Israel or al-Samouds Turkey, thus proving the doubters wrong, will Cowboy nuke him in return?
If he hits anyone with conventional weapons, will he get nuked anyway?
If Badass gets nuked, will North Korea figure it's next on the list, and nuke Uncle Sam?
If Cowboy shoots first, without nukes, will Dear Leader Kim still nuke Uncle Sam?
The stage is set. The streets are empty. Sherrif Blix is hiding in his office. The town clock ticks towards high noon.
Cowering in the saloon, Fritz and Pierre are still talking about peace. But maybe the shooting was always going to start at 12 o'clock, with or without the missiles?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: wales
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's 1159 and what is that noise, Badass Saddam sees the No 16 Bus from the UK arriving with the Mission Certain Death Human Shield Brigade.
The Bus is directed between Cowboy and Saddam where they have been told they will not be lible to the Iraqi five blats congestion charge in this street alone.
Cowboy thinks hard and gets his mobile out....he has a cunning plan.......
The Bus is directed between Cowboy and Saddam where they have been told they will not be lible to the Iraqi five blats congestion charge in this street alone.
Cowboy thinks hard and gets his mobile out....he has a cunning plan.......
He hires Lee Marvin and Chuck Norris away from Hollywood....enlists Charlie Bronson, Clint Eastwood, and Jesse Jackson.....with a Commando like that....how could we fail. Ol' Sod Them wouldn't have a chance! The only thing missing would be Mr. T and the A team crew....at least with them there would no casualties or collateral damage. Nobel , Du Pont, et al would get to turn the economy around from all the boom bangs they would sell and no one gets hurt!
Lupus Domesticus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like High Noon has been postponed till 2pm.
Meantime, Cowboy's sidekick, El Tone the Kid, is having some trouble getting the back room stable boys to agree to shoe his hoss...
http://www.observer.co.uk/internatio...901203,00.html
Meantime, Cowboy's sidekick, El Tone the Kid, is having some trouble getting the back room stable boys to agree to shoe his hoss...
http://www.observer.co.uk/internatio...901203,00.html
"Blix, the chief weapons inspector, imposed a deadline of March 1 for Saddam to start destroying dozens of al-Samoud 2 missiles, which exceed the permitted range" was the statement made in today's Sunday Times. ......to start destroying mind you - so presumably a few grainy shots of Abdul bin-Bumbandit armed with a screwdriver and socket set unbolting the fins of an al-Samoud 2 will appear on Al Jazeera TV - proving that Uncle S is indeed complying with the weapons inspectors' demands........
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: wales
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cowboy asks George Michael to appear on TV with frosty boy - frosty boy was stunned into silence by George - did George know something to warrant the NATO Sec General himself to cut him short.
George now not a happy camel and has produced his new version of 'Shoot the dog' and is now making his way over to meet Badass Saddam to show him his 'big' hit.
When he arrives he is going to meet Saddam in the little boys room where he will ask Saddam to show him his Browning, and demonstate he has no smoking barrels.....Hans will brief us on the out 'come' before 2pm
George now not a happy camel and has produced his new version of 'Shoot the dog' and is now making his way over to meet Badass Saddam to show him his 'big' hit.
When he arrives he is going to meet Saddam in the little boys room where he will ask Saddam to show him his Browning, and demonstate he has no smoking barrels.....Hans will brief us on the out 'come' before 2pm
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why should he destroy them, he is more likely to deploy them. He knows that the Americans will go in regardless of what he does. He cares little for his people and must realise his time is probably up. He will keep them (or some of them) to retaliate. As he has been given the final ultimatum of 3 weeks, watch out for week two, he will probably blow all of his oil fields, therebye creating the perfect smoke curtain. Whilst this will not prevent cruise attack, it would certainly prevent effective air to ground cover for the boys on the ground. It was impenatrable last time I saw it.
- so presumably a few grainy shots of Abdul bin-Bumbandit armed with a screwdriver and socket set unbolting the fins of an al-Samoud 2 will appear on Al Jazeera TV - proving that Uncle S is indeed complying with the weapons inspectors' demands........
Steamchook - RTFPA!
What I mean is that a few grainy shots produced by Uncle S's Ministry of Proving We're Quite Nice Chaps Really would probably be leaked to Al-Jizzom and that would be his way of trying to trip up the Washington hawks yet again.
Of course it would be better for the international weapons inspectors to verify the destruction of any WMDs - or any other banned weapon.
What I mean is that a few grainy shots produced by Uncle S's Ministry of Proving We're Quite Nice Chaps Really would probably be leaked to Al-Jizzom and that would be his way of trying to trip up the Washington hawks yet again.
Of course it would be better for the international weapons inspectors to verify the destruction of any WMDs - or any other banned weapon.
steamchicken,
I may have misinterpreted BEagle's post, but I thought he was talking about the propaganda aspect rather than disarmament? Such pictures would be most useful to those arguing for more time/no war, and could easily be done for the cameras without the UN chaps being there (i.e before they turn up or are busy elsewhere). After all, that wouldn't be the first time this has happened.
You are, of course, quite correct about the role of the inspectors last time round, but we have to recall that the Iraqis claimed that some of their chaps (at the behest of the great moustache'd one, of course) were so eager to comply with resolutions that they destroyed items without the inspectors being present (in contravention of the rules).
It seems that there is a body of opinion that believes that the Iraqis did really destroy these things, despite the Unmovic view that these claims are a)unverifable and b) to be taken with a degree of scepticism given the evasion elsewhere.
So I'd argue that BEags wasn't entirely off beam. Unless, of course, I was and read too much into what he said.
(edited to add: Ah - clearly I didn't...)
I may have misinterpreted BEagle's post, but I thought he was talking about the propaganda aspect rather than disarmament? Such pictures would be most useful to those arguing for more time/no war, and could easily be done for the cameras without the UN chaps being there (i.e before they turn up or are busy elsewhere). After all, that wouldn't be the first time this has happened.
You are, of course, quite correct about the role of the inspectors last time round, but we have to recall that the Iraqis claimed that some of their chaps (at the behest of the great moustache'd one, of course) were so eager to comply with resolutions that they destroyed items without the inspectors being present (in contravention of the rules).
It seems that there is a body of opinion that believes that the Iraqis did really destroy these things, despite the Unmovic view that these claims are a)unverifable and b) to be taken with a degree of scepticism given the evasion elsewhere.
So I'd argue that BEags wasn't entirely off beam. Unless, of course, I was and read too much into what he said.
(edited to add: Ah - clearly I didn't...)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The Times - Tuesday 25 Feb:
......."Last night Saddam Hussein challenged Mr Bush to a live television debate, along the lines of those in US presidential elections. In a two-hour interview with Dan Rather of CBS, the Iraqi leader also indicated that he had no plans to comply with the demand to destroy his al-Samoud missiles and flatly denied that they violated UN rules."
......."Last night Saddam Hussein challenged Mr Bush to a live television debate, along the lines of those in US presidential elections. In a two-hour interview with Dan Rather of CBS, the Iraqi leader also indicated that he had no plans to comply with the demand to destroy his al-Samoud missiles and flatly denied that they violated UN rules."
It seems a bit cart before the horse to declare Saddam in breach of 1441 before Blix has made a final report, at least from a PR point of view.
And without some form of condemnation of Iraq by the inspectors, is there any chance at all that France and/or Russia won't veto this resolution?
And without some form of condemnation of Iraq by the inspectors, is there any chance at all that France and/or Russia won't veto this resolution?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Not London
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Tigs2 says, why should he destroy these missiles? The US / UK have made it perfectly clear that they are going to war regardless, so he is a cornered rat. If these weapons are a significant part of his ability to cause mayhem on his way out, he'll keep them and use them. Maybe slowly dismantle a couple ahead of the deadline just to sow more confusion amongst a divided UN.
However, with all the talk of WMD, direct and immediate threats to neighboring countries and even UK, it seems unfortunate that the only 'positive' evidence appears to be the existence of a missile with a little over 100 miles range, as opposed to 90. Very significant if you are between 90 to 110 miles from a launcher, but hardly an inter- or even intra-continental threat.
A genuine question... how have the weapons inspectors determined the performance of these missiles?
However, with all the talk of WMD, direct and immediate threats to neighboring countries and even UK, it seems unfortunate that the only 'positive' evidence appears to be the existence of a missile with a little over 100 miles range, as opposed to 90. Very significant if you are between 90 to 110 miles from a launcher, but hardly an inter- or even intra-continental threat.
A genuine question... how have the weapons inspectors determined the performance of these missiles?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The Iraqis' have tested fired 40, on their own figures 13 exceeded the maximum permitted range. The rest were testing other parameters. If 13 could exceed the max range, they all could, even their manufacturing tolerances aren't that wild.
"Blix said last week that U.N. inspectors had used four different computer simulations to calculate the range of the Al-Samoud. He said all the tests concluded that the missile exceeds the range limit by significant margins."
Missiles might be used in war
"Blix said last week that U.N. inspectors had used four different computer simulations to calculate the range of the Al-Samoud. He said all the tests concluded that the missile exceeds the range limit by significant margins."
Missiles might be used in war
Last edited by ORAC; 25th Feb 2003 at 16:57.
The missiles under discussion DO pose a threat to Saddam's immediate neighbours and to Western forces in theatre. With their short range they do not pose a threat to the West, or to Israel (every Middle Eastern tyrant's whipping boy) if fired from Iraqi territory. But there is the possibility of them being fired from an innocent looking merchant ship. In 1945 the US Navy fired a captured V2 from the deck of an aircraft carrier - thus proving that it can be done.
Also the present missile may well just be part of a larger, longer term missile programme. The technical data gleaned may be put to use in making larger missiles with longer ranges, either by building larger rockets, using "strap on" boosters, or by using more than one stage.
Given Saddam's liking for big missiles, I personally condsider the refusal to destroy them to be significant, and if Saddam manages to remain in power (by avoiding military action) then these things will come back to haunt us.
I have already stated my views on the Iraq thread on Jet Blast concerning Iraq generally.
Also the present missile may well just be part of a larger, longer term missile programme. The technical data gleaned may be put to use in making larger missiles with longer ranges, either by building larger rockets, using "strap on" boosters, or by using more than one stage.
Given Saddam's liking for big missiles, I personally condsider the refusal to destroy them to be significant, and if Saddam manages to remain in power (by avoiding military action) then these things will come back to haunt us.
I have already stated my views on the Iraq thread on Jet Blast concerning Iraq generally.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Obvious
Age: 78
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saddam Planning a Battle of the Cities
Hearing reports now that Saddam has started pulling back the entire Republican Guard and many other (if not most) of his elite Army units towards Baghdad. I would guess that he has realized that his forces have no chance of withstanding massive air assaults and has decided to maximize the house-to-house fighting within Baghdad, Basra, Tikra and the other major metropolises. That would increase both Alliance casualties and minimize the usefulness of air-power, whilst at the same time maximizing World opinion against Alliance Forces because of the high civilian casualties. I cannot fault his basic strategy, however desperate it might seem. Unless the Alliance was to launch an air assault now or in the next three days at most, they will be unable to halt or counter this initiative – assuming that this is his game-plan.
His Generals probably realize (and have counseled) that heavy US/Alliance casualties or heavy Iraqi civilian casualties (or both), as a result of street-fighting will generate considerable anti-war sentiment within the Alliance Countries’ populations. If he takes his soldiers out of uniform at the same time, he will be able to generate many pseudo-civilian casualties.
I wouldn’t want to be a Fox News or CNN correspondent in this one. It will be very costly on war correspondents, and quite unpalatable fare for mass audience television.
I'd guess that Saddam is serious about holing up in Baghdad and confident that this time his troops won’t be able to surrender easily. The Iraqi tanks will be much more effective when used for city fighting. In fact if he has his lesser-esteemed rag-tag units attached to elite units of the Republican Guard (who are mostly his tribal origins), there will be few surrenders, desertions or defections. I also would guess that if he actually does have any WOMD’s he will not use them until the battle for the cities reaches crisis level – as he will be looking to attract World sympathy particularly amongst the Muslim Nations. But he would then latterly unleash them (nerve agents, gases and bio-agents) with scant regard for his population and in a manner designed to surprise the Alliance and maximize Alliance casualties. Part of his retreat into Baghdad will be a blowing of most of his oil-wells in a scorched earth policy.
He realizes that there is nowhere on earth that he would be “safe” in exile so I’m guessing that he plans to go out with a bang and not a whimper (like Adolf and Mussolini). It’s the price you pay for leaving a despot in power and then having to later uproot him. If you hearken back to that nasty War of Attrition that he fought with Iran, one shouldn’t assume that either the Iraqi population (as irregulars) or his troops cannot put up a determined fight, particularly if those troops are fighting for their country and massively incentivated by having Republican Guard troops fighting alongside.
Don't think that the Airpower "ace-in-the-hole" or the Alliance's night-fighting capabilities are going to work so well this time around. Saddam is cunningly opting for high Aliance and civilian casualties, Muslim fury and condemnatory World Opinion.
His Generals probably realize (and have counseled) that heavy US/Alliance casualties or heavy Iraqi civilian casualties (or both), as a result of street-fighting will generate considerable anti-war sentiment within the Alliance Countries’ populations. If he takes his soldiers out of uniform at the same time, he will be able to generate many pseudo-civilian casualties.
I wouldn’t want to be a Fox News or CNN correspondent in this one. It will be very costly on war correspondents, and quite unpalatable fare for mass audience television.
I'd guess that Saddam is serious about holing up in Baghdad and confident that this time his troops won’t be able to surrender easily. The Iraqi tanks will be much more effective when used for city fighting. In fact if he has his lesser-esteemed rag-tag units attached to elite units of the Republican Guard (who are mostly his tribal origins), there will be few surrenders, desertions or defections. I also would guess that if he actually does have any WOMD’s he will not use them until the battle for the cities reaches crisis level – as he will be looking to attract World sympathy particularly amongst the Muslim Nations. But he would then latterly unleash them (nerve agents, gases and bio-agents) with scant regard for his population and in a manner designed to surprise the Alliance and maximize Alliance casualties. Part of his retreat into Baghdad will be a blowing of most of his oil-wells in a scorched earth policy.
He realizes that there is nowhere on earth that he would be “safe” in exile so I’m guessing that he plans to go out with a bang and not a whimper (like Adolf and Mussolini). It’s the price you pay for leaving a despot in power and then having to later uproot him. If you hearken back to that nasty War of Attrition that he fought with Iran, one shouldn’t assume that either the Iraqi population (as irregulars) or his troops cannot put up a determined fight, particularly if those troops are fighting for their country and massively incentivated by having Republican Guard troops fighting alongside.
Don't think that the Airpower "ace-in-the-hole" or the Alliance's night-fighting capabilities are going to work so well this time around. Saddam is cunningly opting for high Aliance and civilian casualties, Muslim fury and condemnatory World Opinion.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Reuters
Thursday, February 27, 2003; 10:46 AM
BAGHDAD, Iraq (Reuters) - Iraq will respond to a United Nations order to destroy its al-Samoud missiles within the next two days to meet a deadline set by chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, an Iraqi official said Thursday. It was not immediately known what the response would be.
Iraq had said previously that it was "seriously and genuinely" studying the order Blix gave it last week to begin destroying, by Saturday, March 1, dozens of the missiles as well as their warheads, engines and launchers. It is a key test of Iraq's willingness to comply with U.N. disarmament demands -- Blix says the missiles can fly further than the 93 miles the U.N. allows for Iraq's weaponry.
The Iraqi official, speaking on condition he was not named, said the reply would be in the form of a letter sent to the U.N. Security Council.
At the United Nations in New York, the U.N. weapons inspection agency said that it had no word yet from Baghdad. "We have heard nothing from them so far," a spokesman for the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection agency told Reuters, responding to reports that Iraq had agreed to destroy the missiles.
General Amer al-Saadi, a senior adviser to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, had hinted Monday that Iraq would agree to the demand, saying Baghdad had to be pragmatic about the issue.
Destruction of the al-Samoud 2 missiles would be a blow to Iraq as it prepares for a possible invasion by U.S. forces. In an interview with CBS television, Saddam denied that the al-Samoud's range was greater than the U.N.'s limit.
If he does not destroy them, however, the United States and Britain could use Iraq's defiance of Blix's order as proof that it is not cooperating with the United Nations and that war is therefore justified.
Thursday, February 27, 2003; 10:46 AM
BAGHDAD, Iraq (Reuters) - Iraq will respond to a United Nations order to destroy its al-Samoud missiles within the next two days to meet a deadline set by chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, an Iraqi official said Thursday. It was not immediately known what the response would be.
Iraq had said previously that it was "seriously and genuinely" studying the order Blix gave it last week to begin destroying, by Saturday, March 1, dozens of the missiles as well as their warheads, engines and launchers. It is a key test of Iraq's willingness to comply with U.N. disarmament demands -- Blix says the missiles can fly further than the 93 miles the U.N. allows for Iraq's weaponry.
The Iraqi official, speaking on condition he was not named, said the reply would be in the form of a letter sent to the U.N. Security Council.
At the United Nations in New York, the U.N. weapons inspection agency said that it had no word yet from Baghdad. "We have heard nothing from them so far," a spokesman for the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection agency told Reuters, responding to reports that Iraq had agreed to destroy the missiles.
General Amer al-Saadi, a senior adviser to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, had hinted Monday that Iraq would agree to the demand, saying Baghdad had to be pragmatic about the issue.
Destruction of the al-Samoud 2 missiles would be a blow to Iraq as it prepares for a possible invasion by U.S. forces. In an interview with CBS television, Saddam denied that the al-Samoud's range was greater than the U.N.'s limit.
If he does not destroy them, however, the United States and Britain could use Iraq's defiance of Blix's order as proof that it is not cooperating with the United Nations and that war is therefore justified.
