US Hi-Tech Arms Would Finish Iraq 'In A Week'

The American weaponry likely to be deployed in any military strike against Iraq is so advanced and hi-tech that some was not even ready to be used in the operation in Afghanistan just 12 months ago.

With an armoury including satellite imagery that can distinguish a tank from a bus, even through thick cloud, to microwave bombs that can destroy electrical and computer systems without hurting civilians, military planners preparing for war are confident that any strike would be completed in little more than a week.

news.independent.co.uk...

that's my thought - GW II will be quick and decisive. The weapons are much better - the enemy is much weaker. I still don't think the Iraqis will have the will to fight. When and if this war starts I think we'll see a lot of Iraqi soldiers calling in sick. They know it's for real this time and if they go hide for a few days they won't have Saddam around to cut their ears off for going AWOL. Maybe the man power will be smaller but there's something like 5 carriers in the gulf (and carriers just don't cruise around by their lonesomes - their battle groups consists of subs, destroyers, cruisers, frigates, supply ships, etc). And the US doesn't go to too many places without the Brits to back the US up - so, there's already a great number of military assets from the UK that is or will be in the region.

We can blow Iraq up in a week,most likely a couple of day's.But I think it is going to take longer to Saddam.Unless we know where he is it could take awhile to find him.We still haven't found OBL,and Saddam is good at hiding too.I don't think we ever knew where he was in the Gulf War,and I don't think we know exactly where he is now.

It's tempting to ask why -if they "would" finish it in a week -they haven't already done so.
Apart from the obvious limitations of high tech:-
an Aegis cruiser pulled out just recently with "software failure" (you can just imagine Nelson's reaction!) and no small number of misses, "friendly-fire" deaths, breakdowns, Gulf war syndrome, and the like, quite recently -
there is the point that -unless one is prepared to put something exceptionally nasty in the warhead/payload- many of the offensive Hi-tech weapons simply deliver rather conventional force with very great accuracy( sometimes).
And -of course -the US continues to insist that it is not concerned with "finishing" Iraq: only with "r�gime change".
Another smokescreen, methinks.

A few ancient B-52's and the technology of 1945 and Enola Gay would no doubt "finish Iraq" quite adequately (play hell with the oilfields though -and might upset the Kurds, not to mention neighbouring states if the wind is blowing).
Afghan bad guys remain palpably "unfinished" and I doubt there'll be any "finishing" as far as Iraq is concerned.
Silliness aimed at those whose idea of war is largely derived from Playstations.

Yeah, with a good bombing campaign, night and day, destroying all their main roadways, military facilities/command centers, airports, ect, then followed by the full capabilities of our ground forces I'd say a week sounds reasonable, maybe just a tad longer....

The question is not "can we whap Iraq." We can, and we can do it quickly.

The question, as all the generals keep trying to tell Deaf-As-A-Shrubbyah is "THEN what?"


Then we're seen as aggressors. Then we're far overextended. Then our occupation troops are vulnerable to local war lords and revolt. Then... then... then... and then... and then.

The American people are less in favor of a war now than they were during the summer. The "favor" has dropped to just nearly 50% (60% among Republicans.)

If he does, it will be an unpopular war with no support abroad and very little support here at home. We could end up winning the first rounds of the war and losing the whole shebang and a lot of troops in the years after that.

Byrd there are over 2 million Iraqis in exile ready to set up a constitutional Republic. They've been acting like the Student UN preparing and writing their papers in London since 1988-90, we only need to put them in there, as is planned anyways.

After WW2 do you think we said "THEN WHAT?" nay. We tore down their government and saw to it that whatever we did (which by then we still were unsure) worked. And how!! Look at Germany now.

Sincerely,
no signature

I know for a fact the 1 carrier group just left the gulf heading for home...and 1 other is about to leave ..i believe shortly after chrsitmas..they must feel that they are not needing all the fire power of 5 CG's...they most know somethign we dont..

Boomslang

"Byrd there are over 2 million Iraqis in exile ready to set up a constitutional Republic. They've been acting like the Student UN preparing and writing their papers in London since 1988-90, we only need to put them in there, as is planned anyways."

And history might repeat itself all over again...

Can you say, "Ecological Disaster?"
Me thinks the boys don't really concern themselves with the 'after' too much when they're waxing their rockets, no?

Even though those exiled groups have been meeting in London there were some groups that walked out - far from being a cohesive new government. They still don�t have a leader that I have heard about. Whatever progress has been made are the Iraqis that are actually living in Iraq going to welcome a group of exiles come in and govern them?

[Edited on 18-12-2002 by Bob88]

"war with Iraq to be over in a week"

hmmmmmmm.
wasn't fghanistan supposed to be over in a matter weeks and....er.....we still seem to be fighting because the dirty little toe rags won't play fair and charge at us accross open desert, they seem to prefer leaving the country and holeing up in caves.

maybe we should consider finishing that war before we get involved in a nother oh so short and swift campaign.

Us being as careful as we can not to kill civilians or REALLY short and swift such as
www.pbs.org...

I personally would rather see them stick around for a while to finish the job.