jon@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) (11/19/90)
From: jon@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis)
It's being argued in a number of other newsgroups (as well as in the
media) that one objective of U.S. military action against Iraq will be
the ending of Iraq's nuclear arms development program by the destruction
of the physical facilities that support that program.
This argument seems to be based on assumptions about what is
militarily feasible that I've never seen explicitly discussed. The
common attitude appears to be, "Sure, all we've got to do is blow up
their reactor, like the Israelis did."
I wonder if some knowledgeable people in this newsgroup could analyze
for us exactly why it is likely or unlikely that U.S. air power could
destroy the Iraqi nuclear program, keeping in mind that the Iraqis have
now had three months to move, camouflage, fortify, and harden such sites
against exactly this eventuality. In particular, it would be useful to
have the following points addressed:
- Is there good reason to believe that U.S. intelligence has
Iraqi nuclear facilities pinpointed?
- How many facilities are we talking about?
- Is it possible to effectively camouflage these sites against
U.S. aircraft and missiles? Do the Iraquis have defensive
weapons which could effectively protect such sites? Is it
possible with the technology the Iraquis have to harden
them against direct hits?
- Even if the sites are identifiable and in theory vulnerable
to direct hits, can the types of weaponry the U.S. could
deploy in an Iraqui theater make the sort of bull's-eye
strikes that would be necessary to destroy them?
- Has any military power in recent decades successfully
accomplished a similar mission?
I think a discussion of such points by people who have the relevant
technical knowledge would be a useful contribution to the dialogue over
the present situation in the Gulf.
--
Jon Corelis jon@lindy.stanford.edu
Stanford University BITNET: GF.JXC@FORSYTHE.STANFORD.EDU