mwirth@gara.une.oz.au (Michael A. Wirth) (08/14/90)
From: mwirth@gara.une.oz.au (Michael A. Wirth)
It seems that although Iraqi has overwhelming strength with regards to
land-based troops (1 million, of which only 500,000 are regulars), their
capability to maintain both an air superiority and naval superiority
is limited. The Americans have presently 2 carriers in the gulf region and
another battle group sailing in from Florida. This will provide approximately
180 fighter planes which can be coupled with the approximate 100 F-16 and
F-15 fighters flown in from the US. In addition the carriers have Early-
Warning capability, ECM: Electronic Counter measures planes and are heavily
guarded by the Ticonderoga Class Guided Missile Cruiser which has by far
the most prized radar system.
Add to this the F-111's based in Turkey, the B-52's flown in from America,
the fighters pledged by the UK and possibly other NATO allies and maybe the
USSR,and the Saudi forces, reputed to be among the world's best pilot, and
the UN by all means would show air superiority.
With regard to naval superiority, well the Iraqis really don't have much in
the way of naval firepower, when you consider that there are around 50 naval
ships in the region of the gulf and growing all the time. This includes
French, British, American, Australian and Soviet ships. The US
battleship USS Wisconsin, whose 16" guns have a range of 40km and which also
carries Cruise and Tomahawk missile's would be rather a devastating platform.
The only real advantage held by the Iraqis at the present time is its 1 million
strong land forces and its 5,500 tanks, and chemical/biological weapons.
But apart from that, they really haven't got much going for them:
They are surrounded, to the east by Iran, a country whose army has been
devasted by the eight-year long Iran/Iraq war but who could mass a contingment
of 100,000+ troops if essential, to the north by Syria, an arch enemy of
Iraq who would only benefit by its demise, whose troops are bogged down in
Lebanon, but who could also mass troops if needed. To the south, the 50,000
strong Saudi Army would be no match for the Iraqi army, but in retrospect
with the presence of the US forces and the possible strengthening with
the 500,000 strong Egyptian forces, and help from other NATO and WARSAW PACT
countries such as France and USSR, a formidable force in themselves.
Israel, who does not border Iraq, but whose dislike for Iraq would lead to
highly intense retalitory strikes, if the Iraqis try to initiate
hostilities by way of chemical/biological strikes.
In the event of conflict, the likely Iraqi targets would most possibly be
their supply bases, oil terminals, wells and refineries, air bases and
manufacturing industries, would this not be enough to cripple Iraq!!!
*****************************************************************
Michael Andrew Wirth Duval College
Technical Advisor Computing Studies University of New England
Internet: mwirth@gara.une.oz.au Armidale N.S.W 2351
A U S T R A L I A.
*****************************************************************osmigo@emx.utexas.edu (rn) (08/21/90)
From: ut-emx!osmigo@emx.utexas.edu (rn) >It seems that although Iraqi has overwhelming strength with regards to >land-based troops (1 million, of which only 500,000 are regulars), their With all this talk about Iraqi's veritable "sea of troops," I'm wondering just what kind of tactics we would employ against massive numbers of Iraqi infantry personnel in that environment (i.e., flat and open). How would one deal with, say, 50,000 attacking troops deployed in a flat, empty, featureless terrain? It seems logical that we would try to keep U.S. infantry losses to a minimum, and rely more on air, artillery, and missle weapons. Would we spray them with Vulcan miniguns? Carpet-bomb them with B52's? Heave cluster bombs at them? Considering that Iraq favors human-wave assaults, and assuming that an above article is correct in stating that Iraqi troops aren't issued protective chemical warfare suits, the most effective (and certainly the safest) response would be to use chemical weapons. Obviously, this runs into ethical and political ramifications, though. But still...... Ron Morgan osmigo@emx.utexas.edu
jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) (08/21/90)
From: jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) In <1990Aug14.034130.9752@cbnews.att.com>, Michael A. Wirth writes: > They are surrounded...to the north by Syria, an arch enemy of > Iraq who would only benefit by its demise, whose troops are bogged down in > Lebanon, but who could also mass troops if needed. When Hussein made his first (and, IMHO, risible) proposal for withdrawal from Kuwait several days ago, didn't he list Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon among his conditions? Something here computeth not. --Joe "Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"