Did they! What did the cameraman do??STARTED! Baghdad Being bombed - Post made by Mr. OverclockerBloke, War Fanatic
- Thread starter Over Clocker
- Start date
- Status
Did they! What did the cameraman do??
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 5,328
America warned Soddem that if he resorted to a chem attack he'd be Nuked. MOAB could be used on one of his palaces. His largest palace is some 25 square miles in size.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 5,328
America warned Soddem that if he resorted to a chem attack he'd be Nuked. MOAB could be used on one of his palaces. His largest palace is some 25 square miles in size.
It has long been conventional wisdom that the US would respond to an attack using WoMD with a response using WoMD. For that to work as a deterrent, the enemy has to believe that you mean it. That was what the US got Saddam to believe last time and, whether it was that working or not, he didn't use WoMD.
But the situation last time and this time are different, as are the objectives. I don't believe there is any chance that the US will use WoMD, and not much more that they'll use MOAB unless it is on a purely military target in a very isolated (i.e. few or no civilians) area, and even then, only in extreme circumstances. If an Iraqi army unit fires bio or chem rockets on Coalition forces out in the desert, then that army unit may well get well flattened by MOAB.
The only way I can imagine nukes getting used is in response to a chemical or biological attack which was not only directed against a major civilian population centre but one that had massive casualties as a result. All indications are that a chemical or biological attack or coalition troops would cause minimal actual casualties. It is more a weapon of terror than destruction if used against troops that are prepared, trained, equipped and ready for it.
The political constraints and objectives will prevent WoMD or even MOAB being used in anything but the most extreme of circumstances.
But the situation last time and this time are different, as are the objectives. I don't believe there is any chance that the US will use WoMD, and not much more that they'll use MOAB unless it is on a purely military target in a very isolated (i.e. few or no civilians) area, and even then, only in extreme circumstances. If an Iraqi army unit fires bio or chem rockets on Coalition forces out in the desert, then that army unit may well get well flattened by MOAB.
The only way I can imagine nukes getting used is in response to a chemical or biological attack which was not only directed against a major civilian population centre but one that had massive casualties as a result. All indications are that a chemical or biological attack or coalition troops would cause minimal actual casualties. It is more a weapon of terror than destruction if used against troops that are prepared, trained, equipped and ready for it.
The political constraints and objectives will prevent WoMD or even MOAB being used in anything but the most extreme of circumstances.
It has long been conventional wisdom that the US would respond to an attack using WoMD with a response using WoMD. For that to work as a deterrent, the enemy has to believe that you mean it. That was what the US got Saddam to believe last time and, whether it was that working or not, he didn't use WoMD.
But the situation last time and this time are different, as are the objectives. I don't believe there is any chance that the US will use WoMD, and not much more that they'll use MOAB unless it is on a purely military target in a very isolated (i.e. few or no civilians) area, and even then, only in extreme circumstances. If an Iraqi army unit fires bio or chem rockets on Coalition forces out in the desert, then that army unit may well get well flattened by MOAB.
The only way I can imagine nukes getting used is in response to a chemical or biological attack which was not only directed against a major civilian population centre but one that had massive casualties as a result. All indications are that a chemical or biological attack or coalition troops would cause minimal actual casualties. It is more a weapon of terror than destruction if used against troops that are prepared, trained, equipped and ready for it.
The political constraints and objectives will prevent WoMD or even MOAB being used in anything but the most extreme of circumstances.
But the situation last time and this time are different, as are the objectives. I don't believe there is any chance that the US will use WoMD, and not much more that they'll use MOAB unless it is on a purely military target in a very isolated (i.e. few or no civilians) area, and even then, only in extreme circumstances. If an Iraqi army unit fires bio or chem rockets on Coalition forces out in the desert, then that army unit may well get well flattened by MOAB.
The only way I can imagine nukes getting used is in response to a chemical or biological attack which was not only directed against a major civilian population centre but one that had massive casualties as a result. All indications are that a chemical or biological attack or coalition troops would cause minimal actual casualties. It is more a weapon of terror than destruction if used against troops that are prepared, trained, equipped and ready for it.
The political constraints and objectives will prevent WoMD or even MOAB being used in anything but the most extreme of circumstances.
Aye, i Remember Johm Major saying this when he was Prime Minister, and in his memoirs, he said it wasn't just BS, he would have done so.
Aye, i Remember Johm Major saying this when he was Prime Minister, and in his memoirs, he said it wasn't just BS, he would have done so.
B52 Bombers arriving back at RAF Fairford now.
Baghdad being attacked again. Precision weapons on government buidings.
Baghdad being attacked again. Precision weapons on government buidings.
B52 Bombers arriving back at RAF Fairford now.
Baghdad being attacked again. Precision weapons on government buidings.
Baghdad being attacked again. Precision weapons on government buidings.
Off to sleep now. To sum up today a bit:
RAF Tornados have taken part in a series of massive air strikes on Baghdad.
The Tornado GR4s were said to have targeted the radar defence systems that protect Saddam Hussein and his high command.
The Tornados - launched from IX(b)Squadron at 1700 GMT (2000 local time) - were using Air Launched Anti-Radiation Missiles (ALARM), which can lock onto radar systems which would otherwise help down coalition aircraft.
They were followed by a second wave of Tornados from 617 Squadron (The Dam Busters), flying on the 60th anniversary of its most famous mission.
"We are expecting this to be on an unprecedented scale, far larger than Operation Desert Storm in 1991. It is the greatest night in the history of the Tornado squadrons," added Group Captain Dobb.
Although it was a "significant" attack, it would be "carefully targeted against the regime" and minimise civilian casualties and infrastructure, the statement added.
Also included in Friday evening's air assault were Tornado F3s and Harrier GR7s as well as Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from submarines HMS Splendid and HMS Turbulent.
And among the forces at the disposal of the US were eight enormous B-52 bombers, which left RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire at 1000 GMT on Friday.
Mal
RAF Tornados have taken part in a series of massive air strikes on Baghdad.
The Tornado GR4s were said to have targeted the radar defence systems that protect Saddam Hussein and his high command.
The Tornados - launched from IX(b)Squadron at 1700 GMT (2000 local time) - were using Air Launched Anti-Radiation Missiles (ALARM), which can lock onto radar systems which would otherwise help down coalition aircraft.
They were followed by a second wave of Tornados from 617 Squadron (The Dam Busters), flying on the 60th anniversary of its most famous mission.
"We are expecting this to be on an unprecedented scale, far larger than Operation Desert Storm in 1991. It is the greatest night in the history of the Tornado squadrons," added Group Captain Dobb.
Although it was a "significant" attack, it would be "carefully targeted against the regime" and minimise civilian casualties and infrastructure, the statement added.
Also included in Friday evening's air assault were Tornado F3s and Harrier GR7s as well as Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from submarines HMS Splendid and HMS Turbulent.
And among the forces at the disposal of the US were eight enormous B-52 bombers, which left RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire at 1000 GMT on Friday.
Mal
Off to sleep now. To sum up today a bit:
RAF Tornados have taken part in a series of massive air strikes on Baghdad.
The Tornado GR4s were said to have targeted the radar defence systems that protect Saddam Hussein and his high command.
The Tornados - launched from IX(b)Squadron at 1700 GMT (2000 local time) - were using Air Launched Anti-Radiation Missiles (ALARM), which can lock onto radar systems which would otherwise help down coalition aircraft.
They were followed by a second wave of Tornados from 617 Squadron (The Dam Busters), flying on the 60th anniversary of its most famous mission.
"We are expecting this to be on an unprecedented scale, far larger than Operation Desert Storm in 1991. It is the greatest night in the history of the Tornado squadrons," added Group Captain Dobb.
Although it was a "significant" attack, it would be "carefully targeted against the regime" and minimise civilian casualties and infrastructure, the statement added.
Also included in Friday evening's air assault were Tornado F3s and Harrier GR7s as well as Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from submarines HMS Splendid and HMS Turbulent.
And among the forces at the disposal of the US were eight enormous B-52 bombers, which left RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire at 1000 GMT on Friday.
Mal
RAF Tornados have taken part in a series of massive air strikes on Baghdad.
The Tornado GR4s were said to have targeted the radar defence systems that protect Saddam Hussein and his high command.
The Tornados - launched from IX(b)Squadron at 1700 GMT (2000 local time) - were using Air Launched Anti-Radiation Missiles (ALARM), which can lock onto radar systems which would otherwise help down coalition aircraft.
They were followed by a second wave of Tornados from 617 Squadron (The Dam Busters), flying on the 60th anniversary of its most famous mission.
"We are expecting this to be on an unprecedented scale, far larger than Operation Desert Storm in 1991. It is the greatest night in the history of the Tornado squadrons," added Group Captain Dobb.
Although it was a "significant" attack, it would be "carefully targeted against the regime" and minimise civilian casualties and infrastructure, the statement added.
Also included in Friday evening's air assault were Tornado F3s and Harrier GR7s as well as Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from submarines HMS Splendid and HMS Turbulent.
And among the forces at the disposal of the US were eight enormous B-52 bombers, which left RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire at 1000 GMT on Friday.
Mal
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 5,328
Iraqi Shiites celebrate the arrival of allied troops tearing the picture of Saddam Hussein down.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 5,328
Iraqi Shiites celebrate the arrival of allied troops tearing the picture of Saddam Hussein down.
Suspended
unconfirmed:US: 'Saddam Seen On Stretcher'
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-12273543,00.html
well maybe thats it, the end almost.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-12273543,00.html
well maybe thats it, the end almost.
Suspended
unconfirmed:US: 'Saddam Seen On Stretcher'
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-12273543,00.html
well maybe thats it, the end almost.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-12273543,00.html
well maybe thats it, the end almost.
Permabanned
HMG
- Status