Iraq Faces Massive U.S. Missile Barrage

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-01-26 02:21pm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/ ... 7928.shtml

(CBS) They're calling it "A-Day," A as in airstrikes so devastating they would leave Saddam's soldiers unable or unwilling to fight.

If the Pentagon sticks to its current war plan, one day in March the Air Force and Navy will launch between 300 and 400 cruise missiles at targets in Iraq. As CBS News Correspondent David Martin reports, this is more than number that were launched during the entire 40 days of the first Gulf War.

On the second day, the plan calls for launching another 300 to 400 cruise missiles.

"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," said one Pentagon official who has been briefed on the plan.

"The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before," the official said.

The battle plan is based on a concept developed at the National Defense University. It's called "Shock and Awe" and it focuses on the psychological destruction of the enemy's will to fight rather than the physical destruction of his military forces.

"We want them to quit. We want them not to fight," says Harlan Ullman, one of the authors of the Shock and Awe concept which relies on large numbers of precision guided weapons.

"So that you have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but in minutes," says Ullman.

In the first Gulf War, 10 percent of the weapons were precision guided. In this war 80 percent will be precision guided.

The Air Force has stockpiled 6,000 of these guidance kits in the Persian Gulf to convert ordinary dumb bombs into satellite-guided bombs, a weapon that didn't exist in the first war.

"You're sitting in Baghdad and all of a sudden you're the general and 30 of your division headquarters have been wiped out. You also take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power, water. In 2,3,4,5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted," Ullman tells Martin.

Last time, an armored armada swept into Kuwait and destroyed Saddam's elite republican guard divisions in the largest tank battle since the World War II. This time, the target is not the Iraqi army but the Iraqi leadership, and the battle plan is designed to bypass Iraqi divisions whenever possible.

If Shock and Awe works, there won't be a ground war.

Not everybody in the Bush Administration thinks Shock and Awe will work. One senior official called it a bunch of bull, but confirmed it is the concept on which the war plan is based.

Last year, in Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan, the U.S. was badly surprised by the willingness of al Qaeda to fight to the death. If the Iraqis fight, the U.S. would have to throw in reinforcements and win the old fashioned way by crushing the republican guards, and that would mean more casualties on both sides.

Statement from CBS News Anchor Dan Rather: "We assure you this report contains no information that the Defense Department thinks could help the Iraqi military

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2003-01-26 02:31pm

Lovely. A nice barrage of missiles from the sky. Serves the bastards right!

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-01-26 02:32pm

So, they're going to hit civilians, unless I misread?

Darth Garden Gnome · Post by **Darth Garden Gnome** » 2003-01-26 02:35pm

*sigh* There's gonna be a lotta bodies to account for. I hope none of those "human Shields" loons get caught in the mess....

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-26 02:40pm

Interesting strategy, consistent with a "total war" approach. Of course they're going to hit civilians; I wonder if they're going to bother declaring war this time. They normally don't; they just start dropping bombs (strangely enough, they are still outraged 50 years after the fact about the Japanese doing the same thing to them).

Darth Garden Gnome · Post by **Darth Garden Gnome** » 2003-01-26 02:43pm

Darth Wong wrote:(strangely enough, they are still outraged 50 years after the fact about the Japanese doing the same thing to them).

Well in all seriousness that was a sneak attack, no warning no nothing. Meanwhile here Bush has been preaching about fighting Iraq since he got elected. Plus this stuff is on the news(paper, internet, TV?), so it won't be too difficult for any Iraqi to pick up and find out.

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-26 02:55pm

Oh please. Bush is going to get voted out in 2004 if massive civilian casualties result.

Admiral Piett · Post by **Admiral Piett** » 2003-01-26 02:56pm

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:Well in all seriousness that was a sneak attack, no warning no nothing.

So what? Even a the time the thing could be detected.Mounting political tension etc.It was in effets partly detected by the intelligence.
Sneak attack? Fair fights are for losers,isn't this the american,and of everyone else, strategy?
Certainly the USA had no problems at firebombing Tokio and the others cities when they thought that this would have helped the war effort.
Blaming them for attacking Pearl Harbour before declaring war,and consider also that they were planning to declare war before the attack took place (they had some technical diffculties that delayed the declaration), is hypocrite.
The japanese leaders of the time were criminals,but this for things that happened in China or to the war prisoners.

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-01-26 03:03pm

jaeger115 wrote:Oh please. Bush is going to get voted out in 2004 if massive civilian casualties result.

Too true...

Those cruise missiles are pretty expensive too...

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-01-26 03:27pm

There's been a lot of indications recently that the administration would be more than happy to get rid of Hussein without firing a shot, or, failing that, without a ground invasion (if you hadn't heard, Rumsfeld stated last week that the United States might not attempt to try Hussein for war crimes or crimes against humanity if he went into exile peacefully).

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-01-26 03:56pm

Interesting strategy warn two months in advance that will give enough time to Saddam to run away then come back and claim he won again.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-01-26 04:07pm

I've always thought explosives and surgical strikes were not meant for each other.

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-26 04:28pm

Is there anything wrong with a simple assassination? Of course, Saddam has three doubles, but we've figured out how to tell each other apart.

Next of Kin · Post by **Next of Kin** » 2003-01-26 04:31pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Lovely. A nice barrage of missiles from the sky. Serves the bastards right!

Maybe Saddam and his cronies! I wouldn't want innocent civies to be killed in the bombing!

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2003-01-26 04:34pm

jaeger115 wrote:Is there anything wrong with a simple assassination? Of course, Saddam has three doubles, but we've figured out how to tell each other apart.

Other than the fact that it's illegal, you mean?

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-01-26 04:35pm

Hotfoot wrote:
jaeger115 wrote:Is there anything wrong with a simple assassination? Of course, Saddam has three doubles, but we've figured out how to tell each other apart.
Other than the fact that it's illegal, you mean?

It never stopped the cia before.

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2003-01-26 04:41pm

Montcalm wrote:It never stopped the cia before.

We've attempted to assassinate Saddam before. That's why he's so paranoid now. Regardless, the fact remains that even if the CIA were to try and assassinate him, now that he's so prominant in the international scene, with tensions so high, it could not be covert. The best time to have assassinated him would have been around 1998 or so. As it is, it's highly unlikely, primarily because if word ever got out that we assassinated him (which is very likely, given the nature of the situation), then heads would roll back in the US, and I don't think anyone in the CIA is willing to sacrifice their career just yet.

Now if they could get one of Saddam's generals to assassinate him in a coup, well, that'd be just fine. But again, you don't want to have a press release saying that is going to be your plan...

Well, unless you want to fuck with his head and cripple his leadership in the case of a ground war.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-01-26 04:54pm

Each cruise missile ~500 thousand, possibly more.
(400*2)*500000= 400,000,000$$

Or in RPN (figured it out, pretty easy)

500000 400 400 + * or 500000 400 2 * *

That is an assload of money- of course we did spend 4 billion in Afghanistan, so this is nothing.

That's enough money for about 13 F-14s

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-01-26 04:59pm

Montcalm wrote:
Hotfoot wrote:
jaeger115 wrote:Is there anything wrong with a simple assassination? Of course, Saddam has three doubles, but we've figured out how to tell each other apart.
Other than the fact that it's illegal, you mean?
It never stopped the cia before.

There is an executive order against the assasination of heads of state. There is a loophole, however, that in a conflict you can kill the enemy CINC.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-01-26 05:00pm

Durandal wrote:So, they're going to hit civilians, unless I misread?

Not intentionally, but it's almost certain that civilians are going to be hit.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-01-26 05:00pm

Thank you carter

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-01-26 05:01pm

As to the idea of a formal decerlation of war such as in the 19th centurary and before, I think the idea is outdated. The Congress might have the power to declare war, but they already gave permission/complience to the president to use military force (war) in the Iraq situation. This, IMHO, is a decleration of war by way that President Bush has already said that he intends to use forec (war) and the Congress has OK'ed it.

As for the whinners on the Pearl Harbor attack, well that was not the norm back then but I do not fault their tactics though I am against their actions since it was my country they attacked. I really hold no grudge that they use "a sneak attack" rather that I hold a grudge that they attacked at all.

Little guys running around with monocols and tophats are out dated and so it the idea of a parchment with "I hate you, therefore I declare war." written on it. Modern day communications coupled with modern day media is sufficient to relay countries intensions without an actual written document for a diplomat to deliever to your intended target.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-01-26 05:01pm

Pu-239 wrote:Each cruise missile ~500 thousand, possibly more.
(400*2)*500000= 400,000,000$$

I can poke around. I know someone who has access to the R1/P1 documentation for the DOD, though he's rather busy at the moment.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-01-26 05:03pm

phongn wrote:
Montcalm wrote:
Hotfoot wrote: Other than the fact that it's illegal, you mean?
It never stopped the cia before.
There is an executive order against the assasination of heads of state. There is a loophole, however, that in a conflict you can kill the enemy CINC.

If he is in uniform, he is a ligitimate target. If he has civies on but has a weapon, he is a combatent (either legal or illegal) and is a target.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-01-26 05:05pm

Knife wrote:As to the idea of a formal decerlation of war such as in the 19th centurary and before, I think the idea is outdated. The Congress might have the power to declare war, but they already gave permission/complience to the president to use military force (war) in the Iraq situation. This, IMHO, is a decleration of war by way that President Bush has already said that he intends to use forec (war) and the Congress has OK'ed it.

AFAIK, using forces under the War Powers Act does not constitute a declaration of war. It's a semantical difference, yes.

As for the whinners on the Pearl Harbor attack, well that was not the norm back then but I do not fault their tactics though I am against their actions since it was my country they attacked. I really hold no grudge that they use "a sneak attack" rather that I hold a grudge that they attacked at all.

I think one part was that Imperial Japan had, more or less, conveyed that they wanted continued peace with the US, then attacked. Of course, there was that problem with their embassy getting us the message in time...