Printable View
1. You're the "we'll just bomb Iran and it'll be over" guy, so I wonder: how do you justify your optimism after Iraq II, Afghanistan, Viet Nam, etc. Do you honestly think it would go smoothly and that you'd win? Please explain or link to a previous explanation you've posted.
2. How long were you in the military,
and
3. which branch?
Cliff - I have one question for you: Does the gayness ever stop?
I never said it would go smoothly. They NEVER do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Huckable
My involvement in this discussion came to be, as I recall, because someone stated that Israel (more specifically, the IAF) probably doesn't have the capability to neutralize the Iranian Nuclear Infrastructure with conventional air strikes. My point was, is that they probably do in fact have the capability, as least as far as I can tell.
Look, if Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons, which they are now doing, then those development facilities need to be neutralized.
What would YOU do if the UN sanctions continue to be ineffective? Just allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons? Then what? Do you honestly believe that they won't use them against Israel, or provide them to someone else to use against the US or the UK? You're really not THAT naive, are you?
Personally, I would certainly rather see Iran toss in the towel and nix the nuke program. You make it sound as if I am pro-war, pro-bombs, or something. Sorry, you're wrong.
Vietnam was not a MILITARY failure. If you think it was, then maybe you need to read some history books relative to the military successes (and failures) in Vietnam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Huckable
You left out some other recent military actions. Military failures?
- Grenada: 1983, Operation Urgent Fury.
- Libya: 1986, Operation El Dorado Canyon.
- Panama: 1989, Operation Just Cause.
- Persian Gulf War: 1990-1991, Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm.
- Kosovo: 1999, Operation Allied Force
About Afghanistan: 2001 - present, I have some friends that are stationed at Bagram. They are kicking ass, contrary to your insinuation. What makes you think that the military actions in Afghanistan are a failure?
About the Philippines: 2001 - present, not widely reported, but we are in fact in the southern Philippines working successfully with their armed forces against Abu Sayyaf.
About Iraq: 2003 - present, in case you haven't noticed, not a whole lot of news being reported about Iraq lately. That's because the surge is actually working. Funny thing how the mainstream media won't report, for the most part, the good news. I wonder why?
22 years, active duty, 1980-2002.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Huckable
and
US Air Force, with assignments within PACAF, SAC, CENTCOM, ACC, and USSOUTHCOM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Huckable
-Astro
if shane had a grave, he would be rolling in it.
Can you get me a SAC discount code?Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroPax
apparently notQuote:
Originally Posted by Jer
and yes, cliff's gotta change his name
and I never knew we could lose a war with
a military success. did anyone tell john mccain that? he was
in lock down, I'm sure that would make him happy
OK, finally someone who actually knows something first-hand!Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroPax
I said that about Afghanistan because the Taliban is still there and getting stronger (about 1/3 of the country), and poppy/drug production is bigger than ever, and the border with Pakistan is totally porous and allows militants free sanctuary in Pakistan's tribal areas.
Panama was a mixed bag, imo. Goal achieved, but without any foresight at all concerning the people of the country that was invaded - look at the widespread, large-scale looting. The US military admitted that they hadn't thought that out, or planned for it. You can't invade another country under the guise of helping the people, then turn your backs on the people...unless, of course, the real goal was something else. Like control of the canal.
So, Panama and others, I guess were successes in military terms, but not in political terms.
And Viet Nam. In the end, the whole thing was a failure...so, what? It was just a political failure? I'll agree that there were US military successes in Viet Nam, but you can't say Westmorland's policy of attrition was a political disaster - it was a military disaster and it cost the lives of so many American soldiers. Tactics were largely ineffective, knowledge and understanding of the enemy and their tactics was a wash, the concept of winning the war from the air was a lethal mistake. That all rests on the military leadership, no?
Anyway, that's just my opinion (always subject to change). What I really want to pick your brain about is Iraq and Iran.
In your opinion, what needs to happen in Iraq that would result in a long-term positive outcome (basically, a stable country)?
And how could invading Iran (surely you don't think a bombing campaign would be enough) end positively?
Here's an interesting one to consider.
Iran is not short of granite seams. Thus:
http://www.iranmarmarstone.com/quarry.htm
Now a quick cut and paste from an article about the US's best bunker-busting weapon, the B61-11 tactical nuke.
The inadequacy of the B61-11 is due not to a particularly poor construction but rather to the basic limitations of bomb-making steel. In the test drops performed in Alaska, the B61-11 reached roughly 300 meters per second at impact. In order to penetrate reinforced concrete, it would need to be traveling at approximately 500 meters per second. At around 900 meters per second, the shock wave generated by the missile's slamming into the ground will deform it severely; at 1,200 meters per second, the missile will in most cases break into pieces. To penetrate granite—ubiquitous in mountainous bunkers, and believed to be common above any truly valuable bunker—a penetrator would have to attain up-ward of 3,000 meters per second, at which speed it would certainly be crushed. Robert Nelson of Princeton University has demonstrated that be-cause of the limitations imposed by the yield strength of the steel used in casings, no bunker buster can ever go fast enough to penetrate reinforced concrete deeper than five times its length without destroying itself in the process; and even this number is too high for any real-world scenario. What is more, the length of the bomb cannot be in-creased much, for two reasons: there are no aircraft capable of carrying a weapon much longer than the ones that are currently deployed; and as length increases, so does the tendency of the bomb to snap in two on impact.
In the face of this, would an air strike be effective? Curious and would like to hear from anyone who has any experience in this field.
What? Noriega lost the 1989 national election to Guillermo Endara, and then he "nullified" the election and maintained his power by force. He was severely unpopular among Panamanians. How can you say we were not concerned about the Panamanians?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Huckable
Of course there was short-term looting. What the hell do you expect during an invasion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Huckable
When was the last time you were in Panama?
The Panama invasion was a complete and total success. They have a thriving and growing economy. Real Estate is booming.
We have never turned our backs on Panama.
And control of the canal? What the hell are you talking about? One of the main reasons for the invasion was to protect the integrity of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties.
-Astro
[QUOTE=Cliff Huckable;1885074]OK, finally someone who actually knows something first-hand!
let me get this straight, to speak in the affirmative about our military power you have to have served in the military. but to constantly speak in the negative about the US military and the US in general you can be a complete savant?
no wonder.
Despite the fact that I rarely agree with AstroPax on anything political, I still can't believe he took this terrible bait.
But roo's post is interesting, do any of our weapons experts (Summit to the RED courtesy phone) have anything to say about this?
[QUOTE=mr_gyptian;1885303]I constantly speak negatively about the US in general? I don't think so. Link to an example to prove your point - and don't include things I've said about the US government, 'cause that sure isn't "the US in general". I'll wait.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Huckable
btw - I've lived, worked, and spent a lot of time in the US, in addition to being part American, so my observations and opinions aren't just guesses.
Anyway...anyone can have an opinion. That's what I have, that's what you have. AstroPax has more than an opinion, he has real experience and knowledge. On political matters he only has an opinion, but on military matters, obviously much more. So, if there's a military question, he's a go-to guy, no? Just as you'd be a go-to guy if there was a question on...?
Check Roo's question. Pretty interesting. You want an opinion on that, or an answer?
Kinetic penetration is not my area of knowledge. Nor am I a "weapons expert". I know a few things about the nuclear weapon effects though...Quote:
Originally Posted by RootSkier
If you are using a B61 mod 11, which is a thermonuclear bomb (or a boosted fission bomb depending on the mode), you set the yield (assuming it is variable yield model) to "big boom" and you can smashy smashy things 400+ft deep under hard rock with the shockwave. The idea in the closing days of the cold war, when the B61-11 was built out of the 7, was to get the warhead a little bit into the ground to make it more effective at killing buried structures. This allowed smaller aircraft (almost any fighter the US has can carry a B61) to strike these hardened targets instead of needing a B-1 (at the time) or a B-52 to drop a massive 9MT weapon that simply would set down on the surface with a parachute. Now, neither the old B53 or the B61-11 is going to necessarily work with one try if you bury your target 1/4 mile under a granite mountain. However, if you are in a nuclear war, you just keep dropping canned sunshine until the problem is crushed. The prospect of a B-2 just loaded up with B61-11s roaming about the USSR scared the crap out of the Soviet leadership hoping to hide in their bunkers and survive a war.
As far as earth penetration, there were rumors that we had tungsten tipped penetrators on RVs targeted at Kosvinksky Mountain (the Russian Cheyenne Mountain). That works when you have suborbital velocity to work with, although I couldn't figure out how such a system worked without smashing the physics package. For our conventional bunker busters, I think we actually use rockets to propel the largest (and very long) bunker busters we have to drop from aircraft so they hit the target at a higher velocity and can be dropped from a lower altitude. AFAIK the Russian strategy for destroying the Cheyenne Mountain Complex, which is buried under a half a mile of granite and mounted on huge shock absorbers, was to just shoot a whole crap ton of RVs until they melted the damned mountain. (We built NORAD when we decided the buried SAC bunker at Offutt AFB was insufficiently hard).
The B61-11 wasn't made to be a one hit kill on every conceivable buried structure nor was it meant to contain all fallout except perhaps on its low lowest setting (again assuming dial-a-yield). That is why in the post cold war world, they began the development of the so called robust nuclear penetrator with the option to also develop the so-called "micronuke" warheads that had everyone in a tizzy in the late 90s and early 2000s. The idea was to get much greater penetration so you could use a smaller warhead, contain the fallout, minimize collateral damage, and assure a kill on a deeper target. From what I was told, the development of the new warheads was canceled, but who knows what they really did. I think they are still working on the improved penetration...
I'm sure Astropax and one or two others here probably can add some or correct some points, but they probably know stuff that they aren't permitted to repeat.
Nice info.
I wonder if with repeated strikes, you eventually get into a position where rubble is acting with a cushioning effect? Using a WMD, however small the yield, is a massive political step for any serving president in this sort of pre-emptive scenario.
I hope nuclear weapons are not used in a preemptive scenario. I think doing so would be a blunder of epic proportions. It could possibly be the stupidest thing we ever did.
Seriously, cruise missiles are one thing. Ten "baby" nukes is a whole different story.
You can calculate with some accuracy the nuclear cratering effects, shapes, and sizes especially if you know the soil composition. However, digging a hole is not the only goal. Multiple shockwaves will... progressively weaken things. Cushioning effect... that's something I don't know much about but logically I agree it would make some sense, but would it matter much? I kind of doubt it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Roo
A mining engineer could probably answer that question a lot better than me :biggrin:
Once a president goes ahead with the OK on even a small nuke, all gloves are off with N Korea, Pakistan, anyone with any gripes. Cold War 2.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but this is not a very good strategy. There is a limit to how often you can hit the same area with an ICBM, because the debris in the air will shred succeeding incoming warheads if they're moving at delivery vehicle speeds. This is why ICBM silos tend to be clustered together with a particular distance between them. It might require a near direct hit to destroy a silo, but the resulting debris from that strike will shield neighboring silos, but were far enough away to survive the initial strike. Since launch velocities are so much lower than the delivery vehicles, there is no problem launching through the debris cloud.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
Dense pack was a proposed idea for MX. It didn't happen and it wouldn't have worked. It was too easy to modify the RVs, put a couple more seconds between the warheads, or simply use an X-ray pindown to buy time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Powow
I'm not saying I'm right about the Ruskie's kill-NORAD plan, but I imagine they had some special RVs lined up.
Cliff - with this thread you have surpassed even the great Dexter Rutecki as the most self-important douchebag here at TGR. Congrats, DB, I guess your mom was right - you really are special.
I don't think it's possible to surpass Dexter "Rufus" Rutecki as the most self-important douchebag on TGR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer
By the way, has Rufus ever said one funny thing during his tenure here at TGR?
Well, his grass-skiing TR was pretty funny. In a really pathetic way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberal Genius
Damn... Since you said Iran is developing Nukes, it's AOK to bomb that towelhead country back to stone age...Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroPax
I wish I had your wisdom and knowledge...
Yes, it is very likely that Iran has a nuke program... But it isn't CERTAIN.
You know, what goes for people also goes for countries. The burden of proof is on those that wish to act. And those proofs better be pretty concrete... Not like the mobile chemical weapons factories... or that chemical weapons factory in Iraq... which turned out to be producing that foul ulcer producing chemical weapon... Aspirin.
But since getting that proof is pretty hard, I'm sure the Israel is just going to do the assault with US aid (or US is doing it them selves), and make sure nothing concrete would ever be found (using that small nuke would wipe out all trace of weapons production and mask everything). And then if UN tried to set some sanctions, the US would come to the rescue of Israel and make sure no sanctions would ever pass...
Well, keep wishing. Maybe the Knowledge Fairy will bring you some.Quote:
Originally Posted by hemas