h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"..is it possible that [Iraq] very well may become this generation's Vietnam?"

If you've heard about the "Shock and Awe" tactic (planning to blast the country with more cruise missiles in two days than they did during Desert Storm or Desert Fox), Baghdad may become our generation's Hiroshima. Unfortunately, like Hiroshima, only a small percentage of bleeding heart liberals will care about the staggering number of civilians killed, while the rest of our generation will claim it was necessary to ensure a more swift victory.

There have been direct and positive comparisons between the bomb dropped on Hiroshima and this "Shock and Awe" plan, not by opponents but by the people planning to carry it out. They really have no shame, seemingly no boundaries. The only reason they restrain themselves from using nukes is that it might be bad PR.

Sadly, Della and Sub, you're both correct.

Della, it really isn't political correctness so much as the requirement that the president get congressional approval before declaring war, but doesn't have to if its's "only" a police action.

But Sub, don't you think that part of the reason the US is unwilling to use nukes (besides the fact that its suicide, which I don't think the government gets) is that nuclear weapons would make it impossible for us to get to the real reason for the war, namely the huge oil reserves UNDER Iraq?

Blasting holes in Iraq with cruise missiles actually makes oil drilling easier, after all (drenched in sarcasm!)

I'll be off in a few minutes to Frankfurt/Main's US air-base to block the entries - hopefully with some 1.000s of people, hopefully not dragged away by police...

Bookmarking !

BUT also:

As regards Deidzoeb's post above, it should be remembered that at least twice as many innocent civilians (>200,000) died in the RAF's bombing of Dresden as died at Hiroshima or Nagasaki. We Brits achieved a much "better" result with lesser technology. Ergo - it is not how sophisticated your weaponry is, but how determined you are to use it that is the mark of humanity or insanity.

As far as the Israel/Palestine question is concerned..... well, that is a tough one. Given that the Israelis think of themselves as the Chosen People of God, I think it might be very difficult to shift them from their illegal settlements, and accept the untermensch Arabs as neighbours. I am thinking of writing my own Testament by the way, which proclaims old Peachy as hereditary master of all that bit over there to .... all that bit over THERE. God says I used to live there, so it is MINE ! Now then, clear off you filthy Arabs !

A Prediction to end my bookmark - given that G Dubya called St Patrick's Day for the 13th March, as opposed to the 17th, War will start on the 17th March. If I am wrong in that, well, it will be the 18th, and if I'm wrong in that, well, my shares are f~*cked.

Keep watching the net people, especially Counterpunch.org. The beeb will fold up it's "independence" like a house of cards very soon.

Oh yeah, BOOKMARKING.

Best go now.

Well it shouldn't be long now. What if, will be replaced with what now and to add to it the end of human rights as we once knew it. It seems that the US is taking the final step in it's latest revenge sequence. Hiroshima was the "test" Nagasaki was the Pearl Harbour payback. Oh we'll hear alot of platitudes, we might even get a few wringing of hands but....what is lives of a few Iraqis and their leader in all this? Yes Dresden was a war crime and look what happened to the perpetrator, why he got a fine statue. That was Churchils revenge on the Germans.

Fact is in the ricter scale of political life we are all expendable, but some more expendable than others. All that baloney about turn the other cheek, does not work and we all know it. There are some who can sleep easy at night, even knowing that somewhere their fellow man has been either killed, tortured physically and mentally or starved to death. Just as long as it isn't them. History, pistory it doesn't matter a damn, just as long as you make the decisions.

Iraq has to happen because where else are they gonna test the latest killing machines for real? Oil? well we all know about that don't we? So I know most of you guys mean well and I must say it is a pleasure to read such eloquent arguements but...I regret they fall on deaf ears and are unable to change the 'mindsets' of those brain deads that are currently in charge of the worlds destiny. Just another 'big win' in the list of "wars" fought by the USA and they don't make impressive reading at all. But, with what they learn from this one, the next couple of wars should be somewhat easier! And when they are over, the scale of that intimidation may keep the Chinese quiet for many a long year! And we all end up with the American way of life, how nice and what we always clamoured for!

Sadly alot will be lost along the way, amongst which 'integrity' for ever!

"If you've heard about the "Shock and Awe" tactic (planning to blast the country with more cruise missiles in two days than they did during Desert Storm or Desert Fox), Baghdad may become our generation's Hiroshima. Unfortunately, like Hiroshima, only a small percentage of bleeding heart liberals will care about the staggering number of civilians killed, while the rest of our generation will claim it was necessary to ensure a more swift victory."

Can anyone confirm that the Americans really are planning to reduce Baghdad to ash? This would be a pointless, expensive and dare I say it murderous tactic that would simply prove all the "naysayers" right about how America fights wars. There's a huge amount of disinformation about the war right now. Can anyone actually confirm that this is what the Americans are definitely planning to do and that this isn't just being banded about by pacifists to prove how evil the Americans are? I'm not being sneery, I'm just worried about how much "fact" is being passed around on the internet and elsewhere without any evidence.

As I understand it, the official "shock and awe" plan is not reduce Bagdhad to ashes. Rather, it is to use inconceivable numbers of magically accurate weapons to almost instantly destroy all military units, headquarters, communication installations, power plants, bridges and airfields while leaving all civilians and civilian installations miraculously intact. Doesn't that sound nice and civilized? Should we start taking bets on whether they can actually do it?

Hi Zagreb,

"Can anyone actually confirm that this is what the Americans are definitely planning to do and that this isn't just being banded about by pacifists to prove how evil the Americans are?"

An interesting way of putting it. The stories sound exaggerated by pacifists, but if they were confirmed, then it might "prove how evil the Americans are?" Here are some articles about the war plans.

From BBC News: "US military edges closer to the brink" (7 Mar 2003)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2828555.stm

'...the US war plan is to "shock and awe" the Iraqis into early defeat with an onslaught of simultaneous or near-simultaneous air and ground attacks that would be very different from the last Gulf War.

'Reports suggest that the first 48 hours would see the launching of some 3,000 precision-guided weapons, ten times the number dropped in the same period in 1991.'

[This following story quotes the

From CBS News: "Iraq Faces Massive U.S. Missile Barrage" (24 Jan 2003)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/24/eveningnews/main537928.shtml

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

'"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.'

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



It's not entirely clear how much of this firepower will come down on Baghdad, but it won't exactly be "turned to ash." From what I've read, this barrage of missiles is planned for targets around the country, not just Baghdad. But there is that quote above, maybe an exaggeration, but someone from the Pentagon said, "There will not be a safe place in Baghdad." That doesn't sound like a precise, surgical strike that's bothering to distinguish between military and civilian targets.

If you do a search for "Shock and Awe," you will find dozens of news articles on this tactic, most of them focusing on the numbers of cruise missiles planned.

Here are some left perspectives on the same topic:

Shock & Awe: Is Baghdad the Next Hiroshima? (27 Jan 2003)
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0127-08.htm

Baghdad, Hiroshima: The Human Costs Of War (10 Mar 2003)
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=3211

There was an article in the Guardian today saying that the Americans are very concerned about civilian casualties as they don't want public opinion to turn against them (they also want to prove the French-supporters wrong, who would love to see America cause huge civilian casualties). So it seems the "Baghdad will be nuked" stuff is American generals waving their d**ks about and pacifists disseminating it as "intent". I certainly hope so.

I think the "massive missile barrage" will be aimed at military targets, mostly out of cities. The Americans have a great deal to lose by increasing civilian casualties. Remember, they *want* to come out of this as the "good guys". They do *not* want to prove the claims of the anti-war people right.

I don't understand the American logic about "ground wars". They will a) have to fight one some time, you don't take a country from the air and b) not fight hard anyway, as all intelligence from the country suggests that the Iraqi army is demoralised, poorly-equipped and unwilling to fight. It'll be like the Vichy French soldiers "fighting" in WWII. They are under orders to do so, but don't really want to.

"(they also want to prove the French-supporters wrong, who would love to see America cause huge civilian casualties). "

I don't think even the harshest critic of the USA would 'love' to see huge civilian casualties.

"So it seems the "Baghdad will be nuked" stuff is American generals waving their d**ks about and pacifists disseminating it as "intent". I certainly hope so."

Aha. And I suppose if Hussein were threatening anyone with destruction you'd be content to wave it off as 'dick waving'? No, I'm sure you'd be 'disseminating' like mad. But you're not a pacifist, so that's ok. While we're on the subject, do you seriously think it is just pacifists that are opposed to this talk of mass destruction? Or do you really only think in black and white?

"I think the "massive missile barrage" will be aimed at military targets, mostly out of cities. The Americans have a great deal to lose by increasing civilian casualties. Remember, they *want* to come out of this as the "good guys". They do *not* want to prove the claims of the anti-war people right."

Your naivety is touching. They can do what the hell they want and come out as the good guys. Remember all those shots of dead civilians and troops from the last Gulf War? No? That's right. Thousands and thousands of dead Iraqi troops and civilians and we get one photo of a burned guy in an armoured car. They're not going to lose control over the media this time either.

In a AP released story by Hamza Hendawi.

"With nearly 250,000 U.S. and British troops in the Persian Gulf ready to strike, Iraq has been emboldened by stiff opposition to war at the Security Council, where France and other nations have insisted inspectors should be given more time. As pressure on Baghdad has increased in past months, it has been making gestures to show it is cooperating "

Do you believe a credible military threat to saddams goverment is the only way to achieve any realistic movement towards disarmorment?

How would you handle the situation if all of a sudden the world put you in charge of the situation?

Only asking to promote disscussion. I will go back to lurking to await any response.

Going under the assumption that president Bush agrees to go along with a UN proposal that sets specific steps for Iraq to comply to in a finate time table. At the end of that time allotment the inspectors concluded that The reguirements were not met. What should be the next step?

Actually, as I understand the analysts I've heard discussing the "shock and awe" thing (on CBC radio, which tries not to be really partial to one side or the other, in my opinion), most of the American plan -- which seems to actually be *the* plan -- will be targeted at Bagdhad. The cruise missles and precision ordinance will target Baghdad's power stations, Baghdad's bridges, Baghdad's transmission towers, Baghdad's military targets, and, by means of EMP weapons, Baghdad's international journalists' cell phone transmissions. If you look at a map of Iraq, the British and Americans already own most of the country militarily. They've been destroying the military targets in the north and south for a decade. Saddam only has Baghdad and the area around it. Baghdad will be the target. It's not waving of anything except the actual battle plan. Whether they can carry it off without civilian casualties is another question (a question that may never be answered since all electronic devices will have their circuits fried in the first wave of attacks.)

Having just read a few news stories, and in particular this one:

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/15/american_support030315

I feel I need to state my basic, simple opinion of war with Iraq:

It will happen soon, no matter what.

oh, and, talking of terrorists:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html

and

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TRAVEL/03/15/baggage.inspection.ap/index.html

[mt]

We (US) have continually heard about how S. Hussein *hides* weapons and the military within the people. Things under schools,churchs and hospitals and his palaces. Bio-chemicals are made in the same factories as legitiment products. For that reason, I believe Bagdad will be hit hard. Also the first battle objective to war is destroy the infastructure isnt it?

I think Bush intends to go no matter what.

I was hoping the delay was due to the pressure from the protests and world opinion. Some probably, but I am less sure of how much now. Yesterday the press said the infantry will not arrive until the 18th of the march, later than all had hoped

plus they didn't seem to have given up on Turkish cooperation until a day or two ago. Now the carrier groups have been moved out of the Mediterranean and into the Red Sea so they can use Saudi airspace instead of Turkish.

no the objective would be to leave the ifrastructure in tact.

http://bush.tamu.edu/

Am I the only person not to hear about the "Bush School of Government and Public Service"?

Interesting faculty and reading in parts,concentrates on International issues.