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

What I said was that the Gulf War was in many ways easier than our training. I didn't say that it was training. Modern military training is intense, and it is conducted against some of the best trained people in the Army.

There were engagements on the ground during the Gulf War. Although they were mostly one-sided affairs. The advantage of an M-1A1 over anything else outside of Western Europe or Israel is immense. I was in an Armor battalion. Our tanks did very little. Most of the actual fighting was handled by our scout platoon and an anti-tank company that was with us.

I doubt the Iraqi army has done much to improve itself. The United States Army has upgraded to the M1A2 and has been training and working with lessons learned since the war.

As to urban conflict, I don't know. I was mech infantry, so it wasn't something that we dealt with much. We would just level any structure that stood in our way with armored vehicles. I know the light forces do a lot of training for it.

The soldiers fighting this time will probably have more combat experience than we did during the last Gulf War. During the Gulf War we had a few Vietnam Veterans. Vietnam ended 19 years prior. The only veteran in my battalion was the operations Sergeant Major, and possibly the battalion commander. There were more vets at the brigade and higher headquarters. This time, it's only been 12 years since the last big war. There have been multiple low intensity conflicts since then. And there was some real fighting in Afghanistan that Aaron O'Keefe could tell you about.

I think training is the key. I was there last time, but I haven't played infantry since right after the war (well I spent some time as a Cavalry Scout in the guard). The guys who are deployed have been gearing up for this for months. I think they're more qualified to fight it than I am.

I think victory is assured. I doubt the kill ratio will be as favorable as it was last time. Instead of a thousand to one, I'm thinking it will be closer to 200 to one. There will be more casualties due to the urban conflict, where some of the technical advantages of our forces will be degraded.

Just out of curiousity, Mr. Moron, what would happen to one of those tanks if someone were able to generate an electro-magnetic pulse in the vicinity. I presume the engine would be immobilized, but would the turret and ranging systems be disabled as well?

I don't know. I was an infantryman in an armor battalion.

The whole turret can be operated manually. It's hard work. I went with our Battlaion Motor Officer to get some spare parts from tanks once. The gun itself is loaded manually. There is an optical site.

I don't know how it would effect the drive train. I don't if it's drive by wire or mechanical.

The vehicle was developed for a nuclear battlefield. I would suspect that the computers and electronics are hardened as much as possible against EMP.

Do you think they Iraqis have nuclear weapons?

No I don't think they have nuclear weapons, but the Russians do.

In the absence of actual battlefield testing, I don't know how "hardening" could have been verified.

It's also possible to generate EMPs without nuclear weapons, through a fairly common atmospheric phenomenon known as lightning. It's usually not as concentrated as it gets with a nuclear air-burst or volcanic eruption, but any EMP can cripple communications severely because you can't "harden" antennas without rendering them useless.

I don't think the Russians want a nuclear war with the United States.

I don't either but then they may not have a choice if Bush keeps pushing.

I didn't know that we had any big problems with the Russians. They don't much care for the Iraq war, but I thought that was the only issue we had with them.

Apparently the Americans don't have a problem the Russians, YET! Do you recall why there was a Cuban Missile Crisis?

Yah, so what?. That was when we were enemies.

Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Repoblic have joined NATO. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Solvenia have been invited to enter into talks about joining NATO. If the Russians can tolerate neighbors and former Soviet republics joining an organization designed to defeat Russia, then I don't see why they'd have a problem with us occupying Iraq. Not one that they're willing to go to war with us over.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was over ICBMs in Turkey. The Russians didn't need to put them in Cuban to protect Castro from CIA sponsored Cuban exiles okay? It was the missiles in Turkey that got them real nervous and the reason they actually removed their missiles from Cuba was because the United States removed theirs from Turkey.

Putting a quarter of a million man army in Iraq might or might not be perceived as threatening but if Bush keeps acting like Hitler, guess what?

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

*Dubya will not serve a second term either way. Anyone care to disagree?*

So this is what is most importent to you at this time.

Thanks for nothing, Charlie.

Actually the 'Cuban Missle Crisis' was a one upsman move by the russians that evolved into a test of wills between Mr.Krushchev and president Kennedy. The missles were originally placed in turkey to counter balance russian advances in icbm technology and a erroneous report concerning the number of russian missiles.
By time russia started to put missiles in cuba the missiles in turkey had become obsolete due to SLBM's Submarine launched ballistic missles. The turkey missles had already been marked for removal. The early detection of the missiles in cuba before their activation also weaked Krushchevs hand.

However if president Kennedy removed the missles in response to Mr. Krushchevs insistance in order to stop the cuban missiles being deployed he would of suffered a mortal politcal blow. The same could be said of Mr. Krushchev if it seemed he was bowing to President Kennedys demands.
Agreements in private amongst men of conscience on both sides to defuse what would have been the end of mans dominance on this planet.









.

Wonder what all the space is for?

Sometimes it behooves people who would be apologists for American foreign policy to get their friggin facts straight, such as the Turkish missiles were part of the policy of containment by American administrations promoting the Red Scare.

Also, it might be a good idea to check the recently declassified documents on the Crisis that illustrate among other things what the Americans DIDN'T agree to when things actually settled down in November after all the saber rattling in October.

They refused to renounce their policy of trying to overthrow the Cuban government, or any other government for that matter, which was later illustrated graphically in Chile and other places. This has made the American government essentially a rogue in international relations and puts the present situation in even better perspective.

With the deployment of SLBM's the single stage IRBM's deployed in oct. 1959 became obsolete. Also note after the removel of the Jupitors Turkeys f-100 bombers and a stockpile of US nuclear bombs remained. No apologies just fact.

F100s were never longrange bombers. They were single engine fighter/bombers the limited range of such aircraft. Once again, get your friggin facts straight because otherwise it ain't just fact, it's apologetic baloney as usual.

Documents relating to the Cuban Missile Crisis,

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/cuba.htm

*f100s were never longrange bombers. They were single engine fighter/bombers the limited range of such aircraft. Once again, get your friggin facts straight because otherwise it ain't just fact, it's apologetic baloney as usual.*

I never said the f100's were long range bombers. I have not apologies for anything.