From: Christian Weisgerber (naddy@mips.inka.de)
Date: Sat Mar 22 2003 - 18:18:59 MST
Max M <maxmcorp@worldonline.dk> wrote:
> I cannot help but being somewhat amazed about the difference in power of
> the Iraqi and the coalition forces. It is probably many things that
> works together here, to make this difference.
It is my understanding that Iraq is a country at the brink of
industrialization. Which means it is at least a century behind the
times. That is one large gap. We are looking at a country that
supposedly imported dairy equipment (!) pumps to use in missiles
because they couldn't manufacture such parts locally.
> But it seems that all the high tech weaponry developed by the US makes
> an enourmeous difference in this war.
As far as the final outcome is concerned, the coalition could lead
this war with WWII technology. However, the addition technological
advantage makes the whole affair a lot cheaper in terms of equipment
and casualties, and makes it easier on the civilian population.
Look at the precision bombardment Baghdad is suffering. While much
of the world is all riled up about collateral damages and civilian
casualties, I suggest to gain some perspective. The WWII equivalent
of those air raids were swarms of bombers dropping lots of ordnance
all over a city. Hitting the right quarter was a success in
targeting. Nowadays, individual buildings are picked out with a
substantial degree of success. Apart from sparing much of the
civiliation population, this of course also benefits the military
attack. It is rather exasperating to level the better part of a
city but miss the actually designated targets.
> And amazingly enough there dosn't seem to be any efficient counter
> meassures to these hightech weapons.
That is the point really.
> Ie. with laser guided precision bombs, it would seem obvious for the
> Iraqis to put up powerfull lasers pointing anywhere else than on
> important infrastructure, so as to confuse the guided bombs.
I don't know the details of laser targeting, but I suspect it doesn't
work this way.
> And naturally air superiority is paramount, so the country ought to be
> massively packed with SAM's.
And where do you propose would those SAMs come from? Grown on trees?
(Besides, I'm not aware of any war where air defense succeeded over
enemy air power. To counter enemy planes, you need interceptors
in the air. AA and SAMs don't cut it.)
> This left mo wondering if all this is caused by the fact that the
> Iraqi's has been relatively isolated, and has no modern weapons anymore,
Today's Iraq does not look like a match for any of the major
combatants of WWII.
> or simply because there is a difference in weaponry that is rising
> exponentially?
Well, the current campaign looks just like the one in 1991 to me.
Of course I'm neither a military expert nor do I have any idea what
is actually going on, beyond the rumors currently circulating through
the Western media. Quite a lot of the American equipment in use
dates back a couple of decades, but I can't tell how effective the
incremental modernization is that has been going on.
> It is also a clear example on why it is important that these
> technologies belong to "benign" countries.
On the other hand, monopolies are bad. I certainly don't relish
the prospect of US carriers in the North Sea, telling us, sorry
folks, we can't allow nano development in Europe.
You know, this benign country thing sounds all fine and dandy as
long as it's *your* country and you agree with its policies.
> But perhaps there is some kind of aoutomation in this, in that
> the free and rich countries are better able to develop advanced
> technology?
Pick up some books and check out who during WWII used cruise missiles
and ballistic rockets, who introduced guided bombs and jet fighters,
who had the superior tanks and invented the assault rifle. Of
course, the attribute rich applied there, I think. Free, well,
that would be subject to some debate, I guess. Modern weapons
development and production requires a rich industrial base. So the
question is really, which societies are more likely to prosper
economically.
> The joker in this, is the rising power of the individual/small state due
> to even more advanced technologies (NABC - Nano, Atomic, Bio, Chem). But
> the best way to avoid individuals/small states being angry enough to use
> NABC's as a tool of terror, is to ensure wealth, freedom and democracy
> for as many people as possible.
Yes.
> Should this lead to more preemptive strikes, to ensure freedom and
> democracy?
Tricky...
-- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 22 2003 - 18:40:16 MST