Edited by author 12-01-2003 01:19 AM
Cecil, the big difference in the SA-14/18/16 series (16 is actually the best) appears to be in the seeker/fuze and speed/range. The warhead is basically unchanged from the SA-7, I understand. I agree small SAM prox fuzes are both a blessing and a curse: but if you ever had to sell the systems on their relatively low direct-hit probability against fast air, even as fatal as that can sometimes turn out to be, I doubt you'd ever find a buyer.

Of course, against their natural prey, helicopters, they're very deadly whether they prox-detonate or not. Helicopters are always close to falling out of the sky in a heap at the best of times, and even a prox-hit can be enough to give them that last push.

In my opinion, the US will not use any nuclear weapon unless attacked (or an NATO ally, or Japan) with nuclear weapons first full stop. Not against bio weapon, not against chem weapon not even bunker buster. They'll bring the draft back before they drop nukes. If NK decides to come down the peninsula, SK army has to slow 'em down till air power can be assembled. Any more problems in the ME, the jam just get smeared thinner on the toast.

Desmond Jones - The 12k dead will be relevant to Iraq. They will serve similar roles to the dead at Bunker Hill, Nathan Hale, and all the battles that nobody outside the US remembers. They will be the mortar that cements together the new Iraqi founding myths of the 'hopefully' better, more stable, more just society that is taking shape now.

cynical joe - You're making a flat out statement that the announced military doctrine of the US on the use of nuclear weapons is largely a bluff. We signed on to the chem/bio moratoriums with the explicit statement that precluding tit for tat meant that nukes would be the response for treaty violators. If we don't follow through on that long-standing bipartisan threat who's going to believe us in future?

Do you have any evidence that US military doctrine is bluffing in this regard or is it just a gut feeling?

TML: of course US nuclear deterence is a bluff, especially if the 'enemy' is a non-state actor. Other than NK is their a country that would use nuclear weapons in a first strike against the US? If Al Qaeda manages to construct a nuclear device and delivers it the US and explodes it, is the US going to drop a bomb on some terrorist camp in Syria? I'm saying, it won't. I don't have any 'proof' of course. The latest round of nuclear proliferation is aimed at creating deterence FROM america. Other countries have seen how the US treated Iraq and how they've treated NK. I don't even have huge problems with the US policy in those two places, but ever since the 'axis of evil' comment, there has been a certain calculus done by regimes who want to obtain a 'keep the US out' card.

I'll try to be polite about this. I'm having considerable difficulty believing that the U.S. government would use nuclear weapons to retaliate against anything short of an all out nuclear attack from Russia or China. Especially a terrorist attack. How much of the planet do you have to vaporize in order to destroy a de-centralized terrorist organization? So Syria drops some poison gas on Tel Aviv, are you going to level Damascus, a la Grozny, and leave a radioactive mess to dwarf Chernobyl? Why bother with smart bombs and avoid hitting civilian targets? Can you imagine how much support Al-Qaeda would have if they were the world's best bet to take down a deranged U.S. government?

The failed launch of two Japanese spy satellites this past weekend made me pull out my July 2003 issue of National Geographic. The article on the DMZ and a "tourist" trip to North Korea gives as much insight into what is going on in Pyongyang as anything else I've read. North Korea's military power is just a paper thin facade masking a society teetering on the edge of total collapse. If the U.S., China, Japan and South Korea weren't confident that a NK attack could be prevented with a pre-emptive strike, none of those countries would be taking the wait and see approach that they have.

Edited by author 12-01-2003 02:42 PM
Of the $87 billion allocated to Iraq, $66 billion is destined for military needs including $2 billion plus for naval operations and maintenance of which $80 million is slotted for the Dept. of Homeland Security Coast Guard Operations. $20 billion plus is allocated for Iraqi reconstruction of which $10 billion in contracts are let through Bechtel, Haliburton and KBR. Of the $20 billion half is to be repaid by Iraq.

And there seems to be little concern for Ba'athist infiltrators as some are alleging

...that U.S. officials have let firms associated with the former regime enrich themselves once more.

Two such companies are Boniye & Sons and Mediterranean Global Holdings. The first belongs to an old Iraqi family which had diverse business interests during Saddam's time. The family is widely reputed to have been close to Saddam and his son Uday.

The second is a London-based company headed by Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi- British businessman who left Iraq in the early 1980s and has since accumulated a fortune estimated at more than a billion dollars.

The CPA awarded Boniye "a couple of fairly large" construction contracts, says a senior U.S. official.

Most of the money has been raised by US treasury bonds paying 4% or less. 'Democracy' building is a very profitable business.

http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=21229

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/amend...emental_9_17_03.pdf

cynical joe - The idea that the US is 'just kidding' on its basic warfighting policy and has been for decades is strange for me.

The US has announced the policy. The policy has not been challenged by any major presidential candidate of any party, much less a subsequently elected president. What you're positing is a multi-decade bipartisan head fake on basic war fighting doctrine with regard to WMD. I don't buy it. Would the US respond to a mass casualty event that violated the chem weapons ban with a nuclear response? I think it would because it's always said it would ever since we got rid of our own chem arsenal.

RGlasel - You seem to be landing in the same boat with cynical joe. What evidence do you have that the formal policy of the US is such a long-running bluff?

Desmond Jones - You are in factual error on repayment. The Senate proposed a 50% loan formula which drew a veto threat (rare in this administration) and the loan clause was tossed out in conference. The entire amount is a grant.

I can't address the mare's nest of contracts because I simply don't have enough hours in the day to address more than principles. If you have a general contractor you trust, you trust that he'll police the subcontractors. If he does a bad job, the general contractor (who has an ongoing and highly lucrative relationship with you) gets punished all out of proportion to any kickback, bribe, or inducement that he might receive to let a bad guy in. Just look at Boeing to see the system working in action. They got caught and are now losing far more money than they had previously gained by their bad faith actions.

TML: Am I saying that US policy has been a bipartisan head fake: yes, thats what I'm saying. And not only to head fake enemies. The costs of developing, testing, storing America's nuclear arsenal is not an insubstantial total. This cost has to be justified. I think you can make a good faith argument that this arsenal has helped maintain peace, but I also think its a point one could argue.

Let's take your example of a chem attack on the US. First if its a non-state actor, where do you drop the bomb? Where the weapon was assembled? where the weapon was launched from? The home towns of the terrorists? What if the weapon was assembled in Paris and launched from Nova Scotia by a group of islamic militants from the Phillipines; do you nuke all of them, some of them? Secondly, if the chem attack did come from a rogue nation-state, why wouldn't the US simply attack that nation with conventional weaponry? Concerns about American casualties may have factored into the US's use of the bomb in Japan in '45, but modern air based weapons would do just as good a job as nuclear weapons without the global condemnation and without the glow-in-the-dark aftereffects. No country whose leaders have witnessed Afghanistan and Iraq is going to think it can survive a conventional US attack because the US won't launch the big one. It seems that there is a contemporary fetish to somehow conceive of a situation which allows America to unleash its nuclear arsenal in righteous indignation to save civilization.

Just as a matter of interest.

Since the US is not part of an agreement limiting nuclear weapons usage, the offical policy is that they are governed by the Laws or Warfare applying to weapons generally. This policy is explained to mean they will only be used to preserve the existence of the US or a major ally, prevent the destruction of the US Military in the field, or as retaliation for the use of nuclear weapons against the US or a major ally.

The policy of the US Government has been that a Nuclear attack on the US or Western Europe would be met by massive retaliation to Nuclear attack for fifty years or so. With restrictions on Chemical weapons the policy of retaliation in kind with chemical weapons is replaced with a nuclear response. The US Military, the operational part though maybe not the research staff of the Chemical Corp, has always considered Bio weapons to impractical (How do you control the spread of infectious diseases?) and there would be a Nuclear or Chemical response.

It should be noted that these policies are highly relevant to a NATO defense of Western Europe from a Soviet attack.


The big question mark has always been would a political decision be made to actually carry out this response? This is an even bigger question mark since the end of the cold war.


I think the any use of nuclear weapons would require.

A. The threat of a major military defeat if they are not used.

or

B. 1. First use of a large-scale attack on the US or a major ally.

2. A clearly identifiable target to attack.

3. The lack of clear attackable alternative target. (for example, topple a Taliban type regime that is not popular with the people it rules.)

Even if a nuclear option is not used, I think it is safe to say that any response to Nuclear attack on the US, a major ally, or our troops in the field will redefine the term “heavy handed.”

TM

About your hypothetical scenario. It is an interesting problem.


First if there is hot crisis, say the North Koreans cross the DMZ or some such thing, there are probably four to six National Guard divisions available, though because of the large selective call ups they may need to “mix and match” units and cannibalize a few others. Given the time to deploy they should get a reasonable if not ideal amount of train up time.

But your question is really about how do we get some extra divisions, if we want them on active duty before an emergency.

I think it really depends on how real Congress sees the need as well as how it is explained. Some thoughts.

A response to actual developments someplace will get a better reception than a general response to the situation.

If the request will also release reserve components from active duty it will get a more favorable response.

It may be more palatable if the new units are not organized into divisions or least formations that are called divisions. The term division carries a psychological weight that it might be desirable to avoid. A while back I proposed in Fliters a suggestion to increase the number of operational units without raising large formations. Basically activate two or three battalions a month to be assigned to existing higher headquarters. In the current Iraq situation there can probably be more units reporting to a headquarters than in a mobile war such as back in April.

This would be justification for the Republicans. I think if the situation were serious enough (the hot crisis) there would be adequate Democratic votes to carry the day.

Otherwise Bush would have to pull off what you described as his Lucy strategy.

Some Democrats have been accusing the administration of not having enough troops, though in some cases motivated more to cause embracement than a perceived need. If some how he could provoke a stronger public compliant about inadequate troop levels he could then respond to this complaint and the democrats could not successfully object.

Otherwise it is quite possible there won’t be a change until 2005.

The Samarra story is getting much weirder. Although the US military claims 54 killed, no bodies were found. No trace of dead or wounded, except civilians at the local hospital. Apparently the fedayeen were able to melt away in the darkness, dragging their dead comrades with them while under heavy US fire. What's wrong with this picture?

How can you determine how many enemy were killed if you didn't police up the bodies? This does sound strange.

TM: "What evidence do you have that the formal policy of the US is such a long-running bluff?"

No evidence, just an observation that in the past 58 years, the U.S. hasn't used nuclear weapons in a situation where conventional weapons could have accomplished the same objectives. Hank's scenario A, where nukes are only used when there is a high likelihood of defeat otherwise, is the only situation where the use of nukes could be justified to the American people and the rest of the world. Anything else would be seen as the actions of a deranged dictatorship. If an act of terrorism can provoke the U.S. into a nuclear retaliation, Osama will be applauding from somewhere.

Before anyone gets too excited about shipping troops to Korea, consider this: While North Korea has 1,082,000 soldiers (some of whom might be mannequins dressed up in uniforms, or wooden cutouts, but I digress) there are 727,000 troops in South Korea, only 37,000 of which are American. South Korea spends $12.8 billion US annually on defense, North Korea $5.1 billion. Both sides have more defensive capability than offensive, so the odds of either the South or the North being overrun are slim. If anything, the kind of air support the Americans can provide would give the South the advantage. What South Korea needs is a guarantee of air support from the U.S., intelligence from the Japanese and a promise from the Chinese to refrain from assisting the North.

re: SAM Impact Photos

Wow. How did the darn thing circle and land. If I'd known you could fly those things with only half a wing I'd have saved about a billion white knuckle landings!@

cynical joe - Every cost accounting of military strength I've ever seen has nuclear forces, pound for pound coming in at much less expensive than conventional. A nuclear power still needs an army as some military jobs are simply not doable with nukes. Nuclear weapons are always a cost and time savings for large jobs that could be done by both.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the head fake thing as there seems no way to falsify the statement. Give me a way and I'll continue that portion of the conversation.

Hank - The Democrats have a few set plays they like to run on Republicans. There's the 'RACIST Republican' one, the 'HEARTLESS Republican', and not least the 'WARMONGER Republican' one that is relevant here. GWB strikes fear into the hearts of Democrats everywhere by not letting them run their set plays. Would the Democrats be willing to suspend the first chance in years to run an effective set play in a case where they wouldn't be caught out by the general public for doing it? I have serious doubts.

RGlasel - See above for my comments to cynical joe. I can't argue against just an observation, no evidence unless there's some more meat to it. My feeling is that you're unwilling to confront the fact that the US government could do such a thing.

TML: I can't agree with your cost analysis of nuclear weapons. Weapons that have been used twice, TWICE in 60 years are not cost effective. Nuclear weapons have one use--strategic deterence, and now that the cold war is over, America doesn't really have a strategic enemy, perhaps China in the future, and so I'm open to the argument that it makes sense to maintain a nuclear deterrent in the case a strategic threat emerges. The use of tactical nuclear weapons I think though is a solution in search of a problem, conventional weapons and their current delivery systems are more than adequate for present and near future conflicts. The constraining variable for the US military is manpower and political will.