🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1656@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de> p515dfi@mpirbn.UUCP (Daniel Fischer) writes:
>From ACTIV-L@UMCVMB.bitnet Mon Feb 18 16:02:50 1991 - it deserves more readers
>Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 18:57:31 CST
>From: csime%cdp@labrea.Stanford.EDU
>
>BUSH'S WAR OF ANNIHILATION
>
>By Dr. Michio Kaku
>Professor of Nuclear Physics
>City University of New York
>
     A)  This in *no way* deserves more readers.

     B)  Please let Harel Barzilai post all of this crap from avtive-l
as he is already in my kill file.

jh

--
===========================================================================
John P. Hannon                        | jph2u@kelvin.seas.virginia.edu
Dept. of Nuc. Engr. and Engr. Physics |"When all has been said and done,
University of Virginia                | more has been said than done."

p515dfi@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Daniel Fischer) writes:

>From ACTIV-L@UMCVMB.bitnet Mon Feb 18 16:02:50 1991 - it deserves more readers
>Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 18:57:31 CST
>From: csime%cdp@labrea.Stanford.EDU

>BUSH'S WAR OF ANNIHILATION

>By Dr. Michio Kaku
>Professor of Nuclear Physics
>City University of New York
>     The magnitude of these murderous strikes defies
>imagination.  In the first three weeks, 47,000 sorties were
>sent over Iraq.  (By contrast, during Nixon's infamous
>Christmas bombing of Vietnam, only 2,500 sorties were sent
>to bomb Hanoi and Haiphong.)  There are 2,000 each day; a
But the X-mass bombing was deliberate city-busting in large part.

>   *  The laser weapons cleverly hide the fact that much of
>the brutal air war is fought with gravity (dumb) bombs.  For
>example, the carpet bombing by the huge B-52s is
>indiscriminate; each B-52G can drop 40,000 pounds of high
>explosives, which destroy everything in a swath one mile
>long and half a mile wide.  Every day, almost 30 B-52s have
>been dropping about 450 tons of high explosives in the war.
Almost entirely on Republican guard positions and on the military
sector of Basra.
>   *  The huge guns of battleships like the Missouri (which
>were used to rain death and destruction in Lebanon)
>regularly miss their targets and indiscriminately slaughter
>people in the killing zone.  These crude World War II
>vintage weapons are mainly terror weapons used to crush
>civilians and have marginal military value.  Each shell
>fired from the 16-inch guns can travel 25 miles and weighs
>as much as a Volkswagen.  Without any guidance systems
>whatsoever, they rarely hit their intended targets, but can
>create vast carnage to a civilian population.

Due to their short range and high firepower, they are being used to bombard
military positions along the coast.  (Probably where the two divisions are
dug in just north and south of Kuwait city.)  With a maximum range of
25 miles, they can't get close enough to Iraq to shell that country.

>   *  By the Pentagon's own estimate, 20% of the strikes
>have missed their targets, meaning that the destructive
>power of at least one Hiroshima bomb has exploded on non-
>military targets.  Military analysts who have studied the
>kill rate of smart weapons, point out that a 50% success
>rate for high-tech weapons is probably more realistic,
>meaning that perhaps half the tonnage dropped over Iraq has
>hit civilian targets.
Apples and Oranges.  Approximately 20% (in the initial days) of the strikes
were unable to aquire their targets, most of these brought their ordinance
home.  A 50% success rate for high-tech weapons is the rate at which targets
are knocked out.  A failure does not imply hitting a civillian target. A failure
might be narrowly missing a bridge and hitting the water, failing to explode,
only damaging a hanger etc.

>   *  The Pentagon has now finally admitted that pilots have
>been given the freedom to select their own targets.  This is
>partly because the Pentagon is rapidly running out of
>targets to hit.  Traveling faster than the speed of sound,
>without benefit of satellite pictures, these pilots cannot
>possibly distinguish civilian from military targets by
>eyesight.  This has vastly increased the destruction over
>Iraq.
Utter bullsh*t!  First, the freedom to select their own targets refers to
operations in and near (mostly in) the KTO.  Planes are sent on missions to
hit targets of opportunity, which means any tank, artillery, APC etc. they can
find.  This has been going on during the entire war, but has stepped up 
recently.  It is very counterproductive to extensively plane a strike on
a dug in tank platoon, it's just not large enough a target (plus it may have
moved.)  The author makes it sound as if the pilots were just sent over
Bagdad with instructions to hit what they wanted.  Secondly, military targets
can be distinguished from civilian.  An A-10 pilot, flying well below the 
speed of sound, and at low level, can presumably tell a tank from a mosque.
Especially in the open desert area in the KTO.  Third, no one ever flys
supersonic bombing missions.  (Actually, most planes can't go supersonic
with external ordinace, at least not with 2000kg bombs.)

>every building of significance in Iraq.  With fewer and
>fewer targets left to hit, the Pentagon, in frustration, is
>now hitting the same targets repeatedly, which only makes
>the rubble bounce.  With so many bombing raids, the U.S. is
Airfields and bridges get repaired.
>now accidentally killing its own Marines with Maverick
>missiles.
That happens quite a lot in warfare.  The only reason why its noticable
now to this extent is that the Iraqi's haven't been able to do much on their
own.

ami silberman - janitor of lunacy

In article <1656@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de>, p515dfi@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Daniel Fischer) writes:
> From ACTIV-L@UMCVMB.bitnet Mon Feb 18 16:02:50 1991 - it deserves more readers
> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 91 18:57:31 CST
> From: csime%cdp@labrea.Stanford.EDU
>      President George Bush has now dropped all pretense
> about attacking Iraq in order to "defend Saudi Arabia" or
> "liberate Kuwait."  Gone is the phony rhetoric about
> defending freedom and "our way of life."  His strategy is
> now to wage a war of annihilation against Iraq and protect
> the "way of life" of Exxon.

Wrong.  Exxon PREFERS higher prices.  George Bush is a HIGH
price oil man.  High oil prices give Exxon and Texas a huge
money lift.  You are an idiot.  Think man before you speak. 
You sound like a fool.

>      Bush has given new meaning to the word "overkill."

Apparently, this "overkill" is not adequate.  Also, according 
to the Iraqi's they have lost only 90 military casualties. So
apparently our bombing is not very effective.

>      According to numerous interviews with eyewitnesses from
> Europe and the U.S. who have toured Iraq and refugees
> flooding into Jordan, hospitals, schools, community centers,
> apartment buildings, parks, shops, and religious shrines
> have all been demolished.  Large areas of Iraq are now
> without water, power, fuel, medical care or food.  Hospitals
> that are still standing are overwhelmed by the number of
> wounded.  Pictures of the destruction show vast residential
> buildings that have been ripped apart by the bombing.

Why don't you ask Saddam to stop destroying his own buildings
by firing AAA at our aircraft.  If he did that he would save a
lot of his own civilians that he is killing and the surgical
strikes would be more effective and less likely to kill civilians
and no americans would need to die.  Please address your concerns
to Iraq.

>      Peace delegations from the U.S. and Europe in Baghdad
> have been horrified at the massive destruction all around
> them.  They reported that apartment buildings have
> collapsed, killing their inhabitants, that ambulances
> continually rush wounded civilians to hospitals, and that
> homes have been demolished.  Parts of the city now look like
> the surface of the moon.

Probably all from Iraqi AAA fire.  They should stop kiling
themselves.

>      The Pentagon scoffs at these eyewitness reports by
> stating that the air war consists of "surgical strikes" with
> super accurate laser weapons.  However:

The evidence of this is there.  Look at the C&C bunker hit by
American bombs.  The outside of the building except for a hole was
virtually undamaged.  The building was penetrated cleanly and the
contents destroyed.  The allies are correct.  Our bombs are
astoundingly precise.  The types of destruction shown to cameramen
looks like the kind of barrage that comes from Iraqi AAA.

>    *  The laser weapons cleverly hide the fact that much of
> the brutal air war is fought with gravity (dumb) bombs.  For
> example, the carpet bombing by the huge B-52s is
> indiscriminate; each B-52G can drop 40,000 pounds of high
> explosives, which destroy everything in a swath one mile
> long and half a mile wide.  Every day, almost 30 B-52s have
> been dropping about 450 tons of high explosives in the war.

You fail to mention that the b52s only drop on KTO operations
on the dug in positions of the republican guard.  Are you
suggesting there are civilians there?

>      But even that is not enough.  Ominously, Pres. Bush,
> Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, General Norman Schwarzkopf
> and Vice President Dan Quayle have now all publicly stated,
> on several occasions in different interviews, that nuclear
> weapons might be used on Iraq.  Gen. Schwarzkopf, even
> before the war began, formally asked Pres. Bush for
> permission to use tactical nuclear weapons for the war.

Tactical nuclear wepaons would set a precedent but would be
ideal for this situation.  If the Iraqis give us an excuse to
use them, i.e. there own use of nuclear weapons, chemical weapons
or biological weapons we should use tactical nuclear weapons and
end the whole farce in a few minutes.

>      Gen. Schwarzkopf asked that nuclear weapons:
> 
>   (a) be detonated over Baghdad to unleash an
> electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that would destroy all
> communications in Iraq,
> 
>   (b) be used against hardened bunker positions of dug-in
> Iraqi troops.  He asked that the neutron bomb would be used
> against these troops.  Without the Soviet Union to challenge
> the U.S., the Pentagon feels emboldened and believes that
> using tactical nuclear weapons against Iraq will not set off
> a nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

Norman has asked his president for the course which minimizes US
casualties.  In a purely military sense this is the ideal weapon
for this situation.  If put into a corner the US has the option
to use it.  This should make it clear to Iraq that it cannot win.
They will get out of Kuwait and then we can discuss the situation.

mathon@tss.com (John D. Mathon (593-0923)) writes:

>Wrong.  Exxon PREFERS higher prices.  George Bush is a HIGH
>price oil man.  High oil prices give Exxon and Texas a huge
>money lift.

Latest news I heard were that the US of A want to look for oil in some
protected regions in Alaska because Bush doesn't have the courage to
raise the ridiculously low gasoline price in order to encourage people to
_save_ energy rather than waste it. And all the members of the last
conference on carbon dioxide accuse the American government to block
every progress.

>You are an idiot.  Think man before you speak. 
>You sound like a fool.

Thank you for this valuable information. It will certainly raise the
level of discussion.

>They will get out of Kuwait and then we can discuss the situation.

That's absolutely my impression of the situation: shoot, then think.
--

Harald Fuchs <fuchs@telematik.informatik.uni-karlsruhe.de>

In article <1991Feb20.223659.9798@tss.com>, mathon@tss.com
 (John D. Mathon (593-0923)) writes:

> You are an idiot.  Think man before you speak. 
> You sound like a fool.

What a foul mouth this person has.

> Tactical nuclear wepaons would set a precedent but would be
> ideal for this situation.  If the Iraqis give us an excuse to
> use them, i.e. there own use of nuclear weapons, chemical weapons
> or biological weapons we should use tactical nuclear weapons and
> end the whole farce in a few minutes.

Way to go.  Nuke 'em till they glow.  Rah, rah, rah, for democracy.

Teemu Leisti
U. of Helsinki
leisti@cc.helsinki.fi