scotth
19th March 2003, 05:15 AM
The basics:
Use fighters, ground attack aircraft, and bombers to immediately get rid of any remnants of Iraq's airforce in the air or on the ground.
Use the same equipment to eliminate effective anti-air fire power.
Start ground forces rolling in at a time and pace so that they will arrive to the outskirts of Bagdad about the time anti-air fire power is eliminated.
For Iraq to slow or stop the progress of ground forces will require a massing of similar equipment. With anti-air capabilities essentially gone, attack helis, A-10s, and AC-130 gunships will come in and do the "heavy lifting" of the campaign. These types of aircraft will destroy the majority of resisting Iraqi ground forces as they gather in the concentrations required to make a stand against our ground forces.
Summary: Fast and high flyers will make the air safe for slow and low flyers. Slow and low flyers will do the majority work by eliminating concentrations of Iraqi ground forces as they line up against our ground forces. Our ground forces will have a "fairly" easy time of it. Not to say they won't be fired upon or be required to fire upon other forces, but I don't think they will directly engage any large masses of cooridinated ground forces.
* A specific note about the MOAB bomb that has been in the news lately.
I think this was a specificly requested weapon. I think there is a real concern that Iraqi forces will attempt a chemical attack. Many people would suggest that the appropriate response to a chemical attack on the battlefield would be lobbing a tactical nuke in return (A couple kiloton artillary shell for example).
I think this option is trying to be avoided for obvious reasons. So, if we aren't willing to use this option, what is the alternative? That would be the MOAB bomb, a conventional explosive bomb of similar (couple kiloton) capability.
It is my thought that this could be a substitute weapon for tactical nukes, used to make an example of any unit that employs chemical weapons.
DISCLAIMER: These are all guesses. I don't know that any of this will unfold as I suggest. There are two purposes for posting this: 1) It might be interesting to compare a written prediction based on general reasoning to the already published or soon to come psychic predictions on the matter. 2) Find out just how well I can guess.
If you have seen any psychic predictions for this event, post em (with due regard to copyright issues of course).
I don't think I have to invite anyone who thinks they might be able to improve my predictions to post their thoughts as well?
Use fighters, ground attack aircraft, and bombers to immediately get rid of any remnants of Iraq's airforce in the air or on the ground.
Use the same equipment to eliminate effective anti-air fire power.
Start ground forces rolling in at a time and pace so that they will arrive to the outskirts of Bagdad about the time anti-air fire power is eliminated.
For Iraq to slow or stop the progress of ground forces will require a massing of similar equipment. With anti-air capabilities essentially gone, attack helis, A-10s, and AC-130 gunships will come in and do the "heavy lifting" of the campaign. These types of aircraft will destroy the majority of resisting Iraqi ground forces as they gather in the concentrations required to make a stand against our ground forces.
Summary: Fast and high flyers will make the air safe for slow and low flyers. Slow and low flyers will do the majority work by eliminating concentrations of Iraqi ground forces as they line up against our ground forces. Our ground forces will have a "fairly" easy time of it. Not to say they won't be fired upon or be required to fire upon other forces, but I don't think they will directly engage any large masses of cooridinated ground forces.
* A specific note about the MOAB bomb that has been in the news lately.
I think this was a specificly requested weapon. I think there is a real concern that Iraqi forces will attempt a chemical attack. Many people would suggest that the appropriate response to a chemical attack on the battlefield would be lobbing a tactical nuke in return (A couple kiloton artillary shell for example).
I think this option is trying to be avoided for obvious reasons. So, if we aren't willing to use this option, what is the alternative? That would be the MOAB bomb, a conventional explosive bomb of similar (couple kiloton) capability.
It is my thought that this could be a substitute weapon for tactical nukes, used to make an example of any unit that employs chemical weapons.
DISCLAIMER: These are all guesses. I don't know that any of this will unfold as I suggest. There are two purposes for posting this: 1) It might be interesting to compare a written prediction based on general reasoning to the already published or soon to come psychic predictions on the matter. 2) Find out just how well I can guess.
If you have seen any psychic predictions for this event, post em (with due regard to copyright issues of course).
I don't think I have to invite anyone who thinks they might be able to improve my predictions to post their thoughts as well?