Shock and Awe

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
because Sun Media owns my mind, i have to say that im in awe by gunpoint.

angel, your from canada, you get the sun. isnt it fair to say that the sun almost appears like its own by Fox?
 
Are they using the new "mother of all bombs"?

Because I think that a 10 ton conventional bomb is hard NOT to cause ANY civilian victims. (yes civilian and potential military targets are very close to each other in Iraq infrastructure)
They say it's effect could be compared to the one of a smaller nuclear bomb.

Being bombed into freedom.

:no:
 
May Ling Welsh reported from Bagdad that their are residential homes dispersed in and around the areas being bombed. So some civilians had to be affected.

The CNN correspondents have been cut off by gov't now.
 
U2girl said:
Are they using the new "mother of all bombs"?

Because I think that a 10 ton conventional bomb is hard NOT to cause ANY civilian victims. (yes civilian and potential military targets are very close to each other in Iraq infrastructure)
They say it's effect could be compared to the one of a smaller nuclear bomb.

Being bombed into freedom.

:no:

Officially, no MOAB's have been used, although that can change. The MOAB however is no where near as destructive as a nuclear bomb. Compared to the smallest Nuke in the US arsinal, it packs less than 1/100 the punch and compared to the Atomic weapons used in WWII, it packs less than 1/1500 as much power. Time magazine greatly exagerate the facts when they published that article. That being said, the MOAB is still a massive weapon.
 
U2girl said:
Are they using the new "mother of all bombs"?

Because I think that a 10 ton conventional bomb is hard NOT to cause ANY civilian victims. (yes civilian and potential military targets are very close to each other in Iraq infrastructure)
They say it's effect could be compared to the one of a smaller nuclear bomb.

Being bombed into freedom.

:no:

My understanding as I have stated on these boards many times, is that Daisy cutters and MOABS are not used in urban areas. They are used to clear flliage in mountainous, or flat areas. They are used to clear deserts of mines. They are also designed for use on troups in large open areas far from civilian areas.

Finally, yes, according to some of the information I have read, MOABS have been used OUTSIDE of some of the southern Iraqi cities. They are using them to show the troops what we are capable hoping to bring about a quick surrender.

Peace
 
Gickies Gageeze said:
angel, your from canada, you get the sun. isnt it fair to say that the sun almost appears like its own by Fox?
The Sun? The Vancouver Sun? :|
 
Shocked - Yes

Awed - No

The Link

Shock & Awe: Is Baghdad the Next Hiroshima?
by Ira Chernus

Have your heard of Harlan Ullman? Everyone in the White House and the Pentagon has. They may very well follow his plan for war in Iraq. He wants to do to Baghdad what we did to Hiroshima.

Ullman is what they call a ?defense intellectual.? He was the Navy's ?head of extended planning? and taught at the National War College. One of his students was Secretary of State Colin Powell, who says he ?raised my vision several levels.?

What Powell and everyone in the Bush administration sees now is Ullman?s vision for high-tech war. He calls it ?rapid dominance,? or ?shock and awe.? The idea is to scare the enemy to death. To win, you don?t need to inflict physical pain and destruction. Just the fear of pain, and the massive confusion it creates, is enough.

Ullman wants the U.S. to (in his words) ?deter and overpower an adversary through the adversary?s perception and fear of his vulnerability and our own invincibility.? ?This ability to impose massive shock and awe, in essence to be able to 'turn the lights on and off' of an adversary as we choose, will so overload the perception, knowledge and understanding of that adversary that there will be no choice except to cease and desist or risk complete and total destruction."

Ullman is ready to use every kind of weapon to create shock and awe. He once said it might be a good idea to use electromagnetic waves that attack peoples? neurological systems, ?to control the will and perception of adversaries, by applying a regime of shock and awe. It is about effecting behavior."

When it comes to Iraq, Ullman likes the idea of cruise missiles -- lots of them, right away. CBS News reports that Ullman?s ideas are the basis for the Pentagon?s war plan. The U.S. will smash Baghdad with up to 800 cruise missiles in the first two days of the war. That?s about one every four minutes, day and night, for 48 hours.

The missiles will hit far more than just military targets. They will destroy everything that makes life in Baghdad livable. "We want them to quit. We want them not to fight," Ullman told CBS reporter David Martin. So ?you take the city down. You get rid of their power, water. In 2,3,4,5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted."

Ullman is sure it will work as well in 2003 as it did in 1945: ?You have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but in minutes." "Super tools and weapons -- information-age equivalents of the atomic bomb -- have to be invented," he wrote in the Economic Times. "As the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki finally convinced the Japanese Emperor and High Command that even suicidal resistance was futile, these tools must be directed towards a similar outcome.?

When he first invented ?rapid dominance,? Ullman talked about an ?eight-level hierarchy of shock and awe,? with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the top. Now, it seems, that?s where he wants to start.

Is the Hiroshima model just a metaphor? Ullman recently wrote that one way to ?shock and awe? Saddam is to remind him that the U.S. has ?certain weapons? that can destroy deeply buried facilities. That?s a not-even-thinly-veiled reference to the newest kind of nuclear weapons, the B-61 ?bunker-busters.? L.A. Times columnist William Arkin has confirmed that the U.S. is preparing to use ?bunker-busters? against Iraq. That would ?break down the firewall separating nuclear weapons from everything else,? Arkin warns, and ?forever pit the Arab and Islamic world against us.?

Suppose we drop the nuke in the wrong place? Even Harlan Ullman admits it could easily happen: ?Of course, there will always be intelligence gaps, and no solution is perfect.? But that?s just the point. ?The threat would be a Damoclean sword that might or might not descend.? In other words, the fear of nukes falling who-knows-where would scare them into surrendering without a fight. Let other Islamic nations get as angry as they like. We?ll just shock and awe them too.

And why not North Korea, while we?re at it? Ullman wants a nuclear threat there, if North Korean leaders don?t heel to U.S. commands: ?To remind the North of its vulnerability, one or more Trident ballistic submarines could be permanently assigned to target North Korea.? Tridents carry 240 nuclear warheads each. One Trident might not be enough, it seems. When you use shock and awe, you use it big-time.

So here we are, preparing to destroy a huge modern city, kill tens of thousands, and threaten nuclear attack -- all against people who have not fired a single bullet at us. Yes, it?s about oil. But it?s also about shock and awe, putting on a terrifying show for the whole world to see.

If all this leaves you in shock and awe, you have had your vision raised several levels too. You see what Ullman, Powell, and all the Bushies see: the U.S. frightening the whole world so badly that no one will dare fire a single bullet at us. Let them be as angry as they like, just so they know who is the meanest, toughest son of a bitch on the global block.

That is now becoming the essence of U.S. foreign policy. And they seriously believe it will put an end to war. I suppose the Romans believed it too.
 
Scarletwine said:
May Ling Welsh reported from Bagdad that their are residential homes dispersed in and around the areas being bombed. So some civilians had to be affected.

It's really disturbing when you think about the US is set up too. There are apartment complexes right next to the Pentagon and other military targets. If someone were to bomb the Pentagon, I'm sure civilians would be affected, just as those civilians living near targets in Iraq are being affected.
 
This whole war is awful. No matter how hard our army tries not to bomb places where innocent people are, civilians are going to be hurt/killed. I wish there was an easier way to get Hussein and his regime out of power
 
That's very true Meegannie. I grew up in a residential neighborhood next door to Langley AFB. We always figured if Russia bombed us, we'd be gone quickly. There was a army base in town and Norfolk about 15 min away.
 
so i was not able to hear the actual sounds of the bombs hitting baghdad today when i was watching the coverage at work. i have seen and heard it tonight. i have no idea how those who were covering it did not freak out on the air. it scared the hell out of me hearing the incoming bombs and then hearing the building blow up. i would need some serious therapy if i were anywhere near the places that were bombed. the distruction that took place is frightening and scares me to see the type of power the US has.
 
Last edited:
What seems quite clear to me is that the American and British troops are doing their absolute best not to harm civilians. They are doing their utmost to ensure that they are kept as far away from harm's way as possible - and that is commendable.

Their plan of attack has been extremely conscientious, and extremely efficient thus far. We're three days into the war, and there seems to be more deadly casualties reported from the side of the Allied forces. Why, we've had a total of two helicopter attacks and a few other casualties, while there have been very few deaths (obviously, new reports keep coming in all the time and so it hasrd to say for sure) on the Iraqi side. This is commendable.

Yes, we have not see the worst, but I do feel that the plan of attack and the way the Pentagon has gone through the initial proceedings has been quite conscientious of the fact that there are a lot of frightened and innocent civilians out there. I do believe they are doing their best to reduce the number of casualties.

Lets hope this is a reflection on the entire campaign.

Ant.
 
meegannie said:


It's really disturbing when you think about the US is set up too. There are apartment complexes right next to the Pentagon and other military targets. If someone were to bomb the Pentagon, I'm sure civilians would be affected, just as those civilians living near targets in Iraq are being affected.


:eyebrow:

the pentagon was bombed. civilians were "affected"!
 
Back
Top Bottom