War Game Shows Dangers of Attacking Iran

reply to post by SLAYER69

I bring facts and links for confirmation.

No need dragging along a golf course! Actually I posted a link to display that the Daisy Cutter was used in the First Gulf War after you claimed it wasn't.

There are in fact hundreds of articles on the Daisy Cutter that the readers can peruse to learn more about it's history and various ways it's used by using Google and the words Daisy Cutter.

Do you have a link that states it wasn't used in the manners I have outlined?

Cheer up its not like you have said Iran could be conquered in a week.

The military occupation of the Southern United States was not actually officially ended by the way until 1978!

The military occupation of Berlin didn't end until 1992!

The question of the thread my friend is how many years do we want to be hanging around Iran, and as the study pointed out, once you turn these things on, you can't turn them off, and there is no telling which way developments will turn.

And oh by the way those Sunnis and Shia's in Iraq fighting each other not only will still gladly take out an American soldier when ever they get the chance but were much better behaved amongst themselves under the previous authoritarian regime.

Government is a reflection of the actual people and circumstances and as great as democracy is, it really doesn't appear to be for everyone.

Just as the Prince of Monacco if you don't believe me!

Thanks.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

No need dragging along a golf course! Actually I posted a link to display that the Daisy Cutter was used in the First Gulf War after you claimed it wasn't.

I never said it wasn't. Reread the whole thread. I said as a Bunker Buster. Or maybe I didn't make that clear enough. Shall we all click back a few pages.?????

reply to post by SLAYER69


Never mind.

Here is the whole history.

Now show me where exactly I claimed they were never used.

PLEASE

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by December_Rain

 

Some great observations but busting bunkers didn’t do much good in the First Gulf War with its super altered Vietnam Daisy Cutter 2,000 pound bombs designed to penetrate goodness knows what.

The Daisy cutters were developed to clear large amounts of vegetation so Helos could land. NOT for penetrating bunkers.

I hope this isn't an example of how today's discussion is headed.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Yes they were and as the heaviest bomb in the U.S. Arsenal in 1990 it was pressed into service after being modified to bust bunkers.

History can be your friend, don't be mad at it.

Thanks!

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Some great observations but busting bunkers didn’t do much good in the First Gulf War with its super altered Vietnam Daisy Cutter 2,000 pound bombs designed to penetrate goodness knows what.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

WASHINGTON -- The United States has begun attacking the Taliban military forces with the biggest conventional bomb in the Air Force arsenal, a 15,000-pound behemoth used as much for its psychological impact as for its explosive power.

BLU-82s were dropped on Taliban positions in northern Afghanistan for the first time over the weekend, Knight-Ridder and the Associated Press reported, quoting Pentagon officials.

Why oh why must people call my near total photographic memory into question and cause me to look up things I already know!

So much for your photographic memory you were talking about Iraq not Afghanistan.

Who's mad?

I'm going to enjoy this....

How Bunker Busters Work

There are thousands of military facilities around the world that defy conventional attack. Caves in Afghanistan burrow into mountainsides, and immense concrete bunkers lie buried deep in the sand in Iraq. These hardened facilities house command centers, ammunition depots and research labs that are either of strategic importance or vital to waging war. Because they are underground, they are hard to find and extremely difficult to strike.

The U.S. military has developed several different weapons to attack these underground fortresses. Known as bunker busters, these bombs penetrate deep into the earth or right through a dozen feet of reinforced concrete before exploding. These bombs have made it possible to reach and destroy facilities that would have been impossible to attack otherwise.

Conventional Bunker Busters

During the 1991 Gulf war, allied forces knew of several underground military bunkers in Iraq that were so well reinforced and so deeply buried that they were out of reach of existing munitions. The U.S. Air Force started an intense research and development process to create a new bunker-busting bomb to reach and destroy these bunkers. In just a few weeks, a prototype was created. This new bomb had the following features:

In this article, you'll learn about several different types of bunker buster so you will understand how they work and where the technology is heading.

* Its casing consists of an approximately 16-foot (5-meter) section of artillery barrel that is 14.5 inches (37 cm) in diameter. Artillery barrels are made of extremely strong hardened steel so that they can withstand the repeated blasts of artillery shells when they are fired.

* Inside this steel casing is nearly 650 pounds (295 kg) of tritonal explosive. Tritonal is a mixture of TNT (80 percent) and aluminum powder (20 percent). The aluminum improves the brisance of the TNT -- the speed at which the explosive develops its maximum pressure. The addition of aluminum makes tritonal about 18 percent more powerful than TNT alone.

* Attached to the front of the barrel is a laser-guidance assembly. Either a spotter on the ground or in the bomber illuminates the target with a laser, and the bomb homes in on the illuminated spot. The guidance assembly steers the bomb with fins that are part of the assembly.

* Attached to the end of the barrel are stationary fins that provide stability during flight.

The finished bomb, known as the GBU-28 or the BLU-113, is 19 feet (5.8 meters) long, 14.5 inches (36.8 cm) in diameter and weighs 4,400 pounds (1,996 kg).

Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28)

The GBU 28 "Bunker Buster" was put together in record time to support targeting of the Iraqi hardened command bunker by adapting existing materiel. The GBU-28 was not even in the early stages of research when Kuwait was invaded. The USAF asked industry for ideas in the week after combat operations started. Work on the bomb was conducted in research laboratories including the the Air Force Research Laboratory Munitions Directorate located at Eglin AFB, Florida and the Watervliet Armory in New York. The bomb was fabricated starting on 1 February, using surplus 8-inch artillery tubes as bomb casings because of their strength and weight. The official go-ahead for the project was issued on 14 February, and explosives for the initial units were hand-loaded by laboratory personnel into a bomb body that was partially buried upright in the ground.

The first two units were delivered to the USAF on 16 and 17 February, and the first flight to test the guidance software and fin configuration was conducted on 20 February. These tests were successful and the program proceeded with a contract let on 22 February. A sled test on 26 February proved that the bomb could penetrate over 20 feet of concrete, while an earlier flight test had demonstrated the bomb's ability to penetrate more than 100 feet of earth. The first two operational bombs were delivered to the theater on 27 February.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

First created during the Vietnam War to quickly clear jungle landing zones, the bomb, nicknamed the "daisy cutter," also was used against Iraqi troops during the Gulf War.

I know a good optometrist my friend. He takes most forms of insurance. Very fashionable right next to the Bal Harbour Shops!

Gulf War in Iraq actually means Gulf War in Iraq!

Reading can be your friend!

Against TROOPS Not bunkers.

Where did I leave that PDF on reading comprehension?

I wonder...

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

No need dragging along a golf course! Actually I posted a link to display that the Daisy Cutter was used in the First Gulf War after you claimed it wasn't.

I never said it wasn't. Reread the whole thread. I said as a Bunker Buster. Or maybe I didn't make that clear enough. Shall we all click back a few pages.?????

You mean to where you laughed and said wow I hope the thread isn't going to be about how the daisy cutter is involved in today's warfare.

For a guy who was hoping the thread wasn't going to take this direction you sure seem to be driving happily down that lane.

I know it's probably a steering wheel problem, let me guess loose nut behind the wheel?

It will be ok Slayer just click your heels three times and say I want to go home, I want to go home, I want to go home!

Meanwhile its still a real bad idea to attack Iran!

The study even concludes so!

Thanks for posting!

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by December_Rain

 

Some great observations but busting bunkers didn’t do much good in the First Gulf War with its super altered Vietnam Daisy Cutter 2,000 pound bombs designed to penetrate goodness knows what.

The Daisy cutters were developed to clear large amounts of vegetation so Helos could land. NOT for penetrating bunkers.

I hope this isn't an example of how today's discussion is headed.

This was your first response to my mention of Daisy Cutters, to which you mentioned their use in Vietnam and embedded a Vietnam video.

Sounds like a blanket denial to me, if not it was poorly worded.

Thanks for posting!

reply to post by Sean48

Who did you defeat?

America wins when the various factions in the ME fight among themselves while the free flow of oil and other resources continues.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


You cant be serious?

How did you deduce anything like that from discussing how it was developed with your attempt to sway people away from the very real fact that you couldn't prove that they were used in Iraq as a bunker buster? Instead you try to hide that fact behind splitting hairs about them being used against troops.

Anybody with half a brain who cares to really see can simply go back and look at the posts.

I'm headed out for an early dinner.

Peace

Slay



[edit on 23-2-2010 by SLAYER69]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

So for all you froggy members out there falling for all the propaganda yelling jump, jump now, you might want to really consider “looking before you leap”

If you were to go through many of the threads predicting or talking about Israel or US attacking Iran, you would probably discover that those are the ones yelling "jump" the most. The funny part is that most are against any war against Iran,

As far as your study, I found one part interesting.

Pollack and others who participated in the day-long exercise late last year are quick to point out that war games are imperfect mirrors of reality. How Iran's notoriously opaque and fractious leadership would react in a real crisis is particularly hard to divine.

Does imperfect mean anything?

Yes, we could be in for a long costly drawn out war or we could end it in 100 hours. Either way, it is still speculation. It all depends on the strategy we use. Hopefully, not the ones we used for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even better, I hope we remain at peace.



[edit on 23-2-2010 by jam321]

reply to post by SLAYER69

You cant be serious?

Well, at least you didn't call me Shirley! Serious is my cousin. I am Protoplasmic Traveler autorictas principis (Rome's preeminent moral authority)

Sounds serious but they only picked me because since I have none I am intimately familiar with them all after having rejected them all.

How did you deduce anything like that from discussing how it was developed with your attempt to sway people away from the very real fact that you couldn't prove that they were used in Iraq as a bunker buster? Instead you try to hide that fact behind splitting hairs about them being used against troops.

Probably from this very vague and limited statement you made!

The Daisy cutters were developed to clear large amounts of vegetation so Helos could land. NOT for penetrating bunkers.

I hope this isn't an example of how today's discussion is headed.

You did say that right?

Anybody with half a brain who cares to really see can simply go back and look at the posts.

You mean like the above post which was the only one you didn't go back and copy and paste above, your very first one?

Don't worry I am sure you have a full brain just having half would end up terribly bruising it bouncing around in your head.

I'm headed out for an early dinner.

Well, it's nice to know its not a caffine problem, Sanka is really not that tasty!

Peace

Which is exactly what we will have in the event people actually heed the study and don't foolishly attack Iran!

Which is what the thread is about by the way!

That and the ever versatile Daisy Cutter even used as a bunker buster in the First Gulf War!

reply to post by jam321

As far as your study, I found one part interesting.


Pollack and others who participated in the day-long exercise late last year are quick to point out that war games are imperfect mirrors of reality. How Iran's notoriously opaque and fractious leadership would react in a real crisis is particularly hard to divine.


Does imperfect mean anything?

Yes, we could be in for a long costly drawn out war or we could end it in 100 hours. Either way, it is still speculation. It all depends on the strategy we use. Hopefully, not the ones we used for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even better, I hope we remain at peace.

The best laid plans of mice and men often turn out for naught, so there is in fact no telling what might happen should hostilities break out with Israel and Iran or the U.S. and Iran.

Yet I think the reality is that a surgical strike of Iran's nuclear facilities is not a gamble that the Powers That Be want to put on the table because of how easily the Persian Gulf Shipping lanes at the narrow Straights of Hormuz can be mined by Iran or even blocked with scuttled heaps and derelict boats.

We are in fact seeing for the most part all of the typical regime change propaganda we were treated to in the run up to Iraq and Afghanistan and since any provocation against Iran is likely to resutly in a distruption to Persian Gulf Shipping I would wager the gamble would only be worth taking if the Regime Change Fairy can pay a visit too!

You leave the old regime under your pillow before you go to bed and the Regime Change Fairy leaves you a new regime for it.

The people in the countries who do that never seem to happy with the new regime but hey...who cares when you can bankrupt the American people taxed into paying for it!

You are right though there is no telling how it will turn out, but I think its overly optimistic to expect better results than we have had in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Thanks for posting.

[edit on 23/2/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
That and the ever versatile Daisy Cutter even used as a bunker buster in the First Gulf War!

A Daisy Cutter as a bunker buster would be a terrible choice, all of its energy is expended up and out. A bunker buster needs to expend its energy down and out.

BTW, did anyone happen to catch the experience level of the folks who paticipated in this war game? I'm not surprised that it ended the way it did with that group.

reply to post by COOL HAND

BTW, did anyone happen to catch the experience level of the folks who paticipated in this war game? I'm not surprised that it ended the way it did with that group.

Yeah I know it was only run by a former top ranking CIA official and the prestigious Brookings Institute.

Rank amateurs!

And your credentials would be?

By the way it wasn’t my decision to use the Daisy Cutter as a Bunker Buster in the First Gulf War! I did though (true story) predicted the exact hour and day both the air war and ground war would start. Much to the chagrin of a Two Star General who bet me otherwise!

Thanks for posting!

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Jakes51
Is the war in Iraq really over, or is there a lull before the storm? As has been said before by others, it was a mistake to be so open and forward about combat troop withdrawals from Iraq by the current Administration.

Why? Is Saddam going to return? or the Baath party return to power?
I highly doubt it.

Yes, I think the days of the Baath party dominance are over. However, these former employees of the Baath party who are campaigning for office and have been barred from candidacy can turn that country into another blood bath and throw a few wrenches in the fragile thing called Iraqi Democracy. They have the weapons and resources laying around to give the Iranian backed Al Maliki government problems if they continue down this road.

Syrian harboring of Saddam Hussein loyalists and Saudi funding of Islamist insurgent groups.

The visit by Shi'ite Iyad Allawi, a former prime minister and head of the secular Iraqiya list, to Sunni Saudi Arabia on Saturday has reinforced some Iraqis' fears that foreign powers will use Iraq as an arena to settle sectarian scores.

www.reuters.com...

Fortunately, the US was able to broker a shaky reconciliation between the two since ending combat operations following the surge.

Baghdad will burn, the resistance leader warns.

"If we hear from the Americans they are not capable of supporting us . . . within six hours we are going to establish our groups to fight against the corrupt government," says the commander, a portly man with gold rings and lemon-colored robes who, perhaps understandably, spoke on condition of anonymity. "There will be a war in Baghdad."

. . . the dormant insurgent groups, with men, weapons and networks intact, are approaching their moment of truth. If their efforts to enter the mainstream fail, it appears almost inevitable that they will take up arms again, either after national elections early next year or sooner.

articles.latimes.com...

They(Shiite led Iraqi government) have no way to deal with the sectarian violence the US has dealt with since the invasion. So, if this situation is not resolved before the elections, then I see no reason why the Saudis or Syrians would be opposed to re-arming the Sunni insurgency. Things tend to get messy when one groups sees that their rights have been violated by a particular government.

Originally posted by Jakes51

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Now, the insurgents and terrorists wait, and until they feel comfortable enough to strike and launch another full-scale campaign. The elements from a few years ago are still there, but they just put down their AK and RPGs for baklava and tea. The political situation in the Iraqi government is dire, and right before the Parliamentary elections in March.

Are we going to discuss where exactly these insurgents are getting their training and supplies from? Cough, cough, Iran Cough, gag choke!

Yes, I am aware that the Iranian have been meddling in the political process over there, while arming insurgency groups to attack US forces. That is a cut and dry case considering all the evidence that has been uncovered over the years. I was really referring to the Sunni side of the insurgency and their support of the Arab nations Syria and Saudi Arabia.

Originally posted by Jakes51

Originally posted by SLAYER69
When the cats away, the mice will play. Apparently, that old adage is exactly what is taking shape in Iraq, and any inroads made by the US military mission and recent political reconciliation campaign between the Shiites and Sunni could be erased with this recent political flap. There is more as well regarding this political impasse.

As has been said already that issue goes back hundreds of years. We didn't create it by invading, we wont solve it while being there and it wont end after we are gone. The US invasion didn't create the sectarian conflict. We are not responsible to end it either.

Yes, we did not create the sectarian violence, but we have an obligation to ensure that it refrains from influencing government and that other nations in the area refrain from using it as way to fight proxy wars between each other. It will eventually lead to "balkanization," of the country. We are not responsible for it, but we are responsible for ensuring Iraq remains a stable and prosperous democracy. When the US leaves, I see the place going back to the dogs, as it was before they arrived. The writing is on the wall of where Iraq is heading once the withdrawal is complete.



[edit on 23-2-2010 by Jakes51]

The Dallas Morning News November 7, 2001 U.S. begins using 15,000-pound 'Daisy Cutter' bombs

The BLU-82 was first used in Vietnam during 1970, but 11 of the bombs were dropped on Iraqi troops during the 1991 Gulf War. The fury of the blast, and the fact that troops in trenches are not safe from it, can have a powerfully demoralizing effect. "The blast overpressure from any bomb is going to kill people if it's close enough," Pike said. "But the BLU-82 has about 10 times as much explosive power in it as a 2,000-pound bomb. "It'll put the fear of the Lord into anybody it doesn't kill."

www.globalsecurity.org...

As far as them being used as a bunker buster, I believe what they do is modify them and call them earthquake bombs. Just in case anyone was interested.

As far as the drama with attacking Iran, they have the stage set. The actors are in position and the public has been thoroughly prepared for their plans to go off without a hitch. It will be quite a performance!

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Yeah I know it was only run by a former top ranking CIA official and the prestigious Brookings Institute.

True, but how many of them have actually commanded large forces in the field before? I'll give you time to look that up.

Rank amateurs!

Amateurs yes, rank maybe.

And your credentials would be?

Available here on ATS if you want to look them up. Yours?

By the way it wasn’t my decision to use the Daisy Cutter as a Bunker Buster in the First Gulf War! I did though (true story) predicted the exact hour and day both the air war and ground war would start. Much to the chagrin of a Two Star General who bet me otherwise!

That's right, you had nothing to do with the decisions to use weapons during Desert Storm, which is why (unless you can prove it with evidence) I find it hard to believe that Daisy Cutters were used there and then when I know better.

Which General would that happen to be and what service was he/she in? The Salavation Army mabye?

[edit on 23/2/10 by COOL HAND]

Originally posted by jackflap
As far as them being used as a bunker buster, I believe what they do is modify them and call them earthquake bombs. Just in case anyone was interested.

No, to use them as a bunker buster you would have to reinforce the nose so that it has the power to penetrate into a bunker. Once inside the bunker all a Daisy Cutter could do is cause massive fire damage, and some overpressurization damage.

I think you folks are confused with the MOAB, which is a bunker buster and is in the same weight range as the Daisy Cutter.

reply to post by COOL HAND

Available here on ATS if you want to look them up. Yours?

Why would I want to look them up?

You are knocking the credentials of the people who conducted the study, it's a reasonable question to ask yours.

My but the warmongerers are testy tonight!



Actually truth be known starting with the OSS the CIA has a huge influence on the tactics employed in waging both covert and overt wars.

I suppose next you are going to tell us how Yale turns out intellectual midgets?

Here is what you don't have and that's a precedent of the U.S. ever winning a war in a hundred hours.

About our shortest engagement was the First Gulf War were many critics later felt we only set ourselves up to have to invade Iraq later down the road for having such limited objectives.

One need not be a general or in the CIA to understand military history or the tactics employed.

Explain what imaginary doctrine you imagine would conquer Iran in a 100 hours please.

Thanks!

reply to post by jumpingbeanz


Yeah, maybe he should look into Anti-Matter Bombs so that it would be the last bomb humanity would ever drop. However, theres no happy ending to an anti-matter reaction. Bye bye planet.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Why would I want to look them up?

You asked what my credentials were and I told you where to find them.

You then proceeded to ignore my questions about what your credentials are.

You are knocking the credentials of the people who conducted the study, it's a reasonable question to ask yours.

I did not knock their credentials, just their experience level. There is a difference.

Actually truth be known starting with the OSS the CIA has a huge influence on the tactics employed in waging both covert and overt wars.

Source? I have yet to read any doctrine manual that shows tactics, maneuvers, or best practices that were authored by the CIA.

The CIA provides intelligence and experience, they do not create tactics.

Here is what you don't have and that's a precedent of the U.S. ever winning a war in a hundred hours.

About our shortest engagement was the First Gulf War were many critics later felt we only set ourselves up to have to invade Iraq later down the road for having such limited objectives.

I could have sworn that the invasion of Panama took less time than that.

One need not be a general or in the CIA to understand military history or the tactics employed.

No, but it helps. One needs to have relevant experience if you are going to make it worthwhile.

Explain what imaginary doctrine you imagine would conquer Iran in a 100 hours please.

Doctrine does not conquer anything. The application of doctrine can lead to victory. Over reliance on doctrine can lead to defeat.

BTW, I never said Iran could be conquered in a hundred hours.



[edit on 23/2/10 by COOL HAND]

[edit on 23/2/10 by COOL HAND]

reply to post by COOL HAND

I think you folks are confused with the MOAB, which is a bunker buster and is in the same weight range as the Daisy Cutter.

Well, whatever we call it, I would like to have the money that it costs to produce and deploy just one of these. I could probably feed a small country with that kind of money. The killing systems that we have and are developing shouldn't be looked at for their effectiveness in light of the current economic situations that have befallen us. What are we going to do, bomb our way to economic recovery again?

I just think that as the drums of war beat ever harder, we shouldn't be heeding their call.

[edit on 23-2-2010 by jackflap]