New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

gisterme - 06:43pm Mar 14, 2003 EST (# 9944 of 9979)

If there is a war in Iraq, here's how it might go:

Coalition air strikes and land invasion begin simultaneously. Saddam orders Iraqi oil fields fired. The order is largely ignored as are orders to use WMD.

Iraqi field armies except in Baghdad and Tekrit surreneder en masse and largely intact. They turn over their WMD without using them. There is no need for large-scale destruction of Iraqi infrastructure.

All of Iraq is very quickly under coalition control except Baghdad and Tikrit. Commanders and soldiers of surrendered Iraqi armies renounce their oaths of allegience to Saddam because those oaths were sworn under duress. Their honor is spared. Those Iraqi forces join the coalition under its command.

Tikrit falls with little bloodshed. Republican guards there quickly surrender once they're surrounded and cut off. All the rest of liberated Iraq except Baghdad continues it's life with little immediate change except for much rejoicing. There's little damage except to military facilities in most areas.

Baghdad is intially surrounded and isolated by coaltion forces. There is a mass exodus of civilians from there. Escaping civilians are carefully screened, then taken care of.

After a little time, the seige of Baghdad is largely taken over by Iraqi field armies who, being assured they are free from Saddam, have changed sides. Coalition forces provide air cover and other support for the seige. Other than that, the Iraquis will do the bulk of the work themselves. There's little bombing of Baghdad after the first few days nor is there much street fighting there.

Even during the time of the seige of Baghdad, which lasts a while, the rest of Iraq will be reorganizing and beginning to form its own new transitional government under the aegis of the "coalition of the willing", not the UN.

Saddam, finding himself trapped in Baghdad, threatens the lives of his own civilians there if they refuse to stay. They'll leave anyway because the promise of safety is far more powerful than the fear of Saddam. They will be aware of what has happened in the rest of Iraq. Temporary housing and provision for the refugees is provided in other Iraqi cities by international releif services financed largely by non-combatant coalition partners.

Saddam slaughters the European "human sheilds" in Baghdad (some personally) and then orders his own citizens who are trying to leave to be shot. When Saddam gives the order to slaugher Iraqis fleeing Baghdad, Republican Guards there turn on him. They surrender Baghdad and then hand Saddam and his sons over to the newly formed Iraqi transitional government. Most of the Republican Guard do not murder their own people for Saddam's sake. Their honor is largely spared as well.

Saddam and his sons wind up dead or in the Hague after interrogation by Iraqi and coaliton officers. Many Baath pary leaders suffer the same fate with some being executed by Iraqis, others tried for crimes against humanity. Iraq has been liberated with remarkably little bloodshed and physical damage.

A lot of things will be learned in the aftermath of Iraq's liberation. The UN will have largely excluded itself from having much influence in the re-organization of Iraq because of its disingenuous dithering beforehand. The keys to destroying terrorist networks world-wide will be found. The "new" Iraqi government will show the world what a liar and tyrant Saddam was. All WMD will be presented to and destroyed by coalition and Iraqi forces.

Chirac's politcal career will end in disgrace and the UN in its present form will ultimately not survive. It will go the way of the league of nations.

A new international body will eventually be formed.

rshow55 - 06:51pm Mar 14, 2003 EST (# 9945 of 9979)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

A lot of steps. In war, a lot of things "diverge a little bit" from predictions. Though your plan sounds like a good plan.

The whole thing would be much easier if Saddam was dead, the US knew it, and could prove it.

Also, if Saddam was dead, and the US knew it and could prove it - it would recast the whole debate at the UN - including the debate with Chirac.

As for the United Nations going under - I think that's far fetched. Nor would Chirac's political career end in disgrace -- most of Europe would watch the doings in Iraq, even if they went exactly as you describe them - with a good deal of concern.

I don't think Blair's career could possibly survive repudiation of the UN - nor could any of the US alliances with "the Old Europe."

(34 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense