My CA Bn supported the 24th all the way untill one day before it was reflagged the 3rd ID.  Outstanding division back then as now.

soylent_green,

The only parasites I liked out there was the Hurricane.  Got drunk off my ass there and continued to march.  Does anyone know if it is still there?

God speed, and God bless.

Bilster

For Trickshot and Emoto:  Why are we going into Iraq?  It's actually got nothing to do with 9/11.

[lecture mode]

In 1991, the UN ceased military operations against Iraq under Operation DESERT STORM as long as Iraq A) withdrew from Kuwait; B) made a complete disclosure of its weapons of mass destruction program, to include nuclear, biological, and chemical development; C) submitted to verification inspections; and D) destroyed said programs immediately.  

Since then, Iraq has repeatedly--I say again, REPEATEDLY--ignored or blatantly disregarded the conditions imposed on them by the UN.  Remember, Iraq was the loser, and the winner sets the terms.

In the last couple of months, all the other instruments of power (diplomatic, economic, and informational) have failed to convince Saddam that the UN is serious about their resolution.  So, under the latest UN resolution (see text here [url]http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text [/url])
the members of the UN, under the leadership of the US (since we're the only ones with the military might to do the job) will ENFORCE the internationally sanctioned terms which Iraq refuses to comply with.  

Short version--Saddam has ignored the rules, now he's being punished for it.  We (the US) as the lead dog for the UN, have given Iraq plenty of notice--obey, or get smoked.  Saddam chose the smoking section.

As for nukes, I've dealt with nuclear command and control issues for quite some time, so here's my 65.032 Iraqi Dinari ($.02 at current exchange rate):

If used at all (which I doubt, for a variety of political and strategic reasons), will be delivered by USAF planes, most likely B2s.  You need the positive control of a manned platform, the ability to be recalled at the very last second (which you don't have with a Tomohawk or ICBM), and the accuracy required of having a man on the trigger, rather than a computer which can fail in flight.

To use a nuclear weapon, one of two conditions must be met--either the nation is under direct attack, in which case the President or Secretary of Defense may authorize a response in kind, or the President, after recieving an assenting vote of 2/3rds of Congress, may direct the execution of nuclear weapons in a first-strike attack. Like that's going to happen!

Either way, the President and Secretary of Defense (formerly known as the National Command Authority) are the sole authority for the execution and termination of nuclear weapons, BY LAW. Some general may make the decision for the employment (i.e. when and where) of nuclear weapons, but the basic yes/no question will be signed by someone named George or Donald.

The theater commander Hackworth is talking about is the Central Command commander, Gen Franks.  As the regional combatant commander (formerly known as CINC), he's the one to ask for nukes in his theater.  Not a two-star, but a four-star.  He may ask, but it's up to the President to give the go-ahead, and Franks better have a damn good plan explaining exactly when, where, and under what conditions to use nukes, and what national objectives will be achieved by using them.  Anything short of that will probably be denied.

[/lecture mode]

Limaxray:

Iraq was ignoring the UN resolutions well before Sept. 11th 2001. Bush made only token efforts to remedy the situation back then. The primary reason it has suddenly become so important is the undeniable threat and truth that we have people in this world that would not hesitate to use any weapons Hussein can sell them.

Also, COL Hackworth clearly stated "2-star" - were you watching that Fox news report? I am not saying that what he said is true - but that is what he said, and that is the basis for this discussion.

Adam

Hmmmm....since we are flinging the tacnuke scenario around:

What would happen if we did launch an arty nuke or whatever, and it failed to detonate? Would we be assisting terrorism by lobbing a good size chunk of nuclear technology into Sadaams lap?

On the other hand, we need to blast his regime out of the water. And we are going to do so. I was a bit skeptical at first, then I thought of thousands of Americans dying of nuclear after affects. My mind was changed. Besides, the Iraqi military knows it will get it's ass kicked. "War" in the classical sense, is up to them. Hopefully, they reach over and rip off their buddies underwear and wave it in the air just as fast as last time. I think it may be quite more violent this time, as we actually killed off these current peoples dad's last time around. The whole psychology of it is different.  Not to mention, we were never involved with urban fighting nor the truly die-hard supporters of the turd in question. If we have to fight off a good size chunk of fanatical idiots in the streets of Baghdad, only a fool will get off thinking it will come off clean as the last war.

Casualty rates for the attackers in urban combat generally exceed 85%. (that does not mean 85% dead, just wounded and dead.) I see no reason to believe this figure will magically drop to 0% because we wish it.

LtCol. Hackworth was talking out of his ass, plain and simple.

God bless them!  One, and all!

I pray our commanders have enough foresight not to engage ground forces in any major city, but to use our technical and material advantages out in the open terrain.  We can cut off the cities and provide medical care, food, water, and shelter to everyone who comes out unarmed.  Starve the diehards out and I bet the Iraqis will take care of Saddam for us.

Godspeed to those who defend the freedoms that I cherish. God bless you and your families for your duty, honor, and sacrifice. May you go in and finish the job and return safely to your proud country and anxious families. I ,for one, am eternally greatfull for your duty to this country and its citizens. I salute all of the men and women who serve(d) their country.

[USA]

My guess is that we'd immediately lob another one in the same general direction. None of Saddam's cronies will be out on a scavenger hunt after one of those puppies goes off!

I think that these are nuc capable:
http://immc.redstone.army.mil/immcpublic/rd/net/atacms.html

not standard config tho.

[-=(_)=-]

GOD speed

what the hell. nuke Baghdad already. the old WW2 mushroom cloud footage is getting a bit grainy in my opinion.

 I don't know about this.  The first time I heard Hackworth speak of this very subject was over 2 months ago on the Micheal Reagan radio talk-show. His words at the time were, " I have been talking with Generals at the 2-star level and they have told me that they have been authorized to use nuclear weapons in the event the Iraqi's use Weapons of Mass Destruction."

That speaks to both the Major Generals options and also includes the OK by NCA?? Who knows for sure but the President and the Generals staffs,
I am can't say for sure one way or another. I am inclined to believe Hackworth on this and for these reasons.

American AIRLAND BATTLE DOCTRINE calls
for a combined arms offensive of an incredibly high tempo 24 hours a day 7 days a week. We saw this during the gulf war. It would be wise in the development of any plan to include all possibly contigencies along the lines of WMD's before they are REALLY needed , ie before WMD's are actually used. It would be foolish to slow down operational speed to wait for NCA approval at the time it is needed. Also it would be foolish to not have where and how those nuclear weapons are to be used not laid out within some sort of framework before they are actually called for. For these reasons I think that Hackworths story is not only good PSY-OPS but also factual.

Agreed.  Personally, I think that only after 9/11 did Bush have both the international backing and the right kind of intelligence to scare enough sh!t out of the UN members to get them to agree to do something about it.



Did not see the Fox news report, but after five years as an ICBM missile launch officer (think War Games, but for real) and still active duty in the space and missile career field, I know of which I speak.  While a nuclear weapon may be used in a tactical sense, no way would execution authority be delegated below the theater CINC (Gen Franks) level. While I respect Col Hackworth (and love to read his column) he's off base on this one.

wow, good info.  looking forward to the pics. [:)]

[img]http://html2.free.fr/canons/canatomi/tiratom.jpg[/img]

The minute Hackworth went on FoxNews with his claim Pentagon officials immediately wanted it broadcast that such claims were false. If you're using psy-ops, you use the ol' "cannot confirm nor deny."

Air-Land battle worked well enough the last time without the use of nukes. It will work even better this time without the use of nukes.

The decision to use a tactical nuclear weapon is no longer a military one. It is most definitely a political decision. No two-star is going to make the call that will make us lose all support in the region and world condemnation.

Ask for Hackworth and the truth, ask him about his Ranger tab sometime.

What if we send in some S/F and they plant one just close enough to Baghdad that it destroys the city, then we blame it on Saddam's nuke program?

A few here have made statements like this. Do you think that if Sodamn Insane uses any WMD, we will not retaliate in kind?

Well [b]Thank You[/b]MrRaley for your service.

The Tomahawk was designed as a nuclear cruise missile. Only later were conventional warheads added. They can be fired from subs, ships and even B-52s. The B2 bomber was also designed to deploy nukes to Soviet cities without being seen by radar.

Note the total absence of any B2s being deployed to the Gulf, yet they flew mission in the 4th world Afghanistan. Hmmm, it's as if they're holding them back for some other mission...

Anybody like this idea?

Actually, they keep them in Missouri because of maintenance issues, not holding them in reserve.  The maintenance tail is too specialized to move anywhere else.  Plus, the way they take care of the thing is still close-hold; if they move to Saudi, for example, others can see the equipment used to keep them flying and figure out how the stealth stuff works.

Bottom line, it's easier for the B2s to make 40-hr round trip missions than to move them somewhere else and risk compromise of stealth technology.

I was under the impression that could just as easily be flown if based at those island bases that house our other big bombers (B-52, B1, etc). I know they'd never be deployed from any country's airfields.

[url]http://hackworth.com/CBS_1.html[/url]
Check that if you're curious about hackworth's ranger tab and decorations.

I find it hilarious that it happened to be Dan Rather from CBS.. isn't he the one who claimed to be a Marine ;) ;)

True.  During Operation Enduring Freedom, the B2s flew from Whiteman AFB to Afghanistan, dropped their bombs, then flew to Diego Garcia for refueling and crew rest before heading home.  They eventually changed that decision to round-trip flights because once you land any airplane there are maintenance checks and crew rest issues that HAVE to be addressed; it's easier to put two crews on board that switch off flying and do one mission than two.

They can fly out of pretty much anywhere a B-52 can; it's trying to keep our secrets that's the tricky part!

(On Topic) God-speed, good luck.

(Off-Topic) Just my .02 as armchair general: If we didnt allow MacArthur (our last [b]5[/b] star general) to use nukes when he wanted to, then I seriously doubt that there will be any use of nukes of any yield unless somebody else uses one first.  If we didn't trust a 5-star to use good judgement, then how are we going to allow a measly 2-star (In comparison to 5) to have the good judgement to use one or three of them?

Diego Garcia...B-2 Shelter System [B2SS]
Extra Large Deployable Aircraft Hangar Systems
[img]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/images/diego-garcia-ims1.jpg[/img]

Issue Date: January 06, 2003

Florida to fire Tomahawks
Cruise-missile conversion will be tested in exercise

By Christopher Munsey
Times staff writer

They’ve been launched from battleships, cruisers, destroyers, fast-attack submarines and aircraft — but for the first time ever, Tomahawk cruise missiles soon will be fired from a ballistic-missile submarine.
The Florida, one of four SSBNs scheduled for conversion to an SSGN cruise-missile-firing and special-operations platform, will test-fire two Tomahawks in January as part of a series of demonstrations and experiments called Giant Shadow.

Navy officials want to transform the immense Florida and three of its sister ships into a new kind of submarine — one that can sneak in close to an enemy shore, launch SEALs and unmanned vehicles to sniff out and confirm a threat, and then unleash a torrent of cruise missiles to destroy it.

Turning that vision into a reality requires Navy officials to demonstrate that Tomahawks can be launched successfully from boomers. And doing that means solving some new problems.

The Florida formerly carried 24 Trident missiles in two dozen massive launching tubes, seven feet in diameter and more than 40 feet tall.

Under the SSGN concept, 22 of those tubes now will be used to house as many as seven cruise missiles each.

A single Trident missile weighs about 130,000 pounds. Each Tomahawk, by contrast, weighs about 3,200 pounds.

Los Angeles-class fast-attack submarines have been launching Tomahawks for many years. Early versions of the submarines ejected the missiles from torpedo tubes; the improved “SSN-688i” version of the class carries Tomahawks singly in 12 tubes close to the bow, forward of the submarine’s sail.

But on a boomer, the launch tubes are located in the hull behind the sail. Because of that, determining how water flowing around the submarine’s sail affects the launching of a Tomahawk will be an important part of the test, said Capt. William Toti, assistant chief of staff for requirements for Commander, Naval Submarine Forces.

All of the nuclear-tipped Trident missiles have been removed from the Florida. A temporary launch tube for the Tomahawks was installed recently at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Ga.

The Navy plans to convert four Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarines into stealthy platforms for cruise missiles and special-operations forces by 2007. The first refueling and conversion job, on the submarine Ohio, began this fall at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Wash. Two more subs are to begin their refueling and conversion overhauls in fiscal 2004.

The 16,000-ton Ohio-class submarines have a lot of room to add that stuff. If the technology will work and money can be budgeted, unmanned underwater and aerial vehicles will be added to the SSGNs’ capabilities, officials said.

Modernizing computer equipment aboard the Florida will free up space for as many as 66 SEALs and special-operations forces, Duryea said. Space will be made for a command center, more fitness equipment and possibly even an indoor firing range with laser simulators for the SEALs to keep their shooting skills honed.

Two tubes not loaded with cruise missiles will be used for access to a mini-submarine called the Advanced SEAL Delivery System riding on the submarine’s hull, a dry-dock shelter and storage for other SEAL equipment.

The capability to put more SEALs ashore, gather more intelligence and strike harder from the sea without warning will make the SSGN a potent weapon against future terrorist threats, Toti said.

Giant Shadow

Giant Shadow will be preceded by the launch of two Tomahawks and one instrument package from the submarine in the Caribbean Sea onto a range at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.

After that technical demonstration is completed, the Florida will play out a scenario in which a report is received that a chemical plant in a hostile country is manufacturing some type of chemical weapon. The submarine will collect intelligence to determine whether the report is true, and prepare to eliminate the plant if ordered.

As part of intelligence-gathering, the submarine will launch an unmanned underwater vehicle called the Seahorse II from one of its missile-launching tubes.

The 28-foot-long, five-ton, battery-powered UUV will cruise on a preprogrammed path close to the beach, mapping out the location of “mines” for the SEALs.

The SEALs then will go ashore by small boat, find the “factory” and plant monitoring devices.

The Giant Shadow exercise also will test an unmanned aerial vehicle. Launched from a nearby ship, ScanEagle, a small, four-foot-long UAV with a 10-foot wingspan, will feed information to the submarine from monitoring devices.

Finally, the Florida will simulate a Tomahawk launch and “destroy” the chemical plant.

Other assets participating in Giant Shadow include the Military Sealift Command’s oceanographic survey ship Mary Sears, chartered motor vessel Dolores Chouest and a modified NP-3C aircraft called Hairy Buffalo.

‘SSGN 728’

Commissioned in 1983, the Florida returned from its last deployment as a ballistic-missile submarine in October. It was one of four SSBNs scheduled to be decommissioned before the SSGN conversion was funded.

Formerly home-ported in Bangor, Wash., the submarine now calls Norfolk, Va., home. A 32-month nuclear refueling and conversion process at Norfolk Naval Shipyard is to begin in August.