Visit our website: HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK --------------------------------------------- MessageIt should be pointed out, that while Cruise missiles carry only a relatively small, 1000 lbs, *conventional* high explosive* warhead ( often with *depleted uranium* armouring), this is because the Cruise was originally designed to carry a *nuclear* warhead. It is not at all inconceivable that the madmen in the Whitehouse, could overcome this perceived "limited kill" capacity by rearming them with nuclear warheads (a simple matter of economics for the military's efficiency experts who's job it is to calculate the " maximum kill per dollar ratio") Statfor also points out that U.S. "needs" to save it's allegedly dwindling supply of Cruise missile for use against Iraq! Is Stratfor preparing the U.S public for another all out attack on Iraq too??? They are definitely right about the small number of (so called)"appropriate targets" for conventionally armed Cruise missiles in Afghanistan though. Unlike Yugoslavia, Afghanistan has relatively few hospitals, apartment blocks, schools, water and sewage treatment facilities andbus and train stations!! mart. ----- Original Message ----- From: Miroslav Antic To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; BALKAN ; NATO ; Siem-News ; SNN ; 'SNN-Yahoo' Cc: Carl_Zmozynski Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 7:19 PM Subject: Why cruise missiles won't work [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] Visit our website: HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK --------------------------------------------- STRATFOR GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE UPDATE Why cruise missiles won't work Stockpiles low, limited punch seen as problems in Afghanistan Editor's note: In partnership with Stratfor, the global intelligence company, WorldNetDaily publishes daily updates on international affairs provided by the respected private research and analysis firm. Look for fresh updates each afternoon, Monday through Friday. In addition, WorldNetDaily invites you to consider STRATFOR membership, entitling you to a wealth of international intelligence reports usually available only to top executives, scholars, academic institutions and press agencies. � 2001 WorldNetDaily.com Pakistan's stability as a U.S. ally in a war on terrorism is far from assured. This makes cruise missile very appealing for U.S. defense planners looking at ways to strike Afghanistan - but Afghanistan provides few convenient targets. The United States must either use up most of its cruise missiles in the hopes of hitting a few targets or settle for a symbolic gesture. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf on Sept. 13 offered "full cooperation" to Washington in its war against terrorism. Despite Musharraf's declaration, it is unclear if the Pakistani government can maintain control over its people, let alone provide the United States with a secure location from which to launch air strikes or Special Forces operations. This uncertainty will cause U.S. defense planners to take a second look at a cruise missile strike on Afghanistan. But accomplishing its mission in Afghanistan would require nearly all the cruise missiles in the United States arsenal - making Washington unlikely to choose this option. The United States is looking increasingly likely to strike Afghanistan for harboring Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect in this week's terrorist attacks on the United States. But to do so, cooperation with Pakistan will be the key. The United States has, with reason, decided to hold Saudi militant Osama bin Laden responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. Since Afghanistan's ruling Taliban has provided bin Laden with at least refuge, it follows that the United States will hold the Afghani government responsible as well. Though cruise missiles are accurate, they pack relatively little punch. An effective strike on Afghanistan would require hundreds of missiles. Although the U.S. military has a large inventory, the replacement rate for cruise missiles is extremely slow. Thus, the United States must hold a substantial number in reserve to counter other potential threats, such as Iraq. In sum, a massive cruise missile strike on Afghanistan would be foolhardy, but a limited strike would be merely symbolic. That may not stop Washington from launching such a strike, but it will not intimidate the Taliban. The United States currently has two aircraft carrier battle groups - and hundreds of Tomahawk missiles - within striking distance of Afghanistan. The USS Enterprise has been stopped in the Indian Ocean en route back to the United States, and the USS Carl Vinson is on duty in the Persian Gulf. The carriers' combined battle groups include more than a dozen escort missile-carrying surface ships and submarines. Two more carrier groups may be on the way. According to Fox News, the aircraft carrier USS Teddy Roosevelt is making its way to join the Enterprise and Vinson. And the USS Kitty Hawk is currently off Okinawa, according to Japan's Yomiuri Shimbun. It could be within striking distance in less than six days. The number of Tomahawk missiles each battle group carries is classified, but it can range from 80 - the number used by one battle group to attack Osama bin Laden's training camps in 1998 - to 400, according to the Federation of American Scientists. In addition to naval ships and submarines, the U.S. Air Force could fire air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs) from B-52 bombers stationed on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. The difficulty is that ALCMs have a shorter range than Tomahawks and would need to be launched from Indian airspace in order to reach the heart of Afghanistan. But all these missiles offer relatively limited firepower. A Tomahawk carries a 1,000-pound warhead, relatively little in this day and age. An ALCM will carry a warhead weighing either 1,500 pounds or 3,000 pounds, according to the Federation of American Scientists, but the United States has far fewer of those. If Washington launches a cruise missile attack, it would likely target Afghanistan's ruling Taliban as much as Osama bin Laden's terrorist infrastructure. This would serve partly as a warning to other nations that harbor terrorists. Targeting terrorist infrastructure differs somewhat from conventional warfare. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Fox News that although terrorist organizations do not have conventional targets, such as armies and navies, "some of the countries that are harboring terrorist networks do, in fact, have high-value targets." Taliban society is clan-based and unindustrialized, but the group maintains scattered fuel and arms depots, military encampments, and a few buildings such as the intelligence ministry. But reports suggest most of the major buildings in Kabul have already been evacuated. The effectiveness of a cruise missile strike is questionable. The Afghani people have been hardened by more than 20 years of near-constant war. During the Kosovo war, the Serbs absorbed months of bombing - including about 560 cruise missiles - despite the fact that their modern, industrialized society contained multiple, vulnerable high-value targets that included power grids, phone systems and military bases. To have any real effect, the United States would need to inundate Afghanistan with cruise missiles, firing off hundreds in hopes of hitting a few dozen valuable targets. But the United States cannot simply empty its store of 2,000 Tomahawks and 200 to 250 ALCMs. Missile replacement rates are far too slow, especially since defense contractors like Boeing and Raytheon have been gearing up for the initial production of next-generation cruise missiles. The United States needs to maintain a missile reserve in case it wants to take further action against Afghanistan or against a different enemy such as Iraq. During Operation Desert Fox, the United States used more than 400 cruise missiles in four days - more than were used during the entire Persian Gulf War. The Kosovo campaign started briskly as well, with 160 strikes in the first week, but then slowed to about 440 strikes over 70 days as cruise missiles became a supplement to NATO air forces. Unlike the Afghan scenario, both of these were limited campaigns directed against discrete, vulnerable targets. Both cases illustrate high numbers of cruise missile used in a relatively short time. Simply put, the United States cannot inflict significant damage on Afghanistan without depleting one of its most valuable weapons systems. At best, Washington could "spin" a cruise missile strike as the first battle of a long campaign. Get a discounted annual STRATFOR membership. ------------------------------------------------- This Discussion List is the follow-up for the old stopnato @listbot.com that has been shut down ------------------------------------------------- This Discussion List is the follow-up for the old stopnato @listbot.com that has been shut down ==^================================================================ EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9spWA Or send an email To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This email was sent to: [email protected] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
