Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military
From: graham!chris@uunet.UU.NET (Chris Graham)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: The Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait.
Keywords: iraq, kuwait, navy, blockade
Message-ID: <1990Aug5.042643.28793@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 5 Aug 90 04:26:43 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Followup-To: sci.military
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 40
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: graham!chris@uunet.UU.NET (Chris Graham)

  I've been thinking about the military options available to the US for
responding to the recent invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and I'm interested
in what other people think the best options might be.  My guess is that
a naval blockade might be the most cost effective response.
 
  It seems that airpower can be brought to bear faster than any other
vehicles of destruction and it can be used to destroy the Iraqi airforce
and Navy.  Even in absense of friendly bases, it seems that the US Navy
can project enough airpower to accomplish this objective by using massed
aircraft carriers.
 
  Once Iraq is denuded of it's power to fight on the sea and in the air,
it should be a simple matter to enforce a total and strangling blockade.
It is said that Hussein's rule is not secure and so the economic results of
such a blockade might prove a danger to his administration.  Moreover, Iraq
is bounded by countries which are hostile to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
Consequently, a naval blockade might prove effective in cutting out all
trade, including the export of oil.
 
  What do people out there think of this?

--

Thought of the day:

   Mythology, n.:  

     The body of a primitive people's beliefs concerning its
   orgin, early history, heroes, deities and so forth, as distinguished
   from the true accounts which it invents later
      -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"


BITnet : lsuc!graham!chris@utorgpu
uucp   : ...!uunet!lsuc!graham!chris
FidoNet: Chris ON 1:250/716