Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military
From: ut-emx!osmigo@emx.utexas.edu (rn)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Iraq VS The rest of the world
Message-ID: <1990Aug21.025059.1728@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 21 Aug 90 02:50:59 GMT
References: <1990Aug14.034130.9752@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: Speech Communication UT Austin
Lines: 26
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: ut-emx!osmigo@emx.utexas.edu (rn)

>It seems that although Iraqi has overwhelming strength with regards to
>land-based troops (1 million, of which only 500,000 are regulars), their

With all this talk about Iraqi's veritable "sea of troops," I'm wondering
just what kind of tactics we would employ against massive numbers of
Iraqi infantry personnel in that environment (i.e., flat and open). How 
would one deal with, say, 50,000 attacking troops deployed in a flat, empty,
featureless terrain?

It seems logical that we would try to keep U.S. infantry losses to a minimum,
and rely more on air, artillery, and missle weapons. Would we spray them
with Vulcan miniguns? Carpet-bomb them with B52's? Heave cluster bombs at
them? 

Considering that Iraq favors human-wave assaults, and assuming that an above
article is correct in stating that Iraqi troops aren't issued protective
chemical warfare suits, the most effective (and certainly the safest)
response would be to use chemical weapons. Obviously, this runs into 
ethical and political ramifications, though. But still......

Ron Morgan
osmigo@emx.utexas.edu