Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: No options in the oilfields but chemical warfare?
Message-ID: <1990Oct2.234946.23110@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 2 Oct 90 23:49:46 GMT
References: <1990Sep28.014351.13736@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military-request@att.att.com
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 27
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold)
> From: HARPER%ccvax.ucd.ie@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU
> Last weekend Hussein was reported by the Iraqi news agency as having
> stated that in the event of an attack several oilfields would be destroyed.
>  ... A conventional war fought in the oilfields
> could cause so much damage to plant . . . two options emerge 
> (a) permit the annexation of Kuwait . . . (b) nerve gas

There are many other reasonable options, the most likely of which 
is the use of special operations forces and airborne assault to minimize
damage to critical facilities.

Destroying oil fields is not all that easy, and would take time for
Iraqi forces to do a thorough job (see history of raids on Rumanian
oil fields).  So if one of your objectives is to preserve the oil
fields in Kuwait, a pre-emptive surprise attack with the oil fields
as early objectives would limit damage.

However, special and airborne ops tend to have high casualty rates.

Consider, also, that anti-personnel bombs (CBUs, mines) in an oil field
will cause significant damage to personnel, but little damage to plant
and equipment (as opposed to iron bombs).  CBUs with delay fusing can 
deny access (partially) to an enemy, and at least slow them down while
they clear the area.  Troops really hate mines!