Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: darragh@maths.tcd.ie (Darragh J. Delany)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: No options in the oilfields but chemical warfare?
Message-ID: <1990Oct8.220903.7373@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 8 Oct 90 22:09:03 GMT
References: <1990Sep28.014351.13736@cbnews.att.com> <1990Oct2.234929.23035@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military-request@att.att.com
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Lines: 21
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: darragh@maths.tcd.ie (Darragh J. Delany)
In article <1990Oct2.234929.23035@cbnews.att.com> rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie writes:
>Sounds pretty far-fetched to me. For one thing Iraq and Kuwait don't contribute
>enough of the world's oil supply to cause a major world recession even if
>supplies from both countries were totally cut off (which they are right now and
>we haven't seen a major world recession). (Saudi Arabia does, which was why
>there was such a panic when it looked like Hussein was going to invade it).

WRONG! The world economy and particularly the local economy are feeling the
pinch at the moment and the oil production of Iraq&Kuwait combined is
roughly equal to that of Saudi, (about 10% each!). Anyway this is WAAYY 
outside the scope of this group...

>Second, destruction of plant is irrelevant - given a few months the whole lot
>could be rebuilt for a fraction of the cost of the military action. 

I think not missiles are cheaper and faster moving than refineries.

Darragh.