Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!apple!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: eplrx7!janesdc@uunet.UU.NET
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Stealth Boats
Message-ID: <1991Mar28.033308.3921@amd.com>
Date: 27 Mar 91 20:23:27 GMT
References: <1991Mar27.051519.23104@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: DuPont Engineering Physics Laboratory
Lines: 36
Approved: military@amd.com



From: eplrx7!janesdc@uunet.UU.NET

>From: x35147d3@usma8.usma.edu (Bergman Charles CDT)
>Why waste your time with surface boats?
>I once heard from a submariner, "There are only two types of ships;
>                                  submarines and targets!"

While I do not doubt that if Saddam had had submarines the war would have
been a bit longer and bloodier, I doubt they would have been the cure-all
for his military problems that the above poster thinks. Consider:

	o The extreme shallow water in most of the Persian Gulf. This would
	  make finding the subs a fairly simple task, no matter how  quiet they
	  were.
	
	o The fact that there would be no operating base that they could safely
	  return to after the hostilities began.
	  
	o There is a relatively large segment of the US Navy, both surface and
	  submarine dedicated to the finding and destruction of enemy
	  submarines.  There is no reason to believe that these individuals
	  would have performed their jobs any worse than the other segments of
	  the coalition military did.

	o The submarine force in all likelihood would have been as ineptly led
	  as the rest of Iraq's military.

Against a more capable opponent, it is possible that submarines could have
inflicted severe losses on the US Navy, it is equally possible that a more
capable opponent could have inflicted unacceptable causualties on our
ground forces with chemical or biological agents, or even just plain
artillery.  There are no guaranteed victories in warfare.

Dave