Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (8289)	10/30/2001 8:20:33 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Well Raymond... The 101st Airmobile Division launched an ENTIRE BRIGADE deep behind Iraqi lines by helicopter air assault during the opening hours of Desert Storm's ground phase. Seems to me if they can airlift several thousand men, Hummers, artillery pieces, fuel and ammunition in one lift, then we can probably manage the same in Afghanistan, where airmobile operations the only true manner in which to vertically envelop the enemy. As for armor, it will be useful for rapid reaction and perimeter support (thermal imagery and long range direct fire). And although quite an expensive proposition, there is no piece of military equipment we possess that can't be lifted in via C-17, including the M-1.... one tank per flight. Hawk

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (8289)	10/30/2001 11:37:06 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Raymond Duray; Re: "Sort of like the British garrison force from 1839-42?" British were conquering Christians, the Turks would be nation building fellow Islamics. Re: "As far as our sending in the 101st or the 3rd Divisions, I think you can put that one to rest. Neither force has the right equipment for the terrain in Afghanistan. The Gulf War as gift for our military. ..." The real reason that everyone is glad that Bush is in the White House instead of Clinton is that it is utterly impossible for someone who "loathes the military" to understand what its capabilities are. Of course tanks are useful in Afghanistan. If they were useless, then why does the Taliban have so many of them? Reports on the military web sites (from before this war) say that in Afghanistan (and any mountainous country) mobile (or armored) artillery is more useful than tanks. For example, see: fas.org fas.org fas.org fas.org (1) The US military is designed to be effective in cities. To have ignored city warfare would have been a big time oversight, since *every major war has used cities as defensive structures. (2) The US military is designed to fight in the mountains. They even have a division devoted just to that, the 10th Mountain Division. To have ignored mountain warfare would have been a big time oversight, since every major war has been fought in mountains* as well as on the plains, in the air, and on the water. (3) There are sections of Afghanistan that are considerably less mountainous than parts of Germany or Korea, for instance, and you know that the US military still considers Korea as a potential hot spot: earthrise.earthkam.ucsd.edu Re: "The other consideration that you might want to cogitate on is how in the world you'd get the heavy divisions into Afghanistan?" This is a reasonable concern. My guess is that the most convenient thing would be to move them through Pakistan. The other possibility would be from the north. But I'm not going to worry about it, I can hardly be expected to solve all the military's problems for them. If you push me into it, I might go do the research, but my guess is that if the Russians can get into Afghanistan with us trying to keep them out, then we can get in there with them helping us in. -- Carl