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: carranza2 who wrote (22291)	3/26/2002 7:31:48 PM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 281500

I don't know about the actual numbers of armored divisions that would be required, particularly as Saddam's army has probably not recovered in any substantial way from the Gulf War. Armor would be essential in the occupation of urban areas and other populated areas, where air support is restricted by the need to reduce civilian casualties. Whatever armored assets Saddam has retained would probably be deployed in populated areas to reduce vulnerability to air attack. Mobility would be a key factor in an invasion, and even a force with a lower armored component than that used in Desert Storm would require sealift. Regardless of armor intensity, this is not a force that is going to be deployed very quickly. Saddam would clearly use WMDs against US land troops and/or Israel once the noose tightened around him. We do not know what he's got or how effectively he can deploy what he's got (a major issue). Caution would dictate that we assume the worst, though I can't help suspecting that the WMD capacity may be getting a wee bit of exaggeration. The administration clearly wants to invade, and it would be only natural for them to build up the strongest possible base of justification.