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: michael97123 who wrote (196026)	8/8/2006 9:57:45 AM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I hope the arabs dont get to full of themselves as the Jews did in 67. They may be in for an assymetric shock of the alternate kind. Again i hope not and i hope this spate of violence leads to peace by creating the prereq on the arab side of having fought israel bravely. IIRC, in either the 67 or 73 war, Israel praised Iraqi units for fighting well. Thats a touch that is largely lacking now from the ME, and one of the major problems both sides have: lack of respect for the other side.

To: michael97123 who wrote (196026)	8/8/2006 2:27:53 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi michael97123; Re: "If Israel had the equivalent of B 52s, i doubt that hizbolla could maintain those dug in positions." The very long history of area bombing from the air is that Air Force officers and civilians always always always overestimate the effect of aerial bombardment. You're reading in the papers about Hezbollah positions dug 25 feet underground. How much of a bomb does it take to destroy such a position? And how close does the bomb have to land? And how much land is there? When you integrate over these factors, you find that it requires a hell of a lot of bombs. Killing civilians with airpower is easy. Killing a well dug-in enemy is not. Some of the commentators in Israel are comparing the Hezbollah defenses to the Japanese island defenses of World War II. If you recall the history of those islands, some of them were blasted with battleships but there were always plenty of survivors shooting back at our troops. And a battleship is the most efficient system for moving high explosives to an enemy that has ever been developed. Of course a big difference between the island hopping campaign and Lebanon is that during much of the Pacific War the US had control of the seas and could prevent Japanese reinforcement and supply. Since the hostilities in Lebanon is "land war", this advantage does not exist for the Israelis. -- Carl