The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Meaning of threatened

-----Original Message-----
From: E Herring, Department of Politics <>
To: Robin Green <>
Cc: '' <>
Date: May 4, 1999 7:02 AM
Subject: Meaning of threatened

Robin asked:

On Sat, 1 May 1999 11:22:40 +0100 (BST) Robin Green
<> wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Harriet Griffin wrote:
> > APRIL 29, 17:18 EDT
> > Iraq Says 24 Injured in Raids
> >
> > The U.S. military said its warplanes attacked Iraqi air defense sites
> > Thursday in the northern no-fly zone after being threatened by radar and
> > fired upon.
> Could someone explain how one can be "threatened by radar"?
> --
> Robin Green

The threat is very real. Being illuminated by a radar is
very threatening - it is the first step to getting a radar
lock on a target, after which Surface to Air Missiles
(SAMs) may be fired. The usual practice is to fire them in
pairs five second apart, so that while the pilot is dodging
the first one, they get hit by the second one. As the piece
said, the radar illumination was followed by being fired on.

Dr. Eric Herring
Department of Politics
University of Bristol
10 Priory Road
Bristol BS8 1TU
England, UK
Tel. +44-(0)117-928-8582
Fax +44-(0)117-9732133
Just to be clear...

I'm no expert, but aren't civilian aircraft constantly "illuminated" by
radar?  Wouldn't a developed country "illuminate" every airborn object that
enters its airspace?  I'm sure that the "first step" to firing on someone is
to locate that someone using radar, but it's also the first step to a lot of
things.  It's the only step taken if the goal is to simply monitor one's

True enough, US planes have been fired upon (and I won't get into a
discussion about that), which is certainly threatening.  But the US/UK
bombing excursions have often occurred when only radar has "illuminated"
them or when it was determined that Iraqi missiles were pointed in
unacceptable directions.  How dare they target aircraft carriers and
sanctions-enforcing frigates!  How dare they take such measures when the
United States has said that it could attack Iraq at any time and without

Iraq is not even allowed to know what is flying in its own airspace.  And
US/UK aircraft often hit missile sites regardless of whether they are being
used to attack enemy aircraft.

Don't get me wrong, I loose no sleep about Iraq losing its missile sites,
but let's remember that that's not all it's losing.

And judging by the death tolls in this low-grade war that has been happening
pretty consistently since the December bombings, it is Iraq and its
population that is truly threatened - threatened by US/UK bombing.

Following are a couple (and I'm sure there are many more) of "illuminating"
news items previously posted to Iraq lists.

Andrew Loucks
The Global Movement to End the War
against Iraq -
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
"Each of us has an instrument to bring to the vast orchestra
of humanity"   - Jean Vanier
Message sent to adc-itc list on Jan. 12/99 by David Muller

US strike of non targeting radar criticised

 Ankara: Jan 12 (South News) A US attack of an Iraqi early warning radar
 site, which the Pentagon has conceded was not a targeting radar, worried
 Turkey Tuesday.

 Turkish Prime minister Ecevit told NTV television, hours after he
 presented his new government's program to Turkey's parliament.

 ``I am worried that air raids will increase after the end of Ramadan,''
 Ecevit said, referring to the Muslim holy month, which ends in days with
 the sighting of the new moon.

 The United States said today that one of its warplanes fired a missile at
 a radar site in a Western- imposed no-fly zone in northern Iraq,
 the second such incident in two days

 The latest incident differs from earlier events because the radar posed
 no immediate threat to the American aircraft. In two attacks the previous
 day, US planes from Incirlik had attacked air defence radar sites after
 they locked onto aircraft.

 The Pentagon insists the strike was still in self-defence but expressing
 unease over US attacks, Turkey's new prime minister made
 clear today he wouldn't let a US-led force use Turkey's air bases for
 any prolonged bombing of Iraq.

 Washington never publicly sought the required Turkish permission for use
 of the Incirlik base in those attacks; many believe Ankara would have

 Ankara claims that it suffered both political and financial losses
 following the 1990-1991 Gulf War, including $US30 million ($A47.13 million)
in trade due
 to the embargo imposed on neighbouring Iraq after the war.

 However, Turkish leaders rarely criticise the United States, avoiding the
 kind of hard-line statement Ecevit made today against use of the base for
 offensive action.

 Ecevit has been more open to Iraq than other Turkish leaders, objecting to
 past US attacks and visiting Baghdad to meet with Saddam.

 ``I think the United States does not have any decision regarding the kind
 of solution they want to see in Iraq,'' he said Tuesday.

 Ecevit returned to power yesterday after the previous government collapsed
 in a corruption scandal. A veteran leftist politician, Ecevit was also
 prime minister in the 1970s.

Message sent to adc-itf list on January 12 by Sandeep Vaidya

>From The Independent, Jan 13

American planes free to
         attack Iraqi radar sites

         By Andrew Marshall in Washington

         The United States has widened the rules of
         engagement for aircraft flying over Iraq,
         allowing them to fire on Iraqi air defence
         sites before they are targeted by them.

         The decision represents another escalation in
         the conflict, with signs growing that a fresh
         outbreak of violence is likely. Iraq continues
         to criticise its neighbours for the backing it
         says they have given to Washington and
         London, while American officials hint
         broadly that they believe the regime is on its
         last legs.

         The US Defense Department said yesterday
         that planes would be allowed to fire at radar
         sites even if they were not locking on to
         allied aircraft. To demonstrate the new
         tactics, a US aircraft fired a missile at an
         Iraqi radar site in the no-fly zone over
         northern Iraq yesterday, the fifth such episode
         in the past few weeks. The Pentagon said that,
         unlike previous such attacks, this was on an
         early-warning radar site, part of Iraq's
         integrated air defences. In the other cases, the
         US and Britain have said that their aircraft
         were targeted by surface-to-air missiles, and
         fired back.

         "The radar was seen as posing a threat to
         coalition forces in the area," said a Pentagon
         spokesman. Previously, early-warning radars
         were not attacked, though American and
         British pilots were allowed to fire at them if
         they felt they posed a threat.

         The war of words between Iraq and its
         neighbours spread yesterday as the Iraqi
         parliament accused Kuwait of backing
         insurgents against the regime.

         "The Iraqi National Assembly stressed that
         the governments of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia
         are influential partners to the United States
         and Britain through presenting facilities for
         aggression on Iraq," said the official Iraqi
         News Agency.

         In particular, Kuwait was accused of
         "financing and supporting acts of killing and
         terrorism against the Iraqi people and its
         institutions through receiving agents and
         betrayers and publishing leaflets that incite
         conspiracies on Iraq."

This is a discussion list run by Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To be removed/added, email, NOT the
whole list. Archived at

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]