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]
-----Original Message-----
From: E Herring, Department of Politics <Eric.Herring@bristol.ac.uk>
To: Robin Green <r.d.green@lancaster.ac.uk>
Cc: 'soc-casi-discuss@lists.cam.ac.uk' <soc-casi-discuss@lists.cam.ac.uk>
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
<r.d.green@lancaster.ac.uk> 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
http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/Politics
Eric.Herring@bristol.ac.uk
*********************************************************
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
airspace.
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
warning!
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 - www.leb.net/globalmewi
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
davemull@alphalink.com.au
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
refused.
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
sandeep@icp.siemens.com
>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 soc-casi-discuss-request@lists.cam.ac.uk, NOT the
whole list. Archived at http://linux.clare.cam.ac.uk/~saw27/casi/discuss.html