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