Reply to: Operation Panther's Claw

[EternalOptimist]

How about Operation Camel Toe?

been done.


1915 - Arabia


Major Lawrence - "Achmed - take your men and try to seperate the right flank"

"Captain Sponger - take the horse and seperate the left"


ALL - "And what about you, El Orenze?"


Major Lawrence - "I will take the main body, when the flanks have been divided I will thrust hard and fast through the centre"



source - winnets history of the Arabian campaign 1915

[Menelaus]

How about Operation Camel Toe?

That was the first Gulf War!

[Pogle]

Who on earth dreams up these ridiculous military operation names?

Smacks of a department of overpaid civil servants with a big dictionary somehwere ....

How about Operation Camel Toe?

[EternalOptimist]

Ah okies, thanks for the corrections.

Is there any way then of ensuring a quick and decisive victory, or does it really have to be a long and protracted crusade?

Though I suppose it's good ongoing training for the troops at the end of it, which wouldn't be possible if we turned it in to a glass car park.

first point. The military, who are the ones being killed, are excellent at coming up with ways of not being killed. They havn't come up with a new idea.


second. Training - its true, the military need (and love) this type of experience, hard as it is to believe. I know lots of serving soldiers and they are gagging to get into action over there.


As an old armchair warrior, my feeling is that we have to attack this from a religious point of view. i.e. persuade the moderate muslims to become more active in promoting a non-violent Islam.

[Menelaus]

Squaddies are much cheaper than nukes.

That plutonium & U235 is expensive stuff you know, too good to waste.

HTH.

Oi!

(Menelaus (and Churchill) = ex-squaddies).

[Board Game Geek]

Ah okies, thanks for the corrections.

Is there any way then of ensuring a quick and decisive victory, or does it really have to be a long and protracted crusade?

Though I suppose it's good ongoing training for the troops at the end of it, which wouldn't be possible if we turned it in to a glass car park.

[EternalOptimist]

There were thoughts of using nukes in the earlier Korean unpleasantness, however the targeteers discovered that there really wasn't anything there that would warrant the expense... this applies even more to Afghanistan... the place is a raked over pile of tulipe already, so you'd just be wasting a weapon.

there was talk (mostly in head) about dropping a chemical agent, exfolliant.

apparently it makes all their beards fall off

[Moscow Mule]

Tactical...the other sort leaves an unpleasant glow which isn't very friendly.

The villages they are fighting in aren't big enough to warrant a tactical nuke. They can be taken out with 2 or 3 2000lb bombs. The use of a low-yield nuke is pointless.

And despite what you might think, tactical nukes still leave behind a trail of nastiness that you wouldn't want to grow anything in for a couple of centuries.

[Board Game Geek]

Tactical...the other sort leaves an unpleasant glow which isn't very friendly.

[BoredBloke]

Squaddies are much cheaper than nukes.

That plutonium & U235 is expensive stuff you know, too good to waste.

HTH.

and it's not like it goes off quickly either!

[BoredBloke]

Eh? Am I reading you right? Or were you just being ironic?

Are you actually suggesting that the use of nuclear weapons (even tactical yields) would be a good idea?

I wonder what the chaps in the field would make of your execrable suggestion of using the 'big stick' on 'special occasions'.

I wouldn't advise the use of nukes but to be honest, it's not like there is much there to destroy anyway. It looks as barren as Anne Widdecombe

[HairyArsedBloke]

Who on earth dreams up these ridiculous military operation names?

Andyw

[BrilloPad]

I wonder what the chaps in the field would make of your execrable suggestion of using the 'big stick' on 'special occasions'.

Presumably they would be withdrawn first : or they might be a tad unhappy.

[bogeyman]

It's bonkers that after all these years our technologically advanced army are still out there, fighting a few religious weirdy-beardies armed with homemade bombs and poorly maintained AK47's.

Surely more than one military commander must have thought, "We've tried the long and drawn out approach to no avail, sod it, let's pull out the nukes and show we mean business".

There's no point having a big stick, if you don't use it on special occassions.

Small surgical strikes are ofc, always better in most situations, but now and then, it's nice to play with the big toys and watch the enemy surrender.

Eh? Am I reading you right? Or were you just being ironic?

Are you actually suggesting that the use of nuclear weapons (even tactical yields) would be a good idea?

I wonder what the chaps in the field would make of your execrable suggestion of using the 'big stick' on 'special occasions'.

[Board Game Geek]

It's bonkers that after all these years our technologically advanced army are still out there, fighting a few religious weirdy-beardies armed with homemade bombs and poorly maintained AK47's.

Surely more than one military commander must have thought, "We've tried the long and drawn out approach to no avail, sod it, let's pull out the nukes and show we mean business".

There's no point having a big stick, if you don't use it on special occassions.

Small surgical strikes are ofc, always better in most situations, but now and then, it's nice to play with the big toys and watch the enemy surrender.