War on Iraq in general

Remove all ads!

Cheerfully lunatic... I like that, fits me to a tee

Hmmm, I did get a little carried away there, so I'll try to clarify myself.

I only spoke of the debt clock in responce to Rastor questioning my figures, if you read the above post where I mentioned it you wil also realise why I object to the occupation of Iraq. (On a side note I also object to this much spending and consuming, and trying to live so far out of your own means, and trying to be even wealithier, but that is another topic). And the US is one of the major suppliers of arms to the world, whether or not the chinese rifle is preffered, there is a lot of American fire-power out there as well.

I agree that Iraq is just as much better off without Saddam as Afghanistan is without the Taliban, it's the way these things were handled, the reasons why they actually invaded, and the hypocrisy of the US government in doing so, especially when you realize the history it has with these organisations, that truly bothers me. I am also bothered by the wave of violence and vengence that is entering peoples minds over this-I mean westerners who suddenly cry for the death penalty to be re-instated for "terrorist attacks" for instance.

To turn a blind eye to a regime it helped put in power, benefitting from said regime all the while, and then to attack them when they can get greater gains by doing so, and then claiming you're a humanitarian is crazy-talk.

I'm not trying to say these countries weren't armed, but only that they could not do as much damage as the US allready does. The fact that there are less people and less weapons only makes this argument stronger.

Which is worse? Two men each with a sword, or fifty men, twenty five of which have swords? Per-capita the fifty-men force is weaker, but I don't trust any of them more than the other, so I'd rather take my chances with the two-men, who (not being a mob-mentality) are also more predictable, maybe even more reasonable.

Look, I'm not that fussed about people being killed, I just don't like hypocrisy and lies. Saddam could have been removed from power at any time without affecting everyone else in this manner. And why O why does the occupying force suddenly feel the need to build an oil pipeline owned by Haliburton? (This happend in Afghanistan too coincidentally, and I'm not even going to get into the drug trade) America didn't need to spend all that money on weaponry, hell they could have won with broad-swords by sheer force of numbers, or with a handful of special-ops, if occupying the country wasn't more important than defeating the regime, and formed some sort of agreement with the local militia or ruling council that would inevitably have been formed once there was a power vacuum.

God doesn't make anything clear personally, the bible does, and there is a difference. Hell, an invading army isn't a state force anyway, so it doesn't really matter who said it.

And I'm aware the US may not bomb things every day, but it gets close some months, and most goes on unbeknownst to the voters who are supposed to exercise some restraint on those responcible. What I mean is, the US should clean up its own act before pointing the finger at anyone else, and pleading innocense from acts of terrorism. You don't have to dominate everything in order to live well, I always say to lead by example, and I'll say it again. No act can ever be justified by saying "well he did it" or "if I hadn't of they would have".

I am reminded of an episode of the Simpsons here that goes something like this:

"By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps away tigers."
"That's stupid, how could it do that?"
"You don't see any tigers do you?"
"Lisa, I wan't to buy that rock!"

I can find no excuse for any act (those of the terroists are included by this, I'm not singling America out, merely evening up the score) based solely on the actions, or supposed actions, of others. I only say this in such reference to America because the US government is trying to convince the world they have some sort of moral obligation (they don't even settle for an excuse, they try to say it like they would be irresponcible if they didn't). No-one believes this dogma from the mouths of other fanatics (unless you happen to be one of them, like the factions calling for jihad), so why does everyone believe it now?

Fact is, if everyone stopped harrassing everyone else there wouldn't be any need for this sort of action on either side, someone has to make the first step, and after that the rest should work itself out. A lot of people were scared during the cold war, not me, but anyway, as you can see nothing happened, the only countries that were threated were the ones that had gotten involved, (most of these, unfortunately, were subsidaries or states of America and Russia who were fighting for independance from one of them or from within their own country) and both the soviets and the US tried to build up allies, and attacked each other's allies (unnecesarrily as it would seem, as very little changed), and all this pointless bickering continued until both sides agreed to stop wasting everyone's time, put down their childish arguments, and stop trying for foolish aspirations of world dominance.

One of them just started up again.

Ok, I hope I haven't come across as too lunatic, but I think it needs saying that Americas actions, regardless of the slim possibilty that someone may benefit from it, (cause hey, if it weren't for all those sanctions, and bombings, and America had never helped Saddam reach power, or had of exiled him 15 years ago, Iraq would be a lot better off than it is now) these actions are in no way justified, and I think things are done in entirely the wrong manner if the intentions were really as pure as they made it out it be, that it didn't have to be this way.

Hacken Slash, Grey Magistrate (and any others), I sincerely hope that neither of you have taken what I've said as personal criticisms, because I do think highly of both of you and a good deal of what you say, I just don't understand the unwavering patriotism you hold.

Which brings me to my last point, you both questioned me on the remarks I made to the effect that it was not the CIA operative Bin-Laden or the terrorist factions of the Taliban who were responcible for the attacks on the world trade centre. It was in fact the US government themselves. I have researched this a good deal, and heard of the resarch of others, and am now certain in this belief. The evidence is amazing if you can see it all, and I don't understand why a government that would do this to its own people has earned anyone's respect.

Edit: Ok, I want to clarify my clarification. I'm not attacking anything too specifically, nor am I trying to make a stand on anything (at least not much). I just want people to say "The actions of the US are as reprehensible, selfish, and unscrupulous as anyone else's. Let's just hope that some good comes out of the changes they have enacted. There is a better way." That's all, I guess I could have saved a lot of time and just said this, but it's not in me I guess. I talk too much, I know it, but I still have difficulty trying to explain what it is I'm trying to say. It doesn't help if I change my mind on something half-way through either. I hope you guys have understood what it is I'm trying to say.

I'm not denying that America can, and has, been known to bring some good from its actions, only that they could have done this in a far better fashion, like with this case in Bosnia of which Ragusa spoke. America only seems to meddle for their own benefit, and others pay the cost (where money is far from the only consideration), and a lot of the time more harm than good is illicited, short term at least. Who knows what changes time will bring, what repercussions these effects could have? Things usually work at getting better I know, but this does not speak in America's favour, only in the ineffectiveness of it's actions to stand the test of time (a good thing considering the fact that more often than not, most consequences are completely ignored). A Shame the government doesn't realise this, as then maybe they could work more at making here and now a better place, looking forward to the future, instead of trying to control it.

[ October 29, 2003, 07:58: Message edited by: Manus ]

 

The Geneva conventions forbid the use of children as soldiers but not the use of the women. If you mean that women cannot be recruited because they are civilians, Geneva conventions don't forbid the participation of civilians in the army, militia and resistance groups, but ofcourse in this case they lose their civilian status.

Actually, I was sleeping much better, because I knew that none of the big guys could do something without thinking what the reaction of the other big guy would be. Also, I was sleeping much better because I knew that the soviet WMDs were in the hands of the soviet generals and they were not sold to anyone who could buy them as it happened after the fall of the Soviet Union. Like or not there was a balance during the cold war, a balance of terror of course but still a balance, which doesn't exist today.

Just like the french nuclear tests in Mururoa?

And what about this:

 

A term that is very big in the field of political science is: Cue Bono. Or, who benefits? If that term is applied to events happening around the world a very bleak picture indeed starts to be seen.

I dont really know what to believe about things but if you for example ask yourself "Cue bono?" in regards to 9/11 some very unpleasant thoughts might enter your mind. Who benefited from that tragedy? I wouldnt say it was the Taleban of Afganistan, nor would I say that Saddam in Iraq did. So who did? It is a question worth mulling over.

I am not saying anything one way or another but one should always keep ones mind open to all possibilities.

 

@Manus

I imagine if taken in terms of dollars of weaponry sold, you would be absolutely right in your claim that America is the arms supplier to the world. I just don't think that you find too many F-16's, Abrams tanks or Spruance Class Destroyers in the hands of terrorists or lawless regimes...we haven't made that mistake since the Shah! Most of the military hardware that US forces encountered in both Afganistan or Iraq were actually Soviet era.

I don't take anything you say as personal criticism. You speak out for what you believe with passion and energy and I will always respect that and support your rights to keep doing so.

@BOC

I find it hard to believe that you find less long term security in our present world than under an insane Cold War balance of terror where we all become dust if someone sets a foot wrong, but to each his own. I grew up with whole sections of speculative fiction that dealt with life (or lack thereof) after a nuclear catastrophe. The sheer proliferation of this subject in writings, essays, TV shows or movies, testify to the very real fear that most people lived with...a real fear that is unknown in todays world. True, we have new fears, ranging all the way from dirty suitcase bombs to Anthrax attacks, but none carries the same terrifying scope as nuclear anihilation.

On a side note concerning nuclear threat...in recent years the CIA had classified Pakistan as the greatest threat to use a nuclear weapon (this was before the recent revelations @ NK). The ongoing border fights between Pakistan and India were a source of potential conflict leading to the use of tac. nukes. Due to the US intervention in Afganistan, and the cooperation that has developed between the US and Pakistan, that threat scale has since been reduced significantly. Our alliance with both Pakistan and India has mitigated the mutual tensions somewhat, and if anyone can bring both parties to the negotiating table, it will be the US. I see this as another evidence that the current war on terrorism has made headway toward making the world a more secure place for all it's inhabitants.

 

@Hacken Slash

This fear of retaliation was only thing which didn't let the wardogs of both sides to press the button. Now that this fear doesn't exist what do we see? The use of DU shells (almost every western army has them), ideas about using small nukes in order to destroy underground shelters, the fear that extremists have acquired WMDs from the arsenal of the Soviet Union. The fact that the masses don't think about the nuclear holocaust anymore doesn't make the world a safer place.

Also, during the cold war smaller countries didn't feel the need to have nuclear weapons since they knew that they were under the protection of one of the big guys. Now that this protection doesn't exist and that the UN were proven weak against the big guy, everybody is looking forward to have them as the cases of Iraq and North Korea have shown.

 

Rastor when you say that it doesn't pay to anger customers, then what about the French? The French have been known to buy 8% of all the oil taken from Iraq pre Gulf War II, was bought through the US, also do not forget, they were the first country, other than the US to condemn 9/11, and pushed the UN to root out the terrorists.

Manus, if you say Iraq is much better off without Saddam, then please explain the sudden rising of several gurilla(sp?) groups striking throughout the Iraq? What about the deaths of so many civilians due to the precision guided weapons. If anything, Iraq may be worse off.

Estimated dead: 9000 civilians and rising

 

I might agree that the current political climate has increased the desire to make nuclear programs public but I'm not really sure that the desire for nuclear weapons stems quite as much from the fall of the Soviet Union as you seem to indicate. For example, you cite North Korea's development of nuclear technology and tie it in with the end of the cold war and the fall of the Soviet Union but North Korea began their nuclear program in 1956:
http://russia.shaps.hawaii.edu/security/korea/nkoreanuclear.html

Nuclear weapons are more useful to a nation (with a couple exceptions perhaps) on a regional scale rather than on a global scale. Look for areas of regional strife and that's where it seems you find new nations looking toward nuclear weapons - Pakistan v. India for example. I'd also say with respect to N. Korea that nukes are something they'd probably like for regional negotiation purposes pertaining to economic problems - it would give China something to think about next time they decide to shut off N. Korea's oil flow; or give S. Korea something to think about; or give Japan something to think about when it is time to sit at the negotiating table etc.

 

Rastor,

Well, they were banned according to a UN resolution and the US were not, period, empowered to enforce this resolution. No subsequent resolution changed that. When US officials or politicians claim different, well, then they probably lie or just don't know better.

And besides: An invasion and regime change because of ... two missiles*, especially considering that they exceeded their allowed range of 150km by some stunning km, so they had, perhaps, a range of max 200km? A reason for war and occupation?
There was a ... less intrusive way and equally effective way to deal with that ... imminent threat to the existence of the US and the western world: Inspections. According to Kay's report the UN did a splendid job to destroy Iraq's nuclear program ... the lack of findings impressiveley underlines that ...

Well, the US do so too. They do, and regularly so, send woman soldiers into combat zones (remember Jessica Lynch?), and they do employ children (under 18) as soldiers (as the only western country the US haven't signed an international treaty against child soldiers - joining Somalia, the only other dissenter). And have a look at the geneva convention ... I for my part have trouble finding anything there that fits your claim above.

* ... to prevent me from reiterating the whole embarassing the-dog-ate-my-WMD/ no-Al Quaeda-link/ no-9/11 connection but evil mustache and, given the chance, evil intentions for the future stuff ... just this brief notice

EDIT: Hacken Slash,
as for the US as the major weapons exporter: The majority of people getting killed around the globe daily fall prey to small arms. And that's where the US is the key player, largest domestic market and exporter. More on CDI under the link to "smallarms and light weapons".

[ October 29, 2003, 17:48: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

BTA,
you may be interested to read this: Depiction of Threat Outgrew Supporting Evidence, have a look at today's CSMonitor news overview, this, this, this ... or how about CNNs Kay: No weapons yet, but evidence of intent - evil intentions for one day aren't a reason to start a war.

Furthermore, the drones you mention were actually intended for reconaissance, no trace of an offensive intent with them and have you heared anything of a bio or chem warhead for them? No, beyond allowed ranges. How threatening.
You forgot the infameous "Winnebagos of Death" no one mentions anymore as everybody, except a few diehards, accepted the fact that they were to produce hydrogenium for artillery baloons - and that was confirmed by the british producer of those vans too. Generally the accusation of bioweapon research has been relativated already - the botulinum found seemingly wasn't that deadly after all, unsuitable for a bioweapon as well.
Iraq did some missile research, but they were allowed to do so, mind the Al Samoud missiles were illegal only for flying too far. And drawing a plan isn't illegal too, just one of the sort of games the US do too, with the types of weapons they aren't allowed to use - as long as the pres hasn't cancelled the treaties banning them. You don't invade a country for unrealised, actually *shelved* plans for future weapons, best, you didn't even know of *before* the invasion.

Actually the overall resume on Kay's report was highly sceptical, and the absolute general tone said "failure" of the US administration to prove it's case for Iraq, and these sparse findings only blow fog over this. Of course, the US administration tries to make the best of what was found, eventually there are asses to cover - but, honestly, that cannot justify a *preemptive* war.
I find this line noteworthy: "If you look at them side by side, C.I.A. versus United Nations, the U.N. agencies come out ahead across the board." (from Stovepiping).


And anyway, the discussion about how guilty Iraq was is pointless anyway: It is now relatively clear that Bush wanted war and then searched for an acceptable reason to attack. General Franks, comander of US troops at the gulf now confirmed that he only a couple of months after 9/11 presented the first war plans for Iraq to Bush.
The WMD, according to Wolfowitz, were the reason everybody could agree on to be afraid of. And all the rest, humanity, liberation, regime change, were to pretty up the pic and to supply everyone with a feelgood reason about the war.

And didn't pass the global audience unnoticed.

The spin and distortions of the Bush administration will be a reason for profound scepticism for future US claims. Insofar I can't share Rastor's optimism that the lost goodwill may be easily restored. I don't think so.
How quick do you think will the US forget their ridiculous grudge on France? Actually the rest of the world has a lot of reason for scepticism after Bush Jr. show since 9/11. The thing required to restore mutual trust in foreign policy may be a regime change in Washington followed by good behavior.

Maybe it's time to have a look back to the late 1990s (maybe also here) and to today's rhetoric on Syria. Just a thought. Besides, recently a Mr. Wurmser was appointed as Middle East Advisor to President Cheney ...

With Iraq US occupied, Turkey and Israel allied, Jordan and Egypt pro-US Syria and Lebanon are isolated. Never before Israel and the US had a better chance to put pressure on Syria, not that they had anything to do with 9/11. In 1982 Sharon tried to achieve a "transformation" of the middle east, aimed on collapsing the regime in Syria, by invading Lebanon. Sounds familiar?

 

An enlightening quote.

If people are back to arguing whether or not war with Iraq was justified, and if group A says it was for certain reasons, and group B says those reasons are irrelevant, then it seems there may be an impasse.

For the record, I think the war was justifiable but still thought it was a bad idea at the time; whether it will turn out to really have been a bad idea we won't really know for another 5-10 years at least.

 

1. 3 buildings were hit with the planes (Everyone forgets that the Pentagon was also attacked).
2. Care to take a guess how much land was destroyed when the two towers fell? That's right, 19 blocks. That's how big the rubble field is.

And I won't deny that. Did you know that the Iraqis put SAM sites and other weapons on top of school buildings, day care centers, etc.? We're attacking the weapon emplacements, there isn't much we can do about where they are.

Bah! This is the sort of conspiracy theory that has been gaining ground in Europe and elsewhere. That bin Laden works for the CIA has as much basis in fact as the AIDS virus being invented to kill gay people and cocaine being an attempt to wipe out blacks. And this "evidence" you speak of, I want to see it. There is irrefutable proof that what you just said is false.

Hussein not involved in 9/11 attacks: No claim was made that he was. Documents uncovered did reveal that he had links with al-Quaida, though.

Okay, then, how? Do you know how the people in Iraq fight? What, you want us to send in an assassin to take out Saddam? That carries more diplomatic reprecussions than the method that was used, and Saddam was prepared for the hitman scenario.

Define state force then.

America is indeed the world's biggest manufacturer of arms, in whatever variety you mean. I won't refute that point, and I also fail to see what it has to do with anything. We don't sell nukes to anyone.

The Middle East isn't an emerging economic powerhouse. If it wasn't for their oil, they'd have nothing. China is a major market for production and they profit off us. The Middle East does too, but their rulers aren't quite as economically knowledgable.

The U.N. never enforced it, so what choice did we have? If the UN would have enforced its own rules, none of this stuff would have ever happened.

Ragusa, the Iraqis were shooting missiles at American troops 400km away. That's a heck of a lot more than 150, or even 200. Besides 150 is 150, and anything over that violates the treaty.

Ragusa, your own nation stands as proof that goodwill can be restored. Remember the six million people murdered? Germany got its respect back, what makes you think we won't for much lesser offenses?

Every economy bases their currency on the dollar. The GDP of the United States is double that of any other nation. We export 60% of the world's products. That will be a hard economic shoe to fill.

 

Rastor,

Do you have an impression how long it took Germany to restore the goodwill lost due to WW-II? Half a century or so ... If you find trust in that, cheers ...

As for the missiles: I would really be careful with official announements ... 400km away? You're sure it isn't just more spin? I have my doubts and I'll share my reasons with you: IIRC there were three missiles fired, one of which was identified as an Al Samoud and crashed somewhere in the desert. Leaves the two that hit something in Kuwait, and they were identified not as evil prohibited hidden Scuds but as Silkworm antiship missiles of chinese origin. The Silkworm has a range of 200km in the longest ranging version ... so how actually can they miraculously fly twice as far? It should be added that Iraq most likely didn't have the latest model but the HY-1 with some ... stunning 35km range.
Now have a look at a map and south Iraq and Kuwait and the Shatt el Arab and you see that even with that short range a hit was possible. The interesting aspect was that Iraq managed to hit a land target with an anti-ship missile (and that's why I remember the story). Pretty skilled actually.
So what? 400km? Hidden weapons? The Silkworm wasn't even banned ...

Really, try to be more critical ...

 

It may have taken 50 years for unified Germany to regain the goodwill of the world, but West Germany was in good standing with the rest of the free world in less than half that time, perhaps as little as 10 years if you regard the NATO deployment...but that's all nit-picky.

I do challenge the very article that you have chosen to defend the silkworm missile attacks. It cites that at least a dozen attacks occurred, not 3, and that two of the missiles were suspected of being Chinese silkworms. Many of the missiles were vaporized by Patriot missiles, so there is little left to sort through for evidence, but article did cite this:

A quick look at a map shows that Kuwait City, at it's closest, is @ 100 km from the Iraqi border, averaging 125 to over 150 km. To have landed well South of Kuwait City is almost incontrovertible evidence of a missile exceeding the limitations.

I don't for a minute believe that the US was lily white in it's build up to this war with Iraq, but I think that here in the US there is somewhat of a mentality that we are only finishing what we started in 1991, and so be it.

More on this later...

 

@Laches

Almost every european country has nuclear programs (and facilities), which have started almost the same time with the nuclear program of North Korea. How many of them have nukes? Just Russia, England and France.

According to your link North Korea conducted its first high explosion detonation test in 1983 but they joined the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. If you see their behaviour after 1990 and the fall of the Soviet Union you will notice that they have become unwilling to sign any more treaties against nuclear weapons or to cooperate with IAEA and this fact leads to the following conclusions:
1. They followed this path because the big guy wasn't around anymore and they had to take their protection to their own hands.
2. They were no more forced to do what the Cremlin told them to do

Both of these conclusions show that the fall of the Soviet Union was the crucial point to the development of North Korean nukes.

Also, nukes are useful if you want to put pressure on your neighbours (as you wrote) but the recent events have shown that they can help to keep the big guys away from you. Iraq didn't have nukes and it was invaded by U.S.A.. North Korea has nukes and U.S.A barks but doesn't dare to bite.

 

@BOC: I think that you are correct in describing the symptom, but mistake the cause. It is true that the nuclear weapon development of the countries in question seemed to kick into high gear at the fall of the Soviet Union, but I don't think that it is because of the need to seek a level of self-protection. I think that more than anything it would be due to the diaspora of Soviet weapons developers and scientists who suddenly found themselves out of a job. They took their skills to the open market and ended up in NK, India, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq...who knows where else.

Further, in the particular case of NK, they were always under the Red China sphere of influence. The loss of the Soviet Union would more than anything represent the removal of possible conflict, not security. Their big daddy was still very much there, just to the West...

[ October 30, 2003, 00:56: Message edited by: Hacken Slash ]

 

@ BOC

I can agree with a fair bit of what you said. I think that wanting a deterrent is why some want to make their program public - whether they actually have nuclear weapons or not they at least wish to be perceived as having the capability developed in order to deter.

Specifically regarding N. Korea, it seems to me it signs treaties with one hand while spinning centrifuges with the other. I think the 1983 non-proliferation treaty from its standpoint didn't amount to much. For example, in the mid-80's (~85 iirc), there was a long shut down at the major facility where it is believed fuel was removed and plutonium separated. I've seen that S. Korea, Japan, Russia, and the US all believe this. My understanding is less is known regarding N. Korea's uranium.

I really do believe that most nations want nuclear weapons, or those that do at least, for primarily regional issues. For example, even if N. Korea has nuclear capability it still needs a global delivery system for the nuclear weapons. Mu understanding is N. Korea is known to be able to launch at targets within 1500 km. They once launched a missle with 5,000 km range over Japan and it broke up thereafter (late 90's I think). Even if they can reach further nobody knows whether they can stick a warhead on one of these longer range missles.

So, I think the nuclear weapons are primarily for saber rattling purposes within the region. Being more public with their programs is probably out of a desire to deter in my opinion but the development programs would have gone on even if the cold war was ongoing as they were ongoing while the cold war was still on.

Whether the Soviets tried to force N. Korea not to develop weapons or not I haven't a clue - though they did actively aid N. Korea in developing some nuclear programs.

 

As for the nukes: Why states want nuclear weapons

And as for Hacken Slash,
How foolish to trust in Fox when it comes to details, such as Iraq's actual type of missile. Looking at globalsecurity.org provided better info. So what Silkworm was it actually? According to this it was actually the type CCS-3, with some 50nm range, that is actually some 90km, and some 60nm/ 110km till fuel exaustion. That would then probably be the HY-2 type, and not the HY-1 type. I got that mixed up in the hurry and the myriad of designations (america/ chinese). Sorry, my pun.

And as for the multiple impacts quoted in the RFE report ... I would be careful to take them for granted, especially the Scud part. Interpreting the absence of official reports on shelling of Baghdad airport as as absence of attacks is an error. It also works the other way round: What's reported isn't nessecarily true, and I would be especially careful when it is something that implies Saddam hid weapons and used them - as that would so conveniently underline the ... somewhat disputed ... cause for invasion.

 

@Ragusa...I am thrilled that we have managed to find a solid common ground...Fox News Sucks! Let's try to build from there.

The piece you posted from the Aisa Times was interesting and thought provoking, yet nevertheless falls into the realm of editorial or opinion piece.

I am searching out more detailed sources but both CNN and ABC describe missile attacks on Kuwait consisting of way more than 3 missiles...the number 3 comes from missiles that hit. It does not surprise me that of the 3 that hit, 2 would have been the silkworm type, as they would have had too short a path, a too compressed ballistic course, to have been intercepted by Patriot batteries. I will try to find the source, but I read an article describing the intercept guidance computer used on the Patriot. It would have been ineffective at intercepting any missile with a ballistic path of less than 200km.

I well value the need to not create reasons to justify an attack, but when math and logic support the existence of illegal missiles, regardless of reporting source, it eventually becomes of economy to say, "Yeah, they probably had something, let's move on to the next topic".

edit: I may have misquoted, the min threat range for a Patriot battery may actually by just 150km. Still checking....