Iraqi 'terror ships' at sea

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/3453118?source=Evening ^

[jiggyboy]

LOL maybe he's already sealed into a cargo container with a bed and potty like that guy they found last year

[NorseWood]

Maybe we could capture these three ships and donate them, fully loaded, to North Korea as a gesture of our generosity.

[Blueflag]

Never underestimate a determined enemy.

I doubt they would install active sonar, you're right. But passive would be easy and cheap. The human ear, in a cargo hold, could hear the whine of a torp IF they were listening for them. Not that they could hear much above the noise level of their own vessel, truthfully.

Point is, if they detected the torps, visually or audibly, then they might detonate/launch on warning.

Secondly, a 35000 ton vessel is roughly four times the size of an Arleigh Burke -- the first explosion, or even the second and third might not cause so much damage that the vessel slips beneath the waves in 30 seconds or less. A suicidal crew might have time to 'push the button'.

Lastly, a long held axiom is that 'the solution to pollution is dilution'. Several tons of any toxin dispersed in enough seawater (or enough of the atmosphere) is eventually harmless. So the risk to the biome in the open ocean is fairly low. In the confined seas they are reportedly in today, it might be a different story. why take that risk as a first resort? GO for seizure.

I stand by my thought that the perps will likely have martyrs' intentions and will blow up/launch/disperse on warning. If you could plot a solution where maybe 6 - 10 Mk 48s hit the vessel within a few seconds of each other, then I'd agree that was enough force employed. Three spread under the keel, two at the waterline near the bridge, port AND starboard [to shock/knock over/kill human crew where they are likely to be], and three to rip the bow off and send the vessel rapidly under the waves.

Spectacular, but I still like the idea of seizure best.

[Bill Davis FR]

why not seep-six these three vessles...

[boomop1]

Thanks for the link, very interesting.

[Arthalion]

There's a better, safer way to stop these ships than have been listed here so far. SEAL teams? Even the SEAL's would have a tough time boarding a vessel with any stealth while the vessel is under power in the open ocean. Torpedoes? A 35,000 ton ship is BIG, and it probably has multiple sealed holds. Sinking it quickly would require a quick series of torpedo strikes, and even then the chance that Achmed could set some of it off is pretty great. E-Bombs? Experimental, and they only take out the electronics. There's nothing to stop Achmed from sticking the posts of a battery into an explosive charge, detonating it manually. There's also a chance Achmed could just power cycle the equipment and bring it back online.

And what about conventional nukes? Sure, they'd work, but you have two problems 1) We really don't know what kind of nasties are on this ship. Some types of WMD's can survive a nuclear blast, and could go on to do major damage to those downwind (remember, we have a LOT of troops in that area). 2) Detonating a traditional nuclear weapon against a foreign flagged vessel in non-Iraqi waters could createsome huge international political problems that we'd probably be better off avoiding. As much as I could care less about the Quatari people, detonating a nuke right off their coast probably isn't a good idea.

Why deal with this when we already have the perfect weapon? Tactical Neutron Bombs. They'll fry any electronics on board, kill the crew instantly, and yet leave the ship and its precious cargo unharmed. We could then take the ship over at our leisure, and parade our "trophies" in front of the world to show them just how stupid they're being. For those not familiar with neutron bombs, here's a definition I found on the web:

Neutron bombs are a specialized type of small thermonuclear weapon that produces minimal blast and heat but which releases large amounts of lethal radiation. The neutron bomb delivers blast and heat effects that are confined to an area of only a few hundred yards in radius. But within a somewhat larger area it throws off a massive wave of neutron and gamma radiation, which can penetrate armour or several feet of earth. This radiation is extremely destructive to living tissue. Because of its short-range destructiveness and the absence of long-range effect, the neutron bomb would be highly effective against tank and infantry formations on the battlefield but would not endanger cities or other population centres only a few miles away. It can be carried in a Lance missile or delivered by an 8-inch (200-millimetre) howitzer, or possibly by attack aircraft.

[Higgymonster]

During the Defense Department briefing this morning one of the last questions to Rumsfield was about these three ships and Rumsfield and Myers both said something to the effect that they keep hearing this but they can't verify anything like it and haven't heard anything about it.

[TommyDale]

Satellite surveillance has been quite effective since the advent of the x-ray capability. In the late 80's, we pioneered the use of such capability on a probe to Venus.
It allowed photography of areas previously unseen under cloud cover. Does anyone doubt that this technology was developed for national security? Or do you think it was only used for NASA to see Venus?

[TommyDale]

The "e-bomb" or Electo Magnetic Pulse device was used in Bosnia.

[MainFrame65]

Are you sure? I recall that we dropped at least one "special weapon" that was designed to knock out their power grid, but I thought that it was composed of conductive strands that created short circuits and overloads throughout the grid, rather than a EMP generator.

[MainFrame65]

What do you think about hitting each of them from high altitude with a precision guided version of a "daisy cutter" 15,000 lb. bomb. It would instantly turn everyone on board to a skinful of soup, but probably not set off munitions that are designed to be launched as rockets or artillery shells. As for the effect on the ships, I suspect that a direct hit (that a PG device could achieve) directly on top would put them on the bottom rather quickly.

Comments?

[Calpernia]

I love NASA!!! It is unreal all the invention we got from space exploration!

It is sometimes very understandable why people like Saddam hate us so much. Ever see the temper tantrum a 6 year old will have if you 'watch' him do something; then he tries to lie about it? Pretty accurate comparison, huh? ;)

[Blueflag]

Closest we have to a 'precision-guided' daisy cutter is an FAE -- fuel air explosive. The shock wave might do what you describe to those close to the deck, but deep in the hull, poeple would make it.

Neutron radiation kills quickly, but not immediately, for those at ground zero. Shock wave of a neutron bomb might incapacitate everyone until they died. I like his idea.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Forming up a ping list here for War_List.

Anyone want on or off send me a Freep mail.
I can see the volume getting high.
I want on anyones bump list for articles going on the War_List

OFFICIAL BUMP(TOPIC)LIST

[Quix]

Sounds reasonable enough to me.

[Quix]

So why not interdict them in a relatively shallow area and deal with it?

[Minutemen]

bump

[CyberAnt]

Have we learned anything more about these ships ...??

[Minutemen]

Sorry 'bout the untimely reply......
I bumped about a dozen of these past articles, just to stir up some interest (lest we forget).Myself, I have not heard any more about these "mystery ships" either. Has anyone else??