Unintentionally humorous article

[goldfish]

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/...ning%20Standard

As Glenn Reynolds points out, since there are only about 100,000 U.S. troops in the Iraq area, it would be awfully hard for any weapon to kill a million of them.

[Occhidiangela]

'One million US troops could die'
By Jeremy Campbell in Washington, Evening Standard
17 February 2003

As many as a million casualties can be expected if Iraq uses anthrax against invading troops, according to the results of a simulation using Pentagon computer codes today. Experts at the US Natural Resources Defence Council in Washington have concluded that the substance, stocks of which UN weapons inspectors say have not been accounted for, would result in mass deaths. Thomas Cochran, a weapons analyst at the council said: "The risk is huge. Depending on which way the wind is blowing, you get casualties of a million or more."

Having spent some time in large war games run by similar computer programs a number of years ago, I will comment that the million casualties figure has been extrapolated into 1 million US troops. My guess is that the wargame included US and Allied troops, and friendlies not in uniform. So, our misinformed reporter or his editor made a brilliant intuitive leap in crafing the headline sound byte and of course, looks quite the ass when taken literally.

A million dead if a dense salvo of Ballistic Missiles, such as Scuds, heading for the more denseley populated areas of Israel . . . aint that gross of an exaggeration depending on the weather and the wind.

[--Pete]

Hi,

A little know fact about journalism is that headlines are seldom written by the reporters doing the story. A special editor is in charge of the headlines. A large part of the reason is that when the reporter submits the story, he has no idea how many columns it will be allocated and where on the page it will appear. Both those factors influence the amount of space available for the headline. Neither of those factors are known until the paper is in layout.

So, attributing the ignorance of the headline editor to the reporter is unfair. And, indeed, as Occhi pointed out a million casualties *overall* is not an impossible or even unlikely figure if chemical weapons are used in a reasonably crowded area.

--Pete

[WarBlade]

And, indeed, as Occhi pointed out a million casualties *overall* is not an impossible or even unlikely figure if chemical weapons are used in a reasonably crowded area.

--Pete

That's what I thought too when I read it. But I'm I'm scratching my head over the figure a bit. Pulling some probably unrealistic numbers out of the hat . . .

1000 U.S. Troops targeted and killed
996000 Iraqi civilians caught in the effected area? *
1000 Iraqis caught in the retaliatory strike
2000 Other human casualites

* I've read that Iraq seldom has buildings over six storeys, so I wonder at the amount of area that would have to be covered in a densely populated area for a million lives to be lost. :unsure:

[Taeme]

Actually, WarBlade, Iraqi civilian casualties would be high not based on "effected areas". On the other hand, the reliance of the civilians on the state to provide them with food rations is considered to be quite capable of killing millions. Once the Iraqi government is hit, aid workers will have great difficulty in supplying enough food fast enough.

Hence a whole nation is held by the throat. Wonderful situation.

[WarBlade]

Ah. Food rations . . . and medicine too I expect.

Ok, that adds something to the equation I hadn't considered. The funny thing thing about that aspect is it's not too dissimilar from the situation they are currently in (courtesy of the sanctions). Well, we'll wait and see I suppose. :(

[--Pete]

Hi,

While I don't know how many six story buildings it would take, I did find some population numbers for Iraq. Go to http://www.world-gazetteer.com/fr/fr_iq.htm to get the population, note that there are 14 cities of over 800,000.

Looking at the map that is also available on that site, and assuming that the war will converge on Baghdad, it is not at all impossible that a chemical attack will influence one or more of those large cities. In Baghdad alone, there are a potential 5 million casualties to a chemical attack and a wind shift. Would Saddam risk killing 5 million of his own if he thought he could kill 1000 enemy soldiers? I hope we don't find out.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

. . . did he even ask the 'what if' question that you just framed?

Sting had a neat little sound byte in one of his songs a while back, making a poorly veiled reference to MAD: 'I hope the Russians love their children too."

I am sure the the Iraqi's love their children very much, but what I am uncertain about is whether or not Saddam cares.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I am sure the the Iraqi's love their children very much, but what I am uncertain about is whether or not Saddam cares.

He doesn't seem to have up until now. He could long ago have ended many of the hardships of his people had he abided by the treaty *he* accepted to end the '91 war.

It is Saddam's indifference to the suffering of even "his" people combined with the growing proof of WMD research, development, and manufacture that puts me reluctantly in favor of going to war. While I feel pity for the Iraqis, if I felt that the problem would be confined to Iraq I would say we had no business going in and saving them from themselves. But when I look at a map of the world, draw a 3000 mile circle centered on Baghdad, and contemplate the damage a few tons of chemicals or a few grams of biologicals could do, then I see a need for action.

--Pete

[Jarulf]

Why only count troops in the area though? If I am not mistaken there has been casualties at for example Pentagon in the past. What makes you think something like that could not happen in a war?

[--Pete]

Hi,

Why only count troops in the area though? If I am not mistaken there has been casualties at for example Pentagon in the past. What makes you think something like that could not happen in a war?

I suspect that that is exactly the problem here. The reporter writing the article was talking of total casualties, both military and civilian. The military including all combatants, not just forces from the USA. The headline editor jumped to the wrong conclusion and wrote a bit of nonsense that makes the whole looks stupid.

--Pete