I say that if we are hit with a WMD, and lets be honest, that means a LOT of people are going to die (they're not called weapons of minimum destruction). If hundreds of thousands of people die, then I say we make Iraq's biggest export glass.
Printable View
I say that if we are hit with a WMD, and lets be honest, that means a LOT of people are going to die (they're not called weapons of minimum destruction). If hundreds of thousands of people die, then I say we make Iraq's biggest export glass.
I sure will. Never heard about it before, but that said, I've never lived in these parts either.Quote:
Originally posted by Eric R.
If you get a chance too, ask anybody from those areas if they have heard about this.
What, do you mean there are no aligators in New York's sewer system?!? ;)
Capt Hunter and Eric R have pretty much summed up my position. If Iraq uses WMD against us, we'll do whatever it takes to knock out the people responsible. I hope and pray we can do that without using nukes; collateral damage is just a euphemism for dead innocents. Nobody in his right mind wants that.
I'm just a radical right-wing Republican war-monger (in my own sweet way), but it seems to me that if Saddam is fool enough (make that damned-fool enough) to open up with WMD in sufficient force, quantity, and dosage to affect American a/o allied troops despite their chemical gear, everyone else (especially the Iraqi civilians) within a hundred miles would already be dead or dying from the overkill. A small tactical nuke wouldn't make anybody MORE dead.
Second, there is a strong possiblility that the Gulf War Syndrome and its associated misery were caused by accidental exposure to the nerve, chemical, and biological agents destroyed in one of Saddam's bunkers by US troops.
In the moments after the war starts, the US intends to destroy as many of these munitions BEFORE they can be used on US troops, which means everyone within range of the hidden bunkers (including Saddam's home-town) is a dead-man walking anyway.
The United States (and Israel) have threatened a crushing nuclear response against the use of Iraqi chemical or biological weapons specifically to make the Iraqi military leaders (the generals in the field, not the yes-men in the inner circle) think twice about following orders to use them. If the Iraqis decide to follow through, then the deaths are on THEIR heads, not America's or President Bush's.
The President and the leaders of the Armed Forces are required to carry out actions in America's best interests, and to safeguard (as much as possible) the lives of our service men. Saving the lives of innocent Iraqis is a secondary (though still highly laudible) goal.
Saddam has been offered every chance, opportunity, and reasonable compromise and has responded with murder, oppression, lies, and brutalities that would make even a jaded Nazi puke. He has been negotiated with, counseled, advised, and warned repeatedly. ANY deaths incurred in this war lie directly upon his head. If he dies at the hands of an American GI with an M16, tough luck. If he dies in a mushroom cloud, it's just a warm-up for the warmth that awaits him at his final destination.
Well, if Iraq uses WMD, I think a nuclear response is warranted, and frankly more humane... What the point of making Iraqi troops suffer the effects of nerve agents... what, to watch them writhe around in pain and form boils all over their bodies, just to watch them die hours later.
Additionally, the use of nukes would send a clear message to governments that support radical Islamic terror groups (i.e., Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc), that we will not be trifled with and will protect our citizenry.... it will also have the added effect of putting North Korea in its place.
With that in mind, I hope this never happens, I hope Saddam has the sense to realize his days are numbered and will take a little R&R on the French Riviera... will he??? Doubt it... Will he use WMD... almost certainly, especially if he's backed into a corner.
I just hope some Iraqi commander has the good sense to put a round through Saddam's head a put this whole mess to an end.
Yancy
Durring the First Gulf War, if Iraq had used WMD on allied troops, *one* of the responce options was to take out the dam's on the Tigris River and put much of Bagdad under six feet of water.
Source: PBS show Frontline 1996.
Unless the Iraqis are able to kill a large number of allied troops I really doubt you'll see the US going nuke in it's responce...instead I think you will see something like the above or some variation of it.
Response?
I had heard from a reliable source, back after the 91 war, that a reporter had asked that question of a general in the gulf - "What if Hussein uses Chem or bio weapons?"
The general replied "We would expect 10-15% casualties from the first attack."
The reporter asked "What about the second attack?"
The general replied, "There won't BE a second attack. After the first, Baghdad will be glass."
Or we could take a hint from the Bible...
:eek:Quote:
Numbers 21:33-35: Land of Bashan "...they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left alive: and they possessed his land."
I like it, I like it- of, course we'd better make sure the demolition team (land or air based) is athiest or the lefties and loonies will accuse us of waging a *holy war* on Islam by baptizing Mecca!;)Quote:
, *one* of the responce options was to take out the dam's on the Tigris River and put much of Bagdad under six feet of water.
What would the effects of a chemical attack be against coalition forces? Wouldn't the soldiers involved be more protected than the average Iraqi civilian downwind?
I see more harm coming to civilians in such an attack than to the forces arrayed against the aggressor. I think if the Allies are attacked by chemical weapons - the use of a nuclear option would basically erase the reason for its use and set the Middle-east completely against the west.
It is easy to see Iraq as the focus of the problem, but the world is complex, and the media is not.
Brian K
Just a quick question here: how "small" is a "small tactical nuke"? I was under the impression that even a "suitcase bomb", involving a ball of fissile material and an explosive outer layer to force the nuclei together has a blast radius of around three miles. Consider how many city blocks in the average US city would fit in a three-mile radius and tell me how "tactical" the weapon is...
I think Sarge hit the nail on the head when he talked about "collateral damage" being a euphemism for dead innocent casualties. I think "small tactical nuke" is just political speak..."small" because they have bigger nukes available if they *really* want..."tactical" because it'll wipe out any problems the military have in a 3 mile radius of where it's dropped (or however big) and "nuke" because it's nuclear. Either way, they'll probably make Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like someone just dropped a large sack of potatoes on Japan.
Here's a rule of thumb for defining tactical and strategic weapons: if it's designed to take out the enemy military forces, it's tactical, but if it's designed to take out industrial support (read "cities"), it's strategic.
After putting some more thought into the problem, here's what I think our ideal response to a WMD attack during a war with Iraq should be. Isolate a military force like the Republican Guards out in the middle of nowhere, and drop a tactical nuke on them. That would maintain the credibility of nuclear deterrence and cause almost no "collateral damage".
After that, our leaders should offer sincere regrets about the necessity of such actions, and win the war as quickly and cleanly as
possible.
I wouldn't feel proud to be involved in such an incident, but wars have a way of forcing people to do things they don't like. I think I could learn to live with myself if I had to do it. OTOH, I can also picture myself facing a lot of sleepless nights asking if it was the right thing.