Hawks Only: What should be the Response to...

Hawk's Only ie only those who would be considered Hawks on Iraqi (with the UN or not) should be reading this thread, Doves are welcome to respond but remember the purpose of the thread.

If the Iraqi's use Chemical weapons what should be the Coalitions response in your opinion? Should Mustard Gas be answered with Mustard Gas or a small Nuke?

Does the Target have bearing on this issue in your opinion, for example if Chemical weapons are used on US troops in the desert would that require a different response then say if a Chemical loaded Scud where to land in Tel Aviv or Kuwait City?

As the US and most responsible nations do not have Bio weapons what should be the response to there use in your opinion? keeping in mind that Idification of some Bio Weapons my not even occur until long after the fighting is over with.

In your opinion should a dirty nuke bomb be met with a small Tactical Nuke?

I now many will be turned off by the simple nuts and bolts perspective of these questions but I was in deed wondering.

I think it was Nixion who ended our training in use of chemical and bio weapons as a response. Ever since then we have only kept our stockpile for just in case but all training has been focused on defense. This left us with only Nukes for response.

I think on this issue we are between Iraq and a hard place. :D

To use a nuke where ever or how ever small in retaleation. Would do great harm to us in way of support. This would bring about much international fear.

However if we have WMDs used on us and we don't respond in kind then the deterant aspect of our nukes is lost. We are seen as to be bluffing. Which could be very dangerous in the future especially with North Korea.

I would not like to do it. I would understand if Bush does not do it. I would hate to be in his shoes. If I were, I would eventually give the order. The precedent for not using a deterant would be too disasterous for the future. I would not hold my head high.

I am ready for the stones and the names.

The Us's policy on this has always been left as a vauge "overwhelming response in kind". WMDs will be responded to with WMDs. Since our chemical weapons are all past their "use by" dates and are being disposed of, and germs are too hard to keep under control, there's really only one choice left... The whole point of this overwhelming response is to make damn sure that no national leader uses WMDs against us. (This may also be why the Anthrax mailings are still "unsolved". If evidence were made public tying Iraq to that Anthrax...self-lit parking lot...)

Personnally, my feelings are that the USA have enough advanced weapons to be able to answer to Iraq's use of WMD, like for instance the bombs they used in Afghanistan to kill people hidden in caves.
Nuclear power should be always the very last resort (for instance, a unmistakingly Iraqi attaq with WMD on an American city - though I don't really think how this would be possible but who knows :eek: ), since now there are a lot of more or less roguish countries who own nuclear weapons (I'm not talking about France...), and the USA using it would be like some sign that the thing can be unleashed again.

And most of these countries' weapons are not clean at all...

I am of the firm opinion that the West, if it wants to be seen as "the good guys", should follow a policy of not stooping to the enemies' level. By all means, descend like the wrath of God on people who attack you via any means, but using a nuke in response to a chem/bioweapon attack will not only get the bastards responsible, but also thousands or even hundreds of thousands of innocents. In the unfortunate event of an enemy nuclear strike, then retaliation in kind is the only way, but not otherwise.

I am glad that all share the same reservation about retalation with Nukes against Chemical and Bio weapons that I have. Your right in that use of a nuke would be out of propotion to the use of Chemicals in a tatical situtation. Perhaps in this the best response is to just fight harder, faster and a little meanear. I also want to mention while the US stokpile is old and being disarmed the East Europeans have a decent stokepile (left over from the cold war) and have been until recently trained to use them so there presence in the coalition is a little ominious.

Hitting back with chemicals would cause nearly as many civilian casualites as a small nuke. What's worse is that unless you catch your target unaware, your gas will only be a nusance. The folks laiunching the stuff will already be suited-up.

good point and that has always been the drawback/fallacy of all WMD that eventually they will come back and bite you as well as the enemy and other unintended victims (such as French cows living 70, 80+ plus years after there use!). I remember hearing stories of the first Germans to launch Chemicals in 15, that they would throw stuff up into giant fans which would blow the dust toward the enemy. Well it seems on more than one occiasion that the fans were fighting against the wind the chemicals eventually came back on the Germans who had assumed the chemical would continue on being pushed by the fans forward hence they did not need any masks. the results where of course perdictable.

What happened to our cows?!? :eek:

They lived 80 years !?! :eek:
Damn, no doubt there were some Vulcans running around and telling "live long and prosper" to every living thing! French cows have never been very good in the language department ... probably took that as an order! :D

Chello!

Tac Nukes.

The fellow who designed the neutron bomb said thet to cretaed a good small nuke (about the yield of Hiroshima), all we have to do is remove the H-bomb cores from our nuclear cruise missiles and use the a-bobms that triggers the main warhead.

And I would use that response for any use of WMDs against us or an ally.

Easily.

And without remorse.

Please note that I am an Army Vet, a middle school teacher, and a father of 5.

"Good small nuke". Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

I'd say that if Iraq managed to somehow launch and hit an ally city or an American city with a dirty bomb or a nuclear warhead; vaporize their cities in kind. If you don't, the whole deterrence element of the American policy goes out the window.

If they use chemical or biological on an allied city, that's a more iffy issue IMO. I'd say that the response should be an indiscriminate bombardment of large cities. If Iraq used chemical/biological weapons on the U.S. troops, then I'd roll out the napalm or other chemicals and threaten their use.

IMO its not about stooping to their level, its to show others you will not stand for the use of chemical/biological weapons. And that your response to any such attack will be tenfold in order to deter future aggression.

"I think on this issue we are between Iraq and a hard place."

Oh, boo!!!! :p

Fuel-air bomb. They're so fun...

The US has no battlefield offensive biological or chemical weapon capability. Stated US policy it to treat all WMD attacks as equivelent. Attack by mustard gas, according to policy, equates to a nuclear response.

In my opinion, given any sort of effective attack on US forces or civilian targets AND given an identifiable target for retaliation, a nuclear response would be appropriate.

Deterrance only works if the threat of retaliation is credible. If WMD are used against US forces or populations and the US does not repond according to it's own policy, then that threat is no longer credible.

If we are never willing under any circumstances to utilize a nuclear response, we might as well dismantle our weapons now and save ourselves the trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Eric R.
Hawk's Only ie only those who would be considered Hawks on Iraqi (with the UN or not) should be reading this thread, Doves are welcome to respond but remember the purpose of the thread.

If the Iraqi's use Chemical weapons what should be the Coalitions response in your opinion? Should Mustard Gas be answered with Mustard Gas or a small Nuke?

Does the Target have bearing on this issue in your opinion, for example if Chemical weapons are used on US troops in the desert would that require a different response then say if a Chemical loaded Scud where to land in Tel Aviv or Kuwait City?

As the US and most responsible nations do not have Bio weapons what should be the response to there use in your opinion? keeping in mind that Idification of some Bio Weapons my not even occur until long after the fighting is over with.

In your opinion should a dirty nuke bomb be met with a small Tactical Nuke?

I now many will be turned off by the simple nuts and bolts perspective of these questions but I was in deed wondering.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Calcoran
What happened to our cows?!? :eek:

---

Beside the fact that most of there ancestory came from the US this,

Some farmers in Alsace and in Champgne have reported finding dead cows in old pill boxes for years. Studies usually show later that the air is still toxic enough with various chemicals to kill the the poor things with long exposure, like the occiasional land mine or dud shell wen't enough. But I have begun to wonder if this is in effect a French Urban legend such as Alligators living in the sewars of New York.

But what has been reported and seen by myself are pictures of Farmers in those same areas with blisteres on there hands due to the soils heavy content of Mustard gas residue and other little left overs. like removing a shell fragment without realizing that it was a Chemical shell long ago.

If you get a chance too, ask anybody from those areas if they have heard about this.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Eric R.
If you get a chance too, ask anybody from those areas if they have heard about this.

---

I sure will. Never heard about it before, but that said, I've never lived in these parts either.
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...

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."

---

:eek:

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.

---

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!;)

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.