Full Version: Nuclear Response
If Iraq hits any allied force or neighboring allied-friendly country with bio or chemical weapons, should we retaliate with a full nuclear assault on Iraq?
Absolutely not.
Short answer: No.
No need to stoop to his level. If SH deems it necessary to launch any WMD at anyone, this war is going to have a lot more support. Launching a WMD at anyone (or those which he claims he does not have) would be his death warrent signed, sealed and delivered.
--cheers
No need to stoop to his level. If SH deems it necessary to launch any WMD at anyone, this war is going to have a lot more support. Launching a WMD at anyone (or those which he claims he does not have) would be his death warrent signed, sealed and delivered.
--cheers
Heck no.
Contrary to popular belief, chemical and biological weapons are very inefficient. You make the assumption that "millions will die" when these things are released.
That ain't exactly so. You need to be pretty much at "ground zero" for these things to be fatal. It's very difficult to weaponize most of these and even harder to do it in mass quantities.
The terrorists in Japan had 50 tons of sarin gas. They took what they could and deployed it in a subway. No wind or environmental variables. Basically, the worst case scenario.
12 people died. 2 from the gas, and 10 from the panic. But it's never reported as such. It's always 12 people died.
The cyanide scare from a few weeks ago, same thing. The doctors said cyanide was rarely fatal. At ground zero, you have about 15 minutes to wash it off. Further away, up to 24 hours to wash it off.
How about the weaponized anthrax from a year or so ago? This stuff floated freely in the air. Multiple sites were targeted. How many died? 2?
These things are bad...that cannot be disputed. The fatalities from my examples are horrific and cannot be minimized. But no history exists that suggests the masses will die.
Nuking Iraq for this makes an assumption and penalizes them with a certainty.
Contrary to popular belief, chemical and biological weapons are very inefficient. You make the assumption that "millions will die" when these things are released.
That ain't exactly so. You need to be pretty much at "ground zero" for these things to be fatal. It's very difficult to weaponize most of these and even harder to do it in mass quantities.
The terrorists in Japan had 50 tons of sarin gas. They took what they could and deployed it in a subway. No wind or environmental variables. Basically, the worst case scenario.
12 people died. 2 from the gas, and 10 from the panic. But it's never reported as such. It's always 12 people died.
The cyanide scare from a few weeks ago, same thing. The doctors said cyanide was rarely fatal. At ground zero, you have about 15 minutes to wash it off. Further away, up to 24 hours to wash it off.
How about the weaponized anthrax from a year or so ago? This stuff floated freely in the air. Multiple sites were targeted. How many died? 2?
These things are bad...that cannot be disputed. The fatalities from my examples are horrific and cannot be minimized. But no history exists that suggests the masses will die.
Nuking Iraq for this makes an assumption and penalizes them with a certainty.
Please know I make NO assumptions about anything. I'm just asking.
Washington has already hinted that if WMD are used against us, then the US will use all available resources.
Washington has already hinted that if WMD are used against us, then the US will use all available resources.
Then it sounds like you seriously need to do some homework.
Read about Hiroshima. The bomb that was used then, is many times smaller than what exists today.
Read about fallout and wind currents/patterns
Read about the size of the crater left at ground 0.
Read about long-term cancer
Read about deformed babies
Did you hear about that nightclub where 90 ppl died in a panic trying to get our of a burning venue? heh, a lot more than 10 would die in a subway trying to get out.
I know, and I strongly disagree. I hope it doesn't come to that.
--cheers
Read about Hiroshima. The bomb that was used then, is many times smaller than what exists today.
Read about fallout and wind currents/patterns
Read about the size of the crater left at ground 0.
Read about long-term cancer
Read about deformed babies
Did you hear about that nightclub where 90 ppl died in a panic trying to get our of a burning venue? heh, a lot more than 10 would die in a subway trying to get out.
QUOTE
Washington has already hinted that if WMD are used against us, then the US will use all available resources.
I know, and I strongly disagree. I hope it doesn't come to that.
--cheers
DP, I know all about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I even met and spoke with Paul Tibbets once.
I do NOT support it, but the same argument for dropping the bomb on Japan could be made here.
1 nuclear tip missile at a relatively low cost
vs.
Thousands of allied casualties at a cost of billion$
Once again I do not support the idea, but it is a possibility and I wanted everyone else's input.
I do NOT support it, but the same argument for dropping the bomb on Japan could be made here.
1 nuclear tip missile at a relatively low cost
vs.
Thousands of allied casualties at a cost of billion$
Once again I do not support the idea, but it is a possibility and I wanted everyone else's input.
No. I think Iraq will use its chemical and biological weapons, but nuclear retaliation is not the answer. Saddam is an enemy who can be easily defeated by conventional means, even if he does decide to use WMD. Nuclear retaliation would only cause undue suffering to Iraqi civilians, who for the most part want Saddam gone.
I agree that nukes are not of strategic value here.
One of the reasons behind using nukes against the Japanese was the war-like attitude (bushido attitude) that pervaded its society. It was thought that the Japanese would continue to fight even against the most daunting odds, creating massive casualties on both sides.
In Iraq, where the joke is that the Republican Guard will surrender to Geraldo Rivera after the opening salvo, there is no need to "break" the opposing army.
One of the reasons behind using nukes against the Japanese was the war-like attitude (bushido attitude) that pervaded its society. It was thought that the Japanese would continue to fight even against the most daunting odds, creating massive casualties on both sides.
In Iraq, where the joke is that the Republican Guard will surrender to Geraldo Rivera after the opening salvo, there is no need to "break" the opposing army.
QUOTE(Hercules @ Mar 10 2003, 11:02 AM)
DP, I know all about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I even met and spoke with Paul Tibbets once.
I do NOT support it, but the same argument for dropping the bomb on Japan could be made here.
1 nuclear tip missile at a relatively low cost
vs.
Thousands of allied casualties at a cost of billion$
Once again I do not support the idea, but it is a possibility and I wanted everyone else's input.
I do NOT support it, but the same argument for dropping the bomb on Japan could be made here.
1 nuclear tip missile at a relatively low cost
vs.
Thousands of allied casualties at a cost of billion$
Once again I do not support the idea, but it is a possibility and I wanted everyone else's input.
Hmmm, there may have been a misunderstanding between us. If so, than I apologize for anything I might have had to do with it.
My comment was directed to DaytonRocker who doesn't think WMD's do all that much damage.
I agree with you Hercules, we can stop arguing now...lol
--cheers
PS: Who is Paul Tibbets?
QUOTE(Digital Patriot @ Mar 10 2003, 08:08 PM)
PS: Who is Paul Tibbets?
Paul Tibbets was the pilot of the Enola Gay. Just FYI
QUOTE
In Iraq, where the joke is that the Republican Guard will surrender to Geraldo Rivera after the opening salvo, there is no need to "break" the opposing army.
Some couldn't wait. They tried to surrender to UK forces on Kuwaiti border when they heard practice rounds being fired and thought the war had begun. This was last Monday.
(rumor has it a French patrol was right behind them)
MftM - what does that have to do with the topic to debate? 
That we don't need nukes to force an Iraqi surrender.
I appreciate you attempting to reply for MusingfromtheMiddle, amlord, but I would prefer to hear from him.
QUOTE(Hercules @ Mar 10 2003, 11:42 AM)
If Iraq hits any allied force or neighboring allied-friendly country with bio or chemical weapons, should we retaliate with a full nuclear assault on Iraq?
Absolutly not
I'm all for a retaliation but Chemical, biological, or NUCLEAR weapons are out
If Saddam uses any of the above on us, then to The Hauge he goes
Nuclear attacks should be so last resort it isn't even funny.
They are too messy, and there is certainly no reason to nuke Saddam back, since we can easily perform the same result with more ordinance and less mess.
They are too messy, and there is certainly no reason to nuke Saddam back, since we can easily perform the same result with more ordinance and less mess.
That we won't need nukes to get the Iraqis to surrender. A sufficiently loud 'boo' will suffice for half of them.
Just a little gallows humor, sorry if that somehow offends.
Just a little gallows humor, sorry if that somehow offends.
This thread is barely constructive. Let's add something of real substance here 
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.