Great News!

  • Thread starter Thread starter milefile
  • 37 comments
  • 927 views
milefile

milefile

Messages
10,832
Gotcha.

"With U.S. defense officials also saying Iraqi commanders were prepared to use chemical or biological weapons to defend Baghdad, Bush did not rule out nuclear retaliation in response, in line with long-standing U.S. policy. That policy was amplified in an administration strategy document issued last December that said a potential "nuclear response" was part of the U.S. deterrent against weapons of mass destruction."

So... will this happen? Why or why not?
 
I really doubt that the US would nuke Baghdad. I think Bush is smart enough to see that we don't want/need a nuclear war. Yep.

Besides, why waste perfectly good nukes on Iraq, when they can be put to good use on the hippies/democrats? :p
 
I don't think it will happen, it's just Bush trying to communicate with Saddam in a way Saddam will understand - the language of threats and bullying.

Somehow I don't think that most of the population of the USA would support nuclear strikes, and certainly nobody else would.
 
Unless Bush feels the need to start WIII I don't think he will actually use nuclear weapons on Baghdad. I probably wouldn't support such a move like Wastegate has said.
 
Originally posted by Wastegate
I don't think it will happen, it's just Bush trying to communicate with Saddam in a way Saddam will understand - the language of threats and bullying.

Somehow I don't think that most of the population of the USA would support nuclear strikes, and certainly nobody else would.
Click to expand...

But what if Saddam used chemical or biological warfare on coalition troops? What would he do then? Go home sulking with his tail between his legs?

Picture thousands of US and British soldiers dead or dying having never even seen the enemy. Smallpox. Anthrax. VX nerve gas. Mustard gas.

I guess the question would be then: Do you think Saddam would use these sorts of weapons? Because if you do you have to ask yourself what the response would be. And I know it would not be to leave losers.
 
Originally posted by milefile
What would he do then? Go home sulking with his tail between his legs?
Click to expand...

No. Wiping out the entire population of Iraq probably isn't something he'd do either, or at least I hope it isn't.

I wouldn't put it past Saddam to use chemical/biological weapons, but if he did I don't think nuking Baghdad would solve anything.
 
If Bush were to use nuclear weapons for any reason he would completely negate his reasons for starting this war in the first place. Any nuclear strike on Saddam would involve massive civilian casualties in the short, medium and long term.

As I understand them the aims of this war are:

1) To liberate the people of Iraq from Saddam. Nuking them would could not be considered a satisfactory liberation.

2) To protect Iraq's neighbours from harm from Saddam. Well, radioactive clouds floating across the continent would upset all of them.

3) To protect the rest of the world from terrorism. A nuclear strike against areas of large civilian population would inspire a huge amount of hatred, and subsequent terrorism against the USA.

I don't know if Saddam will authorise a biological or chemical attack against coalition forces, or if the local commanders would act on such orders. But the thought scares me, as it has since before the war was declared. But Saddam seems to be the kind of person prepared to sacrifice everything and everyone to ensure his own survival and the survival of his regime - if he thinks he can get away with it.

If a chemical attack were to happen I still don't think Bush would use nuclear weapons. But he and Blair really have to make sure that Saddam is no position to gain from a WOMD strike.
 
Well that's just the problem. What would? I'm not saying I think it will happen. I don't know any better than any of you. But I am asking you to think about what could be done in that (frighteningly likely) case.
 
Originally posted by Wastegate
If Bush were to use nuclear weapons for any reason he would completely negate his reasons for starting this war in the first place.
Click to expand...

It would appear so. But irony happens all over the place, even in war... maybe even especially in war.

All I know is that Saddam and his sychophants are becoming increasingly desperate, and will only more so. It's hard to contemplate what could happen.

It was unthinkable that the World Trade Center would fall, as well. But that is old news now. What will be old news two and a half years from now?
 
If Bush uses a nuclear weapon on Baghdad I hate to think of the consequences for the rest of the region - I think we'd see the whole middle east erupt into war.

I don't think it would happen - I think you'd find that if Hussein used chemical weapons just about every country in the world would join the fight against Iraq.
 
Originally posted by vat_man
I think you'd find that if Hussein used chemical weapons just about every country in the world would join the fight against Iraq.
Click to expand...

That is most likely true. I think I even heard France would fight in that case. But even still... how do you fight against weapons like that? Does anybody know?
 
Originally posted by milefile
That is most likely true. I think I even heard France would fight in that case. But even still... how do you fight against weapons like that? Does anybody know?
Click to expand...

It IS a scary topic, but it needs to be addressed.

I think the best way to do anything would be hard to do, but here's my solution.
Drop a chemical warhead in the middle of Bagdad, keep reading. The chemical warhead will contain a sleeping gas, enough to knock people out for hours, but it wouldn't do any physical or mental damage. While everyone is sleeping, we go through Bagdad as fast as we can, go into those bunkers that Saddam has, disable the Iraqi military equipment(does this involve destroying it? No, all it requires is to empty their vehicles of gasoline and to take away the ammunition.) Granted, Saddam would probably have oxygen tanks and gasmasks and such, but not all of his people would, I'd imagine. While just about everyone is knocked out, we send in huge waves of aid, including meds, food, clothes, and such. While sending in the aid, we clear out the palaces Saddam could be in, as well as all the bunkers, military compounds, and anything else that could be a strong military threat.

The only problem with the sleeping gas would be all the motorists on the roads while the warhead releases the gas....;(
 
I've wondered if there is such a thing as a "weapon of mass impairment" they could use. That would be the best. Knock them all out and take care of business. Wishful thinking I suppose.
 
NFW,... we have enough MOAB's to handle him without going to nukes. Oh yeah,... MOAB = "Mother of all bombs" - 18,000 pounds. (compaired to the dinky 2000 lb 'bunker busters' we've been droppin)
 
Nukes are Nuclear Fission, right? As far as my ignorant butt is, we don't know how perform nuclear fusion. Fission is when you split atoms, fusion is when you combine them.
 
They're the two extreme opposites! If you say one thing, but you don't know but you ment the other, you will give people very bad impressions.
 
It's fission. And I wasn't aware the 18,000 lb bombs were ready to be used. I just heard something on the radio last week about a humongous conventional bomb being tested, but it may have been even bigger.
 

Latest Posts

Back