What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

If Saddam uses chemical weapons against U.S. troops (in Kuwait, Iraq, or wherever), what would be an appropriate military response from the U.S.? Would the use of WMD by the U.S be justified?

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

From what I understand, nuclear weapons (limited or otherwise) has been our stated, standard response to a use of chemical/biological weapons.

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

Call me crazy, but I think our various bombing raids qualify as using WMD too.

I mean, what is worse? Us using 'conventional' weapons and killing 100,000 Iraqis or Them using 'WMD' and killing 10,000 Americans?

Once war starts, everything is a WMD as far as I'm concerned. I just hope that for our boys' sake, our WMD kick more ass than their WMD.

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

"From what I understand, nuclear weapons (limited or otherwise) has been our stated, standard response to a use of chemical/biological weapons"

--I'll be surprised if we go nuclear on this one. With the White House standing firm with the "we're freeing the Iraqi people" message, I can't imagine they'll want to kill hundreds of thousands through nuclear fallout. If Saddam goes chemical (and I assume he will), I suspect we'll unload our entire arsenal of those new super-daisycutters before we go nuke.

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

I don't think its the same at all.

For one thing, we go out of our way to minimize civilian casualties (something very few (or even possibly none) other countries in history have done).

I predict we will kill far fewer than 100,000 Iraqi civilians. I might be wrong, but that's my feeling. If Saddam tries to make a last stand in Baghdad and creates a "hornet's nest," that could change things...

Chemical weapons are designed to do one thing--kill everyone who is near them, and do it in a horrible manner.

Also, the use of chemical weapons has been outlawed for decades. So in a legal sense, there is a distinction. But more importantly, I think there is a moral distinction.

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

Well, we can try to minimize civilian casualties, but we will kill some, and I am damn near 100% certain Iraq will kill precisely ZERO or our civilians. Given that, I'm not sure what your point really is.

I didn't know that someone bleeding to death because an exploding building fell on them was worse than mustard gas or whatever.

"Chemical weapons are designed to do one thing--kill everyone who is near them, and do it in a horrible manner."

Sounds a lot like our bombing raids to me.

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

"Chemical weapons are designed to do one thing--kill everyone who is near them, and do it in a horrible manner."

Sounds a lot like our bombing raids to me.

Similar perhaps in the end result, but very different purposes and means of getting to the result. We bomb infrastructure, military targets and, apparently, high level political leaders. Our objective is to destroy the target, not kill as many people as possible (though anyone in the building will be in big trouble). If we wanted to kill as many people as possible, we would be doing things like specifically targetting civilian areas, residences, hospitals, etc.

Use of chemical weapons by Saddam would be for one purpose--kill as many Americans (and British, Australians, etc.) as possible. Our objective is not to kill as many Iraqis as possible, in fact, a major concern is minimizing deaths of Iraqis.

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

"For one thing, we go out of our way to minimize civilian casualties (something very few (or even possibly none) other countries in history have done)."

"Use of chemical weapons by Saddam would be for one purpose--kill as many Americans (and British, Australians, etc.) as possible. "

But the chemical weapons would be used against coalition troops, not civilians. (I don't really think it makes no difference whether you use chemical or conventional weapons, I'm just being devil's advocate here. I do think the usedepleted uranium and cluster weapons is a disgrace however, that will be responsible for many civilian deaths, and more military deaths than is really necessary to win the war).

"Our objective is not to kill as many Iraqis as possible, in fact, a major concern is minimizing deaths of Iraqis. "

I hope so, including Iraqi troops as far as possible. Obviously it's absurd t go to war and hope not to kill any enemy troops, but if they behave the way they did last time at Basra then Bush Jr as well as Bush Sr will be guilty of war crimes.

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

I think if they use chemical weapons against troops we will be more restrained than we have threatened. I think our response should be to utterly destroy the Iraqi army. I'd let guys surrender, but every weapon, every tank, vehicle, building ever used by their military etc... should be destroyed. And in another "highway of death" scenario, they should be killed to the last man. Retreat is not surrender. If it took nukes to kill a retreating army to the last man, they should be used. If we could do it without, fine. But I would require unconditional surrender and then destroy anything military (using their own weapons to save money) if they used chemical weapons. I would also do something America has not really done and take spoils of war. Basically I would take their oil or tax it. I would also take big chunks of Iraq to have a permanent base in the mideast and maybe provide for a Palestinian homeland. Having a nice American territory would help keep the Saudis in line even. I doubt we will go far enough if WMD's are used on our troops though.

Given the potential of WMD's, our response to their use against us must be brutal. We are dealing with thugs, not nice guys. Brutal force works better than we would care to admit. Or in fact be comfortable using for that matter. Once WMD's are unleashed, the stakes are too high to give Chirac or Powell talk and appease strategies a shot. We must clearly deter anybody from using WMD's against us. That is harder in the case of terrorism, but easier in terms of state sponsored terrorism or military use.

Also, our bombing now is in no way similar to WMD's. The fact is we could nuke Iraq and there's not a damn thing the world could really do about it. China, Russia, France, would not respond with nukes if we took out Baghdad and the other big cities with nukes. Sure, people would complain and we would lose standing in the "international community". But we could do it. We don't do that. And if we did it would be immoral and inhuman. But we could obliterate the civilian population there if we chose to. That does not mean what we are doing is right, but it does show we are restrained and measured in our use of force. Anybody think the same would be true if Saddam had that power?

Excellent Question, HDPM: It Makes A Key Point n/m
 

^