The proper use of WMD
 

When is it ok for a nation to use WMD?

I would genuinely like to know what the pro-war posters (Jimbo, Haley, M, B-Man et al) think on this topic. They can't say 'never', since the US is far and away the world leader in WMD production, innovation and possession. Seriously...when would it be ok for the US to use WMD?

Re: The proper use of WMD
 

1) A nuclear bomb: Pretty much anytime our Prez says FIRE

2) Biological Warfare: Pretty much never

3) Nerve gas: Somewhere in between

4) Neutron bomb: I wish we had developed this technology. It is so much cleaner than blowing up all the buildings along with the enemy.

Now these are my answers for when the US should or should not use them. As far as any other country choosing to use them see my option #1 above for our response so let them roll the dice if they like.

"It's nice being the King." [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

Re: The proper use of WMD
 

It's a tough question.

Off the top of my head, I would say that the U.S. would be justified using WMD (1) in response to an attack against us or our allies using WMD, or (2) in response to a terrorist attack on a 9-11 type scale (example: terrorists blow up a chemical or nuclear plant, killing thousands) if we know where the terrorists or their supporters are located, or if the regime which gives them shelter refuses to turn them over (such as The Taliban).

Unless their use was in response to an attack, it would be tough to justify them, especially if all other courses of action had not been exhausted.

There may be other scenarios where their use would be justified, but none are jumping to mind.

Re: The proper use of WMD
 

well if we needed to displace large populations to take their land and introduce civilization, we could always introduce a biological agent, perhaps embedded in gifts that the indigenous populations would take and use and thus be exposed to the bioagent.

Re: The proper use of WMD
 

In regards to Iraq, I don't see how anybody can criticize a government from using any force, including WMD, to defend themselves against an outside invader. So, if Hussein uses chemical or biological weapons, I don't really have a problem with it. You expect a regime to use all force possible when an invader is trying to destroy them.

What I have a problem with is Iraq possessing WMD, especially after the cease fire agreement of 1991.

So, they can use them as a last desperate defense. But, they aren't allowed to own them. [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] That sounds political.

Re: The proper use of WMD
 

Breaking down the available choices of WMD.

1. Nuclear weapons. Primarily useful as a sterilant for large storage facilities of chemical or biological weapons. Secondarily in the event of an identifiable Iraqi generated WMD attack on US soil or against allied forces. They gas Picadilly Square, we dump a couple of B-61s on top of a Republican Guard division. It would get their attention, convince them that they'd erred severly and be defensible in political terms as long as the deployment was developed with reasonable environmental factors included in the mission plan.

2. Chemical Weapons. Bad mojo. Not particularly effective even against unprotected troops. (How many died in an enclosed subway train in an enclosed subway tunnel in Japan from a level of Sarin that should have been sufficient to lay waste to nearly a square mile?) Throw in the fact that the truly effective chemical weapons are also VERY long lived if they happen to get into low lying terrain or get buried by blown dirt or the like and they're just bad ideas. Look to the number of times the Germans gassed themselves during WW-I when the wind shifted.

3. Biological weapons. Same concerns as chemical only magnified. While it's possible to generate vaccines for bioweapons to protect the troops, what protects the civilian population of the allied nations when the exposed but unaffected troops interact with civilian contractors, media or happen to be redeployed back to their home nation. Bio weapons are bad, bad things. We don't even have to factor in their longevity in a desert environment if they're either chemicaly encapsulated or exist as natural spores like Anthrax. Just say No.

4. Enhance radiation weapons. (Neutron bombs) Okay gang, a neutron bomb does NOT leave the buildings standing. A neutron bomb is a nuclear bomb with a casing that emits neutrons when stimulated by the fission of the bomb. Even the smallest neutron bomb fielded was over a kiloton and was only realistically able to disable a fully exposed human at a range of about 1000 meters. This is only about 200 meters further than that same human could have expected to be killed by the energy products of an unenhanced weapon. The most commonly fielded enhanced radiation weapons were on the order of 25kt, 175kt and 475kt. These are BIG [censored] bombs. The smallest of these is 20% bigger than the Nagasaki bomb and almost twice the size of the Hiroshima bomb. Even with an enhanced radiation tamper installed in something like a W-80 warhead, the radiation effects will be combat effective at less than 20% additional range than that of the weapon effects.
Neutron bombs were a cute idea. Supposed to get great press. Kill the troops and save the city. BZZZZTTTT! Nuke a division with a neutron bomb, kill the tankers in their tracks out to about 1750 meters. They still take between an hour and a week to die. (You can shoot a lot of tank rounds in that hour.) Then the bad guys come along, offload the bodies, hose off any fallout, toss in a new crew and go merrily on their way. Neutron bombs are silly.
A good discussion of nuclear weapons can be found in the High Energy Weapon Archive, written by Carey Sublette. It's available at the following URL: http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/

If you go to the following URL, you can see a fairly comprehensive list of the fielded weapon systems and their various configurations:
http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew.../Allbombs.html

You'll notice that very few enhanced radiation weapons ever actually "hit the street."

The fielded weapons consisted of:

W-70 Originally designed for the Lance missile.

W-79 Eight inch howitzer shell

W-81 This warhead was designed to have an ER version
but this was scrapped and never fielded.

W-82 This was the 155mm howitzer shell. Itty bitty bomb,
certified by DOE as being "less than 2kt yield" a
dirty little bastard. Lots of crap left in the air.

While it's possible to convert other warheads and bombs to an enhance radiation configuration, it has to be remembered
that even after the conversion, the weapon still has to fit in the
casing in order to be delivered. This requires a tremendous
amount of recalculation in order to even get it to work.