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
 

^

Re: 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.?"

Catch him and drop him feet first into a giant shredder?

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

I think you have some good ideas, but I don't see us implementing them under any foreseeable scenario. Right or wrong, there would be too much political heat from the international community.

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

"it does show we are restrained and measured in our use of force".

No. All it shows is the US is not as bad as Saddam would be with nuclear weapons. Is that really a worthy benchmark to be judged against?

If you believe all the things you write you clearly have no sense of the value of human life and at best tenuous connections to reality.

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

I clearly said using nukes against the Iraqi population would be immoral and inhuman, even though we could get away with it. I do not think this is evidence that I clearly have no sense of the value of human life. Nor did I say that because we clearly are better than Saddam that we are automatically justified in our use of force. That is a separate topic that I did not address. What I addressed is what we do if WMD's are used on our troops. In discussing the issue, I assumed the real world. And in the real world the response to the use of wmd's must be brutal. This does not show a disregard of the value of human life or a tenuous connection to reality. We were able to fight limited wars in Korea and Vietnam without resort to WMD's because the stakes of their use were high. China was not going to give nukes to the NVA because of what would happen if they were used. The consequences would be terrible. What do you think would happen if we had a policy that allowed for the use of WMD's on us with no response? The answer is that they would be used more. We can expect WMD's to be used in the future, and those who would use them must face a terrible price. And that is because human life has value.

I don't understand the need for personal attack in your post BTW.

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

What if US intelligence sets fire to 4 oil wells (instead of them all like Saddam would do) and blames it on Saddam?


It would be much like 9-11, that's what.

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

What if US intelligence sets fire to 4 oil wells (instead of them all like Saddam would do) and blames it on Saddam?

It would be much like 9-11, that's what.

You haven't been posting here very long, but this post, like many of your others, illustrates why you are the leader (far and away) in the category of "Highest Percentage of Completely Moronic Posts."

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

Actually, B-Man, I believe he has been posting here a long time, under various pseudonyms: quite a bit longer than you, in fact, and perhaps longer than me. I won't reveal here what I believe are his aliases, but rest assured that when he adopts a new name, you'll quickly know (if you are following the forum): the style is unmistakable.

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

rest assured that when he adopts a new name, you'll quickly know (if you are following the forum): the style is unmistakable.

can't argue with that!

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

well the US has already said that iraq may use 'false flag' operations in which iraqi soldiers dressed as americans commit atrocities to blame the US.

why wouldnt the US do things (like blow up oil wells) to blame on iraqis?

especially since declassified military plans call for false flag operations in which americans are killed by a covert american force false flagging as an enemy?

its not far fetched at all.

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

well its confirmed that US troops in gulf war 1 were exposed to low levels of nerve gas and stuff and the military and VA just denied it and gave them prozac and said they were crazy.

of course if its indisputable (ie, mass casualty) then they dont have that option this time.

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

Brad, in your head there may be a fine line between hyopthetical and fact, but as I often say in response to your posts, please show me some facts to back up what you are saying. Just because something could have happened, it doesn't mean it did happen. And without even a shred of evidence, there is no reason to think it happened.

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

U.S. troops were exposed to sarin in the first Gulf War because we blew up an Iraqi chemical weapons factory; Iraq did not use sarin against us. There is a very big difference between one and the other.

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

true. thats all im saying.

im saying the US may not want to 'escalate' (ie, if theyve threatened to use nukes or something) if everything is under control and then some small chemical attack it may be easier to just keep it under wraps until war is over rather than say we got hit with chem and then look weak by not 'escalating'.

thats all im saying.

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

"If you believe all the things you write you clearly have no sense of the value of human life and at best tenuous connections to reality."

nicky g, the value of any given human life is relative not absolute nor equal. Suppose either you or I had to die in order to save the world? Whom would you chose? I certainly know my druthers.

Re: What if Saddam doen\'t have any?
 

Then the USA has liberated Iraq. It will be ruled by a US General while the likes of Hallibuton and Enron rob it blind. The Army will turn its guns on Iran. The war will go on.

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

HPDM,
I take your point that the threat of retaliation may be necessary to prevent WMD atttack ion the first place - that wasn't what I was attacking, this is:
On what I described as your tenuous connection to reality:
"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 don't think turning Iraq into a US outpost to be used for whatever purposes it chooses is justifiable, though it may not be a totally unrealistic scenario. I don't see what the Palestinian issue has to do with Iraq using WMDs on American troops, but regardless: the Palestinians don't want any old land any more than the Israelis do, and they are entitled to live in the Paestinian territories just as much as the Israelis are entitled to live in Israel. Talk of shipping either side off to Iraq, or Jordan, or Madagascar or wherever is absurd and outrageous. SHipping them to a post WMD Iraq is not realistic.

On the value of human life:
"And in another "highway of death" scenario, they should be killed to the last man. Retreat is not surrender. "
This seems to justify what was done last time round (if I misunderstand, apologies), which I don't think was remotely justifiable. No, retreat isn't surrender. In the last Gulf War, however, surrender was not what was called for, withdrawal from Kuwait was. 100,000 conscripts were killed gratuitously and mercilessly, after having done what was asked of them. I don't see how doing this can ever be justified.
I do think that that particular post was not very realistic and displayed a lack of concern for the value of human life in the sections I quote. I apologise unreservedly for making my attack personal.
Jimbo, all the situation you describe proves is an instinct for self-perservation. It does not proove that wither of our lives is any more valuable than the other - quite the opposite, as our conflicting desires are totally relative, cancel each other out, and are not moral decisions. From an overall point of view, all life is valuable, though of course certain rights to it may be lost when other lives are threatened.

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

The Palestinian homeland thing probably won't work. And besides, Paris or the Vatican are higher on my list for a new homeland outside of the area. [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

As for spoils of war, I think we should actually do this if WMD's are used on us. It sends a message. America has not taken spoils of war before, but WMD's have not been used. I think it is justifiable but unrealistic, but you think it is realistic but unjustifiable. I think America will be too reluctant to do that because it is just a strong arm deal.

As for the highway of death, well when you are a soldier in an army and you are fighting you are fair game. I said I would allow unconditional surrender at any point. But before surrender I think you kill them to the last man. It would be horrible of course, as are some of the pictures I have seen from the highway of death. If they surrender their equipment could be destroyed with no further loss of life. Sometimes it just sucks to be in an army. Especially an incompetent one run by a crazy dictator. The answer is social revolution or fleeing. Look, the US has been calling Iraqi military leaders on their personal cell phones. That's how good our electronic surveillance is. We broadcast over their frequencies. We have told them to give up when the time comes. If they don't give up they will be beaten. And if they use WMD's I do think that any non-surrendering resistance should be utterly crushed-killed to the last man. If they don't use WMD's we can just crush them more nicely if there is such a thing in war. And I do think the highway of death thing the last time was justifiable. In hindsight we didn't go far enough. The men and equipment that escaped are now being used again.

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

I love how its OK for us to line them up and slaughter them but god forbid they use "WMD" (a laughable term in light of the weapons we are using) to defend themselves.

Like I said earlier in this thread. Us using 'conventional' weapons to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis is worse than them using 'WMD' (weapons of minimal distruction compared to some of the stuff we use) and killing a handful of Americans.

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

A big line needs to be drawn between WMD's and other weapons. Not because of their battlefield effectiveness (or lack thereof) in this particular battle. People who would use WMD's must be deterred. For instance, if we tolerate it, the guys in that region who have WMD's will give them to state sponsored terrorists. Iran and Iraq hired Soviet scientists who are superior bioweapons engineers. I assume they already have vaccine resistant genetically engineered smallpox. That is a perfect terror weapon. Iran must know that if they gave this stuff to terrorists and we could establish the link between the government and the terrorists, the price would be total destruction of Iran if they used it on us. Such a bioterror attack on a big American city could kill millions. If Saddam survives in power he will give WMD's to terrorists. They will use those weapons on us. So far that has not happened, but to think it can't happen or won't happen is false optimism at best, foolishness at worst. Now and in the future we need to strongly deter the use of WMD's on us.

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

I don't really see why it's not ok to use WMD but it is OK to box in a retreating army that has complied with the demands asked of it and been guaranteed a safe retreat and cluster bomb and napalm every last man in it to death.
(Note - I don't think either those things are ok).

"The men and equipment that escaped are now being used again. "
Well, yeah... But even Iraq is entitled to an army. We're attacking Iraq, this time.

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

I agree if you guarantee a safe retreat it is wrong to kill them all. I would not guarantee a safe retreat were I in command. I would accept surrender. Retreating armies I would fight and destroy. Surrendering ones would be spared, but their weapons would be taken and destroyed.

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

'I assume they already have vaccine resistant genetically engineered smallpox. That is a perfect terror weapon. Iran must know that if they gave this stuff to terrorists and we could establish the link between the government and the terrorists, the price would be total destruction of Iran if they used it on us.'

1) thats why med. pers. not taking s.p. vaccine

2) looks like next terror attack right before we're ready to invade iran

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

You have failed to draw any meaningful distinction between conventional weapons and WMD. The only thing you do is imply that WMD make better "terror" weapons - which makes zero difference in the context of our invading a sovereign nation. It's ridiculous to argue that they aren't completely justified in using every gun, gas, powder and brick in their entire country to repel our invasion.

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

What idiot army destroys a captured enemy's weapons? You appropriate them for your own purposes, be they military use or future sales.

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

That is most certainly not true. Captured Iraqi weapons will be neither destroyed, nor used by us, nor sold. They will be maintained by the Iraqi army under new leadership.

The last thing we want is a defenseless Iraq in that part of the world.

Re: What if Saddam uses WMD?
 

Umm...I would say that giving captured weapons to a puppet military qualifies as "using" them - or did you think this new Iraqi military would enjoy some level of self-determination?

The last thing we want is a defenseless Iraq in that part of the world. Fear not, my son! We will be happy to set up a few US military bases in Iraq to ensure that it won't be defenseless (among other things).

(If you prefer the "selling" analogy, it works just as well. We'll be glad to re-arm their newly US-friendly government in exchange for the favorable trade agreements that will surely be forthcoming after we remodel their country.)

So what if the U.S. 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?"

I thought that Weapons of Mass Destruction was another term for nuclear weapons, was it not? Mustard gas bombs qualify as WMD? I would think that the Mother Of All Bombs would fall under the WMD category, then.

But why does any action by the United States have to be "justified"? For better or worse, the U.S. have placed itself, through actions and words, completely outside any jurisdiction and legality. The U.S. answers to no one, anymore.

If it is "saving face" you are talking about, I'm afraid that the high moral ground has been lost. Even in the countries whose leadership supports the invasion of Iraq, the popular opinion runs highly against the whole thing.

Re: So what if the U.S. uses WMD?
 

"Even in the countries whose leadership supports the invasion of Iraq, the popular opinion runs highly against the whole thing." Then I say it is a very good thing that we do not allow the popular opinion of other countries' citizens to deter us from protecting our mutual interests.

Re: So what if the U.S. uses WMD?
 

"Then I say it is a very good thing that we do not allow the popular opinion of other countries' citizens to deter us from protecting our mutual interests. "

Exactly what the leader of North Korea thinks.

Re: So what if the U.S. uses WMD?
 

Exactly what the leader of North Korea thinks. You certainly are a radical little rascal Clarkmeister. Look at it in poker terms. We are playing no limit and North Korea is trying to play with a short buy-in. I do not like their chances.