# Nuclear strike against Iraq? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 26, 2003, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-strike-against-iraq/151047 "2003-01-26T15:28:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2003, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-strike-against-iraq/151047/41 "2003-01-26T22:34:02Z")
I agree - this thread has gone from a half-informed report of some speculation among media types on CNN, to talking about assassinating the president and removing him from power because he’s insane. You guys are just WAY over the top on this. Time to tone the rhetoric down a few notches. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2003, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-strike-against-iraq/151047/42 "2003-01-26T22:46:21Z")
Nothing. Speculative inference is the job of the PC police. Would you have Johnny wait until there’s a president you don’t approve of to ask his question ? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2003, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-strike-against-iraq/151047/43 "2003-01-26T23:22:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by airdisc \* > Doesn’t the Consitution say it’s the duty of the people to remove any president and/or government that tries to harm the nation, like, by trying to kick-start Armageddon, by any means necesary? No, dear, that’s the Declaration of Independence. And I think “by any means necessary” is derieved from a quote of Malcolm X in reference to self-defense. I don’t recall the phrase from the DoI, but it has been a few years since I last read it. > [@](#): > > Or do I not understand the Constitution? Perhaps you need a refresher. Please re-read both the Declaration and the Constitution at your convenience. ---
**Author:** ![aeropl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f05b48/32.png) [@aeropl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aeropl)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2003, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-strike-against-iraq/151047/44 "2003-01-27T00:10:26Z")
Let’s not forget that the goal is to remove Saddam from power, with minimum civilian life and structure damage necessary. The US is going to have to rebuild the cities destroyed anyway, so using nuclear weapons doesn’t make sense if we are not attacked with WMD’s first. ---
**Author:** ![tsunamisurfer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a698b9/32.png) [@tsunamisurfer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tsunamisurfer)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2003, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-strike-against-iraq/151047/45 "2003-01-27T01:09:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by aeropl \* > \*\*Let’s not forget that the goal is to remove Saddam from power, with minimum civilian life and structure damage necessary. The US is going to have to rebuild the cities destroyed anyway, so using nuclear weapons doesn’t make sense if we are not attacked with WMD’s first. \*\* Once upon a time, there was a fact-driven forum called General Questions. Today it is known as IMHO, the Sequel. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2003, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-strike-against-iraq/151047/46 "2003-01-27T01:30:31Z")
I am only going to say this once in such a direct manner. Tough talk with the willingness to use such weapons works. Reagan brought down the soviet union with such talk “the bombing starts in 5 minutes”. This is the only talk oppressive rulers understand. IIRC Bush said (basically), if Iraq uses NBC’s (Nuke, Bio, Chem) we will turn them 2000 degrees. This puts the burden on Iraq to fight ‘fairly’. ---
**Author:** ![kniz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c37758/32.png) [@kniz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kniz)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2003, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-strike-against-iraq/151047/47 "2003-01-27T07:01:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by airdisc \* > \*\*Doesn’t the Consitution say it’s the duty of the people to remove any president and/or government that tries to harm the nation, like, by trying to kick-start Armageddon, by any means necesary? > > Or do I not understand the Constitution? \*\* I think there is a possibility that you are thinking of the Declaration of Independence (it is too late for me to check for sure). ---
**Author:** ![kniz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c37758/32.png) [@kniz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kniz)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2003, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-strike-against-iraq/151047/48 "2003-01-27T07:03:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by k2dave \* > \*\*I am only going to say this once in such a direct manner. Tough talk with the willingness to use such weapons works. Reagan brought down the soviet union with such talk “the bombing starts in 5 minutes”. This is the only talk oppressive rulers understand. > > IIRC Bush said (basically), if Iraq uses NBC’s (Nuke, Bio, Chem) we will turn them 2000 degrees. This puts the burden on Iraq to fight ‘fairly’. \*\* Teddy said it best “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” ---
**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2003, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-strike-against-iraq/151047/49 "2003-01-27T08:52:11Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by k2dave_ > IIRC Bush said (basically), if Iraq uses NBC’s (Nuke, Bio, Chem) we will turn them 2000 degrees. This puts the burden on Iraq to fight ‘fairly’. Not so. Whether Saddam will use CBN weapons on US troops is independent of whether the US will use them. Suppose Saddam does use them, this does not _force_ any US actions whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2003, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-strike-against-iraq/151047/50 "2003-01-27T13:22:06Z")
So Bush is probably just rattling his sabre. He knows Saddam watches CNN, and wants to send him a message. As to the specific questions, this is what I gather: The American people have little or no power to remove a President who goes against their will. A President can be removed from office if the Vice President and majority of the cabinet ministers agree that the President is unable to properly perform his duties. A “war criminal” is only a war criminal if he’s on the losing side. > [@](#): > > Reagan brought down the soviet union with such talk “the bombing starts in 5 minutes”. Wasn’t that a joke? He was goofing around and didn’t know the mic. was live? ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2003, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-strike-against-iraq/151047/51 "2003-01-27T13:32:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kniz \* > \*\*Teddy said it best “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” \*\* Except his antecedent isn’t speaking softly. ---
**Author:** ![mogiaw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mogiaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mogiaw)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2003, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-strike-against-iraq/151047/52 "2003-01-27T13:38:56Z")
quote from k2dave, IIRC Bush said (basically), if Iraq uses NBC’s (Nuke, Bio, Chem) we will turn them 2000 degrees. This puts the burden on Iraq to fight ‘fairly’. If Iraq has any NBCs/WMD a surefire way of getting Saddam to use them is to invade the country. You’re probably right about the tough talk though ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2003, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-strike-against-iraq/151047/53 "2003-01-27T13:40:02Z")
[Yosemite Sam] I speak **LOUD** and carry a _ **BIGGER** _ stick! [/Yosemite Sam] ---
**Author:** ![handy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@handy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handy)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2003, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-strike-against-iraq/151047/54 "2003-01-27T16:06:13Z")
Iraq could win, too. However, I was wondering what that meant? ---
**Author:** ![Bongmaster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Bongmaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bongmaster)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2003, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-strike-against-iraq/151047/55 "2003-01-27T16:39:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by London\_Calling \* > \*\*The scary part for me is that the media are in on the game; they seem to be content to let the administration hint at a worse scenario than will actually unfold, so that what does unfold doesn’t seem so bad (as with, say, leaks about tax rises which don’t turn out to be as bad as was first reported). > > Where is the objective, critical analysis of the administrations actions, ploys and spin ? > > … pre-emptive nukes……… I can’t believe CNN can even report that with a straight face. \*\* That’s just silly…like we’re going to use weapons of mass destruction on a country that we are accusing of harboring the same. ---
**Author:** ![MadScientistMatt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bc8723/32.png) [@MadScientistMatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MadScientistMatt)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2003, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-strike-against-iraq/151047/56 "2003-01-28T03:39:52Z")
Come to think of it, didn’t it come out that the military had drawn up a few nuclear first strike plans against Iraq the last time around? I seem to remember seeing an article that mentioned Normal Schwartzkopf alluding to a plan someone had written up for using a nuke to take out Iraqi communications with an electromagnetic pulse (Ok, maybe I’m confusing that with a plan called Light Switch in a Tom Clancey novel, which also was mentioned as an example of an idea kicked around that never happened). Does anyone else remember anything about plans for nuclear weapons in Desert Storm? ---
**Author:** ![RevRaven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b782af/32.png) [@RevRaven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RevRaven)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2003, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-strike-against-iraq/151047/57 "2003-01-28T10:57:58Z")
From what I understand (I’m a film/US History major with a minor in PoliSci), we discuss using nuclear arms as a further method of detouring other nations (in this case Iraq) from _considering_ using nukes. There are two reasons I’ve learned for a nation to announce it has nukes. One is as a detourent (so no one else farks with them, lest they get The Bomb™), reason #2 is so that they get aid money from various countries/organizations (::coughcough::US and UN::coughcough). The only reason someone would likely hide a nuke is incase they plan to use it. Now I doubt we (the United States) would use a nuclear device (sounds so much nicer than nuclear bomb) as a first strike, but we haven’t ruled it out. American precident for dealing with nukes is to never rule out using them, and always keep the concept of a pre-emptive first strike alive. If we honestly found a credible reason, like the Cuban Missile Crisis, we would Strike First (infact I’m pretty sure Kennedy said he’d nuke Cuba, and didn’t Ike threaten to nuke China and North Korea during the Korean war?). Now personally I believe what Dubya’s doing is playing up the cowboy image that’s been drawn for him. Much like Reagan pretended to be a senile old man to lower people’s expetations of him I believe Dubya is playing up the rowdy cowboy image so people realize he’s serious about this. While I seriously doubt he’d Dr. Strangelove Iraq back to the Bronze Age, I do know that he (Bush) is faaar more aware of the media image of him that he lets on. So why not, if the media’s portraying him as a gung-ho cowboy…why not play up the part? Especially if it helps his clout, as people fear the “reckless cowboy Bush” or something similar. And for whoever said it…about Reagan not knowing the microphone was live when he said “I have signed a bill outlawing Russia forever. The bombing will begin in five minutes”, supposedly that wasn’t the first time our 40th President said something along those lines. Reagan liked to mess with the press, again playing up an image they created of him, so he had some fun. See kids, isn’t American History great? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2003, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-strike-against-iraq/151047/58 "2003-01-28T11:24:46Z")
There IS a constitutional, legal alternative for congress to follow. However, it’s just about as extreme as impeachment, and probably _less_ likely. Generically, it’s called “the power of the purse”. Congress can cut off all money toward funding the military in particular endeavors. The problem is, all the nuclear toys are already purchased, and there are plenty of them already moved into close proximity (presumably in naval carriers’ weapons lockers). Bush could probably nuke Iraq without expending an additional penny. So the only way I can see the power of the purse applying is if Congress essentially defunds all military personnel with the access or ability to deliver the weapons. And they would impeach Bush before doing this, and nobody’s talking about impeachment. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2003, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-strike-against-iraq/151047/59 "2003-01-31T07:22:48Z")
> [@](#): > > **Bush approves nuclear response** > A classified document signed by President Bush specifically allows for the use of nuclear weapons in response to biological or chemical attacks, apparently changing a decades-old U.S. policy of deliberate ambiguity, it was learned by The Washington Times. > > “The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force — including potentially nuclear weapons — to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies,” the document, National Security Presidential Directive 17, set out on Sept. 14 last year. > > A similar statement is included in the public version of the directive, which was released Dec. 11 as the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction and closely parallels the classified document. However, instead of the phrase “including potentially nuclear weapons,” the public text says, “including through resort to all of our options.” Source: [http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030131-27320419.htm](http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030131-27320419.htm) Well, potential use of nuclear weapons against Iraq, including any other potential enemy, is now on the table. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-strike-against-iraq/151047.md?page=2)