ok, so lets take the objections one at a time:
There’s an anthrax vaccine, we could innoculate the people rather than move them
There is a vaccine but it’s effectiveness against airborne anthrax is uncertain. It definitely works for skin anthrax but this isn’t what we’d be dealing with.
Israel could kick Iraqi ass on their own terms
Yes they could but the number of casualties involved in a major airborne anthrax incident has been estimated as being as high as one to three million. Theres only 5 million of them, they couldn’t take casualties of that magnitude.
They could nuke Baghdad of course but this would just result in a major middle east war with many more casualties. If we evacuate the Israelis then we could oust Saddam using conventional weapons and keep casualties to a mininum. We would just target the Iraqi military not the civilians.
The Israelis wouldn’t want to go
Why not? If it means saving up to 3 million Israeli lives. As I mentioned, the borders would still be secure. More secure than they are now in fact.
Iraq didn’t use the anthrax missiles during the Gulf War
Of course not, the regime wasn’t threatened. If they had started firing anthrax missiles at Israel they would have been obliterated. Saddam doesn’t want to actually use these missiles because then he’s blown his best shot. The missiles are of more use as a deterrent than as an actual weapon. But if the Iraqi regime itself were threatened, I wouldn’t like to bet that he wouldn’t use them against the Israelis just by way of a parting shot.
What about the Palestinians?
They can stay or go as they please. If there’s only Palestinians there then Saddam probably wouldn’t use the missiles since Iraq would then lose all support among all the Arab states. In fact, its better (from the west’s point of view) if they stay because it makes it less likely that Saddam will use the missiles. It would be safer for them to go however.
Where would the Israelis go?
All over. The US would take some, Europe would take some, Australia would take some. 5 million isn’t all that many spread out over the whole world. I think there would be some poetic justice if Germany took a large number - the country that tried to exterminate them 60 years ago now becomes a Jewish sanctuary.
And there wouldn’t be 5 million anyway. The military and other essential workers would have to stay behind. Israel’s military forms quite a large proportion of its population. So the total number of refugees would probably be more like 3 or 4 million.
With Israels population safely out of the way, I don’t think it would take very long to oust Saddam. We could take the gloves off. After a coupla months or so all the Israelis could return.
Wouldn’t there be a power vacuum in Iraq?
No, there are opposition groups based in London who are ready to take over at any time. There is an Iraqi opposition movement within the country. We don’t hear much about them because Saddam is so ruthlessly efficient at weeding them out, but they are there and if they were given the chance to emerge, I think we’d be surprised at just how many people there are in Iraq who oppose Saddam. They are just too afraid to come out and say it right now (understandably).
Why not bomb the launchers beforehand?
Because we don’t know where they are.
There’s gonna be a helluva lot of refugees
I did say this was a big project.
The evacuation will take time, won’t Saddam fire his missiles while its all going on?
He may, but then again he may not.
We’d certainly have to be fast. We could start the attack on Iraq at the same time as we start the evacuation. Saddam would probably only fire the missiles as a last resort when US troops are marching on Baghdad. By this stage the war will have been going on for a month or so. And anyway the US could deliberately progress slowly so as to give the Israelis time to get out.
Telemark you made a couple of comments that made me think you didn’t read my links:
It is thought that they can.
Airborne anthrax (the type that was used in Florida) is very difficult to make. It requires huge centrifuges, specialist equipment and costs millions.
The strain of anthrax used resembles a strain known to be possessed by Iraq.
The anthrax attacks only started happening after America told the UN it reserves the right to widen the conflict.
For “widen the conflict” read “attack Iraq”.
I realise my plan sounds a touch extreme but what’s the alternative? Invade Iraq and have three million Israelis killed by anthrax?
We could choose not to invade Iraq, of course, but, if it can be proven that Saddam is behind these anthrax incidents, then what? We just leave him alone to send us all anthrax Christmas cards?
If the Iraqi regime is complicit in the anthrax attacks then they have to go.
If they have to go then its best if we do it as quickly as possible and with the least number of civilian casualties as possible. Both Israeli and Iraqi.
