The general issue of how the US would respond to a nuclear attack has been discussed a number of times and on a number of forums. In a discussion specifically focused on North Korea, I stated that I didn’t think a nuclear “tit for tat” by the US was at all a likely response to an attack by North Korea. The same would hold for Iraq, only more so.
The only reason for the US to respond in nuclear kind to an attack would be a scenario with two components:
- We couldn’t crush the attacker by conventional means
- The attacker represented a continuing threat, and would likely strike again if not “punished”
Example A: North Korea nukes Los Angeles, US invades North Korea. Likely bloody, but winnable. B: China nukes Los Angeles, but immediately mounts coup ousting the responsible party, US laments the tragedy and presses for assurances that it will never happen again. C: China nukes Los Angeles, and warns that more will be coming if we don’t stop meddling in their affairs – US nukes all Chinese nuclear sites, hunts down their SSBN, and probably blasts a couple other military bases for good measure.
Even in scenario C, I don’t see simply trading Bejing for LA as a likely outcome. The sensitivity of western democracies to civilian casualties is just too high, and it’s ultimately pretty pointless anyway. It represents nothing more than revenge, and likely only compounds the problem that caused the initial attack, rather than solving it.
I might concede the possibility that, once the nuclear genie is out of the bottle, so to speak, the likelihood of a US tactical nuclear response would increase significantly. In the North Korea scenario, I wouldn’t rule out one or more low yield nuclear strikes at remote bases, command centers, or the like, in the context of an overall invasion. Sensitivity to civilian casualties would remain the order of the day, though.
Also, note the above link with regard to damage done in the case of a hypothetical Iraqi attack. Any homebuilt atomic weapon would likely cause tens of thousands of deaths. A stolen or purchased ex-Soviet nuke could be significantly larger, but would probably still be no more than 200-300Kt yield. More deaths, but neither would obliterate all of Baghdad (a pretty darn big city) or otherwise significantly inhibit establishment of a successor government.
Any attack on a neighbor would first require Saddam’s missile to not be hit by a Patriot or Arrow SAM, and also to actually strike its target (something Iraqi missiles have a pretty poor history of accomplishing). Other than a missile, the only delivery method available to Saddam would be smuggling, which is pretty risky in its own right. Assuming success, Kuwait City is tiny enough to likely be flattened, but little would be accomplished for Saddam but complicating US logistics somewhat.
A successful strike on Israel, on the other hand, might elicit a nuclear counterstrike. Israel is less concerned about world opinion, since it has little goodwill to lose, and has a history of engaging in reprisal strikes to demonstrate its resolve to fight for its survival. Whether it did so in this case would likely be a function of how close Baghdad was to falling. Even Israel would probably see no use in retaliating against a corpse.
And, re Nangleator’s “positive #1”: I already think he’s either dead or seriously injured. In either case, the likelihood of anyone else in Iraq making such a futile attack or carrying out an order to make one is, I think, fairly low. The current Iraqi regime’s survival plan is also focused on directing public opinion, and I doubt that they’ll see using “Weapons of Mass Destruction” as serving that end.