Yeah, I’m with RTA on this. Although I couldn’t find it anywhere quickly and easily, I think that American NBC doctrine requires a response against any NBC attack against the U.S. and/or their allies. I’m pretty sure an attack against the U.S. requires a response in kind; in other words, a nuclear, biological, or chemical attack must be met with a nuclear, chemical, or biological retaliation.
Whether that applies to our allies, and whether the relationship between the U.S. and Israel can be interpreted as a formal military alliance is something I cannot answer. But, since many Israelis are also U.S. citizens, my guess would be that the U.S. would consider such an attack worthy of full retaliation under NBC rules.
An NBC response is not necessarily as shitty as it sounds at first. One possible first response could be the saturation of major population centers with the first part of a binary chemical weapon. Then, you let everyone know that they’re one crop-duster away from the Big Sleep, so let’s try to play along, shall we? On the other hand, since we claim to not want to use B or C’s under any circumstances, a nuclear retaliation of some sort may be our only option.
The U.S. NBC doctrine is really my nation’s best defense against such an attack. It is a promise that a first use of such weapons will result in a monumental clobbering guaranteed to permanently cripple the first offender and to make the next guy think twice about trying it again. It’s classic schoolyard bully “who’s gonna step forward first” tactics that happen to work exceptionally well on the playground that is the world stage.
While I have a lot of problems with our current President, I do not doubt for a minute that he would follow NBC doctrine to the letter (more closely, no doubt, than our previous President would have). If that doctrine dictates a response, the Iraqis are gonna wish they had been the Japanese in 1945.