Here’s a quick hypothetical question. In late 2002, the New York Times reported on President Bush’s change in American policy with regards to using weapons of mass destruction (sorry, I don’t have a cite, but I do remember the headline. It read, quite simply “WE WILL NUKE YOU!” and then went into the article.)
Now, consider if Iraq had used chemical weapons against allied forces in the third Gulf War (or the Second US-Iraq war, or Operation Iraqi Freedom, or whatever.) Do you suppose that President Bush would have granted the release of either strategic or tactical nuclear weapons against the Iraqi armed forces? The reason that I say nuclear as a WMD-in-response is simply that the remainder of the US chemical and biological arsenals are being held at Anderson AFB, Guam, and Ft. Detrick, MD for the purpose of being decomissioned.
My take is that yes, considering the posturing that Bush and the administration put on, it would have been a huge loss of face if they hadn’t released these weapons for use. The M-70 and M-80 nuclear gravity bombs, still in service today, have nominal yields in the 30-50 kiloton range, thus making them perfect for bombing in non-urban areas. Why not nuke?
Because it would instantly make the US a pariah to the rest of the world. Much of the world was unhappy we were going into Iraq anyway…if we started throwing nukes around it would galvanize world opinion against the US and likely even our allies would back away.
I find it highly doubtful Bush would have actually nuked anyone despite his rhetoric. About the only way the US might have the moral ability to use nukes is if we are nuked on our own soil first (or a VERY serious bio or chem attack). Even then it is unlikely if the US thinks it can send the military in to whomp on whoever did it. Certainly any government that did such a thing (or supported someone who did) could expect to not be a government much longer.
If the government attacked Iraq with little to no legitimate intelligence then what makes you think it would hesitate to nuke them if we were actually in danger?
In the previous post by “legitimate intelligence” I meant “imminent threat.” I meant that we weren’t in danger and they attacked. Sorry for the confusion.
I doubt nukes would have been used in Iraq, even if the Iraqis used WMD. In part, because of the moral and international perception issues which wack-a-mole mentioned. But more important - why bother? Even an intense iraqi nerve gas bombardment would be unable to stop the American operation, provided our troops were prepared for a gas attack - which they were. Our casaulties would have been much higher than they were, possibly, depending on our degree of readiness, but it’s unlikely they could defeat an infantry assault - infantry is the best tool for doing that, and american infantry vastly outmatched the iraqies. So, there would have been no military need for a nuclear reprisal.
Furthermore, nukes are messy. We want Iraq to be a functioning, oil-exporting country as quickly as possible - if we already had a nerve-gas attack to clean up after, why the heck would we also want to clean up after our own nuclear bomb? It would be a real case of diminishing returns.
More likely, in my eyes, would be an intensified conventional bombing campaign, and perhaps a very highly focused effort to find/kill the officer responsible.
Official US policy is to treat any attack with WMD as a nuclear attack, and the response is based on that. Mostly because we’ve foregone having any chemical and biological weapons (we have them for research, but not deployment) and that’s just a easy way to handle it.
What exactly would nuking Iraq accomplish? What are you going to nuke? Nuke Baghdad, kill hundreds of thousands of civilians because Saddam ordered a nerve gas attack? No, it would make no sense to use nukes, because chemical attacks or no chemical attacks the nukes would not further a single military objective.
The rumblings about treating all WMD attacks as nuclear attacks was just propaganda, to intimidate any Iraq soldiers who were ordered to use chemical weapons, to make them to scared to use them. Strictly political theater. It meant nothing then, and it means nothing now.
I’ll repeat a post from an earlier thread re. chemical weapons for “research purposes”:
This press release from January 22, 1996, gives details of the US chemical weapons stockpile.
Here is a map showing where the weapons were stored.
It in no way can be claimed that the weapons were for research purposes. This press release from November 30, 2000, refers to the destruction of 13,000 land mines filled with VX.
The destruction of the weapons is still taking place. According to Chemical & Engineering News, trials were to start last October on a new method of disposal:
The current focus of the US chemical and biological weapons program is on “non-lethal” agents. But, as the 119 deaths in the Russian hostage crisis showed, non-lethal in theory doesn’t mean non-lethal in practice.
Sure, we have a longstanding policy of claiming that all WMD attacks are going to be treated as equal…a chemical attack or biological attack is going to be treated as a nuclear attack, and therefore we reserver the right to respond with nuclear weapons.
But of course, this is merely propaganda. If Saddam had used nerve gas against our soldiers there wouldn’t have been any circumstances where using nuclear weapons would have improved our military situation…given that we were attempting to occupy the country intact. This policy is just one of those silly things that people say but don’t actually mean, and everyone knows that they don’t acutally mean.
Even if we were nuked by Saddam, what good would responding with nukes be? The only military target that might be worthwhile would be the nuclear launching facility itself. But Saddam is only going to have a few warheads, and he’s not going to concentrate them. Nuking Baghdad would have zero chance of protecting us against another nuclear strike.
The whole point of the policy is to THREATEN assured destruction against anyone using WMD. In actual fact, the policy is really just talk. What would REALLY happen is that we would intensify our conventional operations, and perhaps relax the rules of engagement a bit more and worry less about civilian casualties.
I’m not an expert, but I sincerely doubt it. They’d have to be possibly loaded into their delivery systems, possibly have the delivery systems come out of some storage depot somewhere, armed, possibly fixed, then sent to a unit that would have to get the equipment and take a crash course in handling them. Not very quick, and not all that useful if you can just nuke someone anyway.
Despite intentions to decommission chemical weapons in the US I’d wager the US could re-manufacture them pretty quickly. It might take a month or so to get them deployed rather than having them onhand but it’s not as if no one would ever have to worry about them again once our current stockpiles are gone.
