America's WMD Policy

[Hooknswoop 19]

I understand the USA'a policy towards anyone using Nuclear, Chemical, or Biological weapons against our troops or civilians is to respond with Nuclear weapons.

This policy is the same concept as not negotiating with hijackers. It is a deterent. If we give in to the demands of hijackers once, then other groups will use hijackings as a means to get what they want.

So, if Iraq uses WMD and we do not nuke them, that deterent is gone. Our policy has worked as a deterent, but is also backs us into a corner.

This is my biggest fear about the current war and it's far-reaching consequences.

Hook

[AggieDave 6]

The far-reaching consequences as well as the domino effect that any sort of ripple can cause. That goes both ways, though, not doing anything causes a ripple, doing something causes a ripple...

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[billvon 2,463]

>So, if Iraq uses WMD and we do not nuke them, that deterent is gone.

I don't think that's the case. Our policy was always mutually assured destruction (MAD) - we never specified that that destruction had to take place with WMD's, or which WMD's we would use. We have enough conventional ordnance to essentially flatten Baghdad; I think wiping out a city is sufficient proof that we still believe in MAD whether or not we use WMD's to do it.

[rgoper 0]

i agree with you, if they in fact are in possession of WMD, then they really have "crossed the line" not that we didn't first, but in any event i say we nuke them if they utilize such WMD. i don't hardly believe that the fact they may believe we will nuke them is a deterrant, given the mentality of this country. in their minds, they're "anshala" so regardless of what they may think we may/may not do will have no effect in their decision to use chemicals. fact of the matter is, from my observations, these people "are nuts" and ruthless by any standards. i expect nothing but the worst, and unexpected from them. their actions, and our reactions will have a ripple effect throughout the world.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[Hooknswoop 19]

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030131-27320419.htm

I hope you are right, but i am till a bit concerned. We don't have to be convinced that conventional weapons are sufficient, our potential WMD equipped enemies have to be convinced.

Hook

[rgoper 0]

Hiroshima, Nagasaki...."Little Boy" worked like a charm.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[AggieDave 6]

Yeah, but look at the backlash. People still cry foul over our decision to do that. I guess some folks would much rather see 100,000 soldiers die, then drop a bomb (war estimates from the planned invasion).

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Hooknswoop 19]

I'm not sure we should use nuclear weapons if the use chemical/biological weapons on us. We are after the Iraqi goverment and vaporizing million of Iraqi citizens doesn't help us towards that goal. But if we don't, are we inviting more chemical/biological attacks from others that have been detered by that policy?

If WMD are used against us, we are in a double fix, first we got gassed, or whatever, and then we have to decide to enforce our policy, possibly with horrific results, and huge political fall-out (no pun intended), or take the hit and possibly invite further WMD attackes.

I'm glad I am not making this decision, and I hope we are not put in the position of having to make that decision.

Hook

[AggieDave 6]

There is a reason why "the football" is always near the President, though. (unfortunate as it is)

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[flyingferret 0]

I think if WMDs were used you would see a massive air campaign with all the air power of the civilized world. One sortie by a wing of b-52s and B-2s can reign hellfire. We have simply been very polite and indeed surgical in our methods. I think that a nuke would be the last choice, as soon as chem/bio weapons come out, you will see thousands of civilian casualties anyway. I only wish we were a little stronger, clintons decade weakened the forces by 50%

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[rgoper 0]

Quote

I'm glad I am not making this decision, and I hope we are not put in the position of having to make that decision.

that makes 2 of us. that said, my views on us being in iraq under the conditions we are, are common knowledge here in these forums. i had a pretty good idea we would be "painted into a corner" thus my reasoning for not wanting to utilize armed forces without UN consensus, but now that we have done so, we must do what we said we would, or lose our credibility forever, thus reducing our clout as a dominant "world power". (not to mention we could send a powerful message to north korea and china at the same time) i hate to say it, but to kill the snake, we must cut it's head off first. thousands of innocent civilians must die for this war to stop now. i never bought into the ruse which ol' Wyatt "sold this war to us on" 2-3 days my ass. this reminds me of his father saying "read my lips, there will be no new taxes" 2 weeks later...BAM!

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[Hooknswoop 19]

I guess the question comes down to the lesser of two evils. If we do nothing, we risk further attacks, if we level Baghdad, either with nuclear weapons or massive conventional bombing campaign, we risk the tremendous political repercussions.

So what is worse, the risk of further WMD attacks, or the political consequences of retaliation?

Hook

[Genie 0]

Quote

Yeah, but look at the backlash. People still cry foul over our decision to do that. I guess some folks would much rather see 100,000 soldiers die, then drop a bomb (war estimates from the planned invasion).

***

to be blunt i would much prefer to see 100,00 soldiers ( who accepted that risk and are willing to make that sacrifice and had the choice) die than 100,000 innocent people who happen to have the bad luck to be ruled by a dictator for what 20 years and then be nuked out of existence. This is not that i want to see anyone die but if you seriously think in this situation that sending any kind of nuke in will achieve anything positive, then your thought processes worry me..

the US nukes Iraq - even if in retaliation to iraq using a chemical weapon on your troops ( who are invading their country by the way - think how youd react if your country was being invaded) and i guarantee you there will be no country in the world on your side - except possibly North Korea. I guarantee that the US will be the most popular target for any terrorist group standing for anything worldwide. There is nothing good that will come from the US using a nuke on iraq, not in this situation. Iraqis do not think the way americans do - and they wouldnt react the way you think they would.. Ive never been as scared as reading this thread which seems to show that at least some people approve of using a nuclear weapon on civilians to retaliate against an unsupported and hated leader.

Genie

[flyingferret 0]

It depends on the strength of the WMDs. If the quantities are such that they can anniliate our forces and push forth past their borders, well they gotta go. War is hell, literally. The boys over there have my respect, it could get nasty. Or for those of us with religious views, Providence/God might have a bigger plan and disaster will be averted.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[flyingferret 0]

Your thoughts are tied into the history of the latter 20th century. There is a large component of historians that think we obliterated our own ideas of winner/loser/wrong/right when we dropped the bomb. The victory was too absolute, shattered American conceptions, etc, etc Long field of study. Anyway, I dont think Bush or anyone else will eagerly push the red button. But i think it has to be an option. At least Derek indicates the usage of threat of force, so much hinges on that, this whole conflict in Iraq was necessary to avoid invalidating the past 12 years of threat of force.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[Gawain 0]

MAD was not a policy, it was a forecast. Among NATOs short list of responses to a mass conventional invastion by the Warsaw Pact was to use nukes.

MAD became the deterrent in the cold war.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 2,463]

>We don't have to be convinced that conventional weapons are
>sufficient, our potential WMD equipped enemies have to be convinced.

I would suggest that our potential enemies will look more at the aftermath than at the mechanism used to achieve it. That said, such a use of force will have two effects - to deter the saner elements and to encourage the less sane elements. Whether that's wise is a very tough question.

[rgoper 0]

Quote

Ive never been as scared as reading this thread which seems to show that at least some people approve of using a nuclear weapon on civilians to retaliate against an unsupported and hated leader.

Genie:
i respect your thoughts. but the nuculear weapons, if utilized will not be "in rataliation of a hated leader" if utilized, it will be to bring an "abrubt end" to the war. don't get me wrong, i've always said we shouldn't be there. but now that we are, we must do what we have to. the statistics from hiroshima and nagasaki speak volumes for human loss of life, but the iraqis know what we have, and they know we may use it. it would be to their advantage to "force our hand" by deploying WMD on our troops just to "vilianize" the US and coalition fighters in the world community knowing we could use nuculear weapons in retaliation. that said, iraq knows that if they use chemicals, we might follow up with nuculear weapons. it was my prediction at the onset of the invasion that this war may culmanate with such atrocious and destructive events. it's sad, but true. if the iraquis had any sense at all, they would simply "throw down their weapons" and submit to a superior adversary. but as you've said, and i've said a gazillion times, these people don't think in a rational manner, they are "anshala"

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[billvon 2,463]

>i respect your thoughts. but the nuculear weapons, if utilized will not
> be "in rataliation of a hated leader" if utilized, it will be to bring
> an "abrubt end" to the war.

While that worked in Japan I doubt very much it will work in a country like Iraq. It's too big and there's too much desert. "Decapitating" the country with a nuclear attack will put many of the republican guard forces in survival mode, with no way to "turn them off." We will win eventually, of course, but then we'll both be dealing with the fallout (literally) of using nuclear weapons _and_ still have to fight a conventional war.

>it's sad, but true. if the iraquis had any sense at all, they would
>simply "throw down their weapons" and submit to a superior adversary.


Unfortunately that is getting less and less likely:

Arabs see these facts: Despite Bush administration assurances that the war would be swift, and Iraqis would welcome the invaders with roses, fighting has entered a second week. Baghdad has not fallen, Saddam Hussein is probably still alive, and resistance has been fierce. In fact, Iraq's tiny, disheveled port town of Umm al Qasr, close to U.S.-friendly Kuwait, was holding out days after the Pentagon declared it liberated.

"Suddenly, little David is challenging big Goliath," said Abdel Bari Atwan, a preeminent commentator on Arab affairs. "OK, David is a ruthless, brutal dictator, but he's surviving and giving it a go.

"For the first time, I'm hearing one huge "alhamdullah [Praise God!]."

For Arabs, an important psychological barrier has been breached. The notion of American invincibility has been shattered. Initially resigned to witnessing another humiliating occupation of another Arab land by yet another foreign power, Arabs instead view events with a kind of osmotic excitement. Indeed, the fact that the war has already lasted as long as it has is seen by some Arabs as a victory

[Kinaa 0]

Can someone explain to me?
You are in foreign sovereign country to bring Iraqis people freedom from his own dictator. At least that is what is the title that is shown on your TV. He might use WMD (if he have it then he broke UN resolution - you did not find it yet, so he is still clean)against your soldiers (who did break UN resolution) so you will bring freedom to Iraqis by dropping the nuclear bomb on 5mill city?

[Tf15 0]

Quote

I only wish we were a little stronger, clintons decade weakened the forces by 50%

US already spends more on "defense" than the next 9 nations COMBINED. How much more do you want?

Three times is enemy action

[billvon 2,463]

>so you will bring freedom to Iraqis by dropping the nuclear bomb on 5mill city?

At that point the reasoning will become "you will save the lives of your troops by wiping out the opposition." War is the worst thing there is; atrocities we would normally condemn are OK, just unfortunate mishaps of war, or neccessary to "save american lives." Altruistic ideas like 'liberating the people of Iraq' will be the first things out the window when the fighting gets desperate. The lives of American troops will trump all other considerations.

Half a century ago we killed 350,000 people to shorten a war. That, unfortunately, is the only real data point we have on the use of nuclear weapons. Just as unfortunately, that has become more or less an example of a 'good use' of nuclear weapons. We won and the victors write history. If we could rationalize it then, I don't think it impossible that we could rationalize the use of WMD's to shorten _this_ war. I hope it doesn't come to that; I doubt it will. We can accomplish even the mass destruction of a nuclear weapon with conventional weapons.

[cgross 1]

Ummmm... Correct me if I am wrong, but did you just say the U.S.A soldiers broke a UN resolution?
Am I understanding that correctly?

[rgoper 0]

the "ultimate objective" will be "dissarming Sodamn Insane" whatever ends this may lead to, doesn't matter. this war will culminate with the eradication of it's current regime. should we be there? no. should it come to this? no. will it come to this? more than likely. we knew that this would be no 2 or 3 day campaign before we went there, but still americans supported ol' Wyatt Earp & Doc Holliday. i don't agree with the "can of worms" that is now open, but now we must do what we have to, whatever the end result may be. in my opinion, we should have had UN consensus before going in, and we should have never bought into the 3 day war bs. we will not bring freedom to the general iraqi population by nuking the country, but we will eradicate the political regime currently in place, then "the games begin" this war will spur many more, and cause more terroist attacks on US and foreign soil. there won't be any more "safe havens" i'm waiting for all those who were screaming at the top of their lungs "kill em all, let god sort em' out" to start expressing extreme angst and disspleasure as events unfold any day now. first ol' Wyatt told us "this will be a short war, 2, maybe 3 days." "We Will Strike With Shock-N-Awe" well, i'm plenty "shocked" he had the nerve to misslead his own people, and i'm not "awed" by the performance or stratedgy thus far. neither Wyatt, or Doc did enough homework on the mentality of the culture group in iraq before deploying their forces. iraqis that migrated to jordan during the gulf war are now heading back to iraq to fight for their homeland.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[rgoper 0]

kineaa was saying that sodaminsane would have broken a UN resolution "IF" he does in fact have WMD, no reference to the troops i could see. by the way, sodamninsane will be in possession of WMD, whethere he is or not.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"