[Sean Smith]

How do you think the U.S. should respond if the Iraqi regime uses weapons of mass destruction (WMD, e.g. chemical, biological or nuclear weapons) in response to a U.S. invasion of Iraq?

[10-Ring]

I don't think he will use WMD because if he does he would just prove to the world that we were right and he'd all the political allies he has left.

[Blackhawk]

Proves that Ignorance is Blix.

The response should be conventional. There's no need to escalate beyond that.

[Edward429451]

If they use WMD, we probably wont have to escalate anything cause Israel will do it for us. I just dont see Israel sitting this one out unless Saddam is very careful which way he aims his weapons.

[cratz2]

I just can't see ever needing to use nukes against a country as small and ineffective as Irqo. From what I understand, we could quite literally level a country the size of Iraq with BLU-82s, GBU-16s and MOABs... No need to resort to nuclear weapons on small countries. Just the decision to do some serious damage needs to be made.

[Duddy]

Ariel Sharon has said that if Saddam uses any chemical or biological weapons against Israel, he will send nukes into Iraq.


He sent scuds into Israel during the first gulf war, I'm afraid he'll send them into Israel again. Me being Jewish, I sure hope Israel isn't harmed, but then again, I would love to see Israel completely hand saddam his *** :D

[Mike Irwin]

I voted conventional response.

But then I got to thinking...

Perhaps a nuclear response IS appropriate.

As long as it's directed at Paris and Berlin.

[Blackhawk]

:D

I'd love to have the State Department issue a warning for all Americans to leave Paris and Berlin immediately. :D

[Mike Irwin]

Given the violent protests that are starting to break out across the world, that's not out of the question, Blackhawk.

[Quartus]

tac nukes at most. Better to just level Bagdad with conventional weapons.


Much as I'd love to chant a rousing chorus of...

Nuke 'em til they glow! HEY!
Nuke 'em til they glow! HEY!
Nuke 'em til they glow! HEY!
Nuke 'em til they glow! HEY!



:D

[voilsb]

if he does it against civs, it's nuke'em till they glow time

if it's military, the first time we MOAB him like crazy. the second time we use tactical nukes to scare the bejeezus out of him. the third time we remind him about sodom and gomorrah

[Sean Smith]

Why doesn't it surprise me that there are dirtbags around here voting for #1 and #2? :rolleyes:

[QKRTHNU]

Even if Israel was attacked they won't use their nukes. Their hands will be tied as long as U.S. forces are in place.

[buzz_knox]

We can get the job done by pulling over the kid gloves and using overwhelming conventional forces. That would constitute an effective reprisal without the stigma of using NBC weapons ourselves.

Besides, the world has forgotten what an Arc Light strike and/or fleet alpha strike can do. Wouldn't hurt to remind our potential or actual adversaries of that.

[dev_null]

Hopefully N Korea is watching.

-0-

[Shalako]

I voted conventional weaponry. That seems like the high road compared to the dirty pool stuff of the NBCs and WMDs.

What is an Arc Light and/or a fleet alpha?

Sounds like an economy sized can o' whoo-pass....

[buzz_knox]

Arc Light was originally a bombing campaign for Vietnam, involving massed B-52s dropping full loads in a small area in a carpet bombing pattern. Soldiers nearby thought we'd nuked the area . . . which might have been less destructive than Arc Light. It has since become the Holy Grail of bombing methods.

As for an alpha strike, that's when you launch everything you've got on the target. A fleet alpha strike means carriers, subs, cruisers, destroyers, etc. aimed right at the bad guys.

Either way, it's a giant can of whoop posterior.