Iraqi WMD=US tactical nukes?

[Monkeyleg]

For the last couple of days, we've been hearing that the late Saddam has/had instructed his commanders to use chem/bio weapons on our troops if they enter the ring around Baghdad.

Winds will likely carry those agents into the Baghdad civlian population itself.

Previous warnings to Saddam warned of such consequences.

Saddam has entrenched his hardest-line troops in large civilian population centers. (The act of one of the greatest cowards in history, IMHO).

If Republican Guard commanders fire chem/bio weapons onto our troops, are we justified in using theater nukes as a response?

 

[Mike Irwin]

Legally justified?

Probably.

Will we, because of the cost to civilian lives?

Probably not.

Chemical weapons are nasty, ugly, things, but I really think if the Iraqis trot them out the effects won't be that great.

The biggest reason is that the Coalition forces are going into the action fully expecting chemical and perhaps even biological weapons to be employed.

Yes, there will be deaths from these weapons if they are employed, but it's not going to be anything like what the Iranians or the Khurds faced.

Now, if you were to ask if nukes were justified if deployed against Paris, Berlin, and Moscow?

I'd have to say yes.

It's becoming increasingly apparent that all three nations contributed to the situation as it exists today by supplying banned materials to Iraq in violation of numerous UN sanctions.

The world can live without Paris, Berlin, or Moscow.

 

[Flying Ashtray]

Well then we'll just have to kick the hell out of 'em hard enough they dont get a chance to deploy them.

 

[Gary H]

We won't use nukes, but what concerns me is the political correctness. Restrictive rules of engagement could cost many U.S. and British lives. Isn't that what got us in Vietnam.. We are fighting this war with one hand behind our backs. We should avoid civilian casualties where possible, but I suspect that we have lost more American lives in Nasiriya because we were unwilling to take out some buildings harboring hostiles. We will take many more casualties should we do the same in Baghdad. What do we do when the R. G. retreats to the city? I know what we did in WWII. Saddam, if alive, is betting that we don't have the stomach for what is to follow. He knows that Mr. internationalist Walter CBS Cronkite showed the face of war to the American public and turned the Tet victory into a defeat. He is betting that the same will happen in Baghdad.

 

[ahadams]

possibly, but depends on too many other factors to say one way or the other for certain.

OTOH here's one you can take to the bank:
Iraqi WMD causing mass civilian casualties (esp. if nerve gas) = Israeli nukes like you wouldn't believe!

 

[Blackhawk]

If Republican Guard commanders fire chem/bio weapons onto our troops, are we justified in using theater nukes as a response?

Tactically? No. It's easy to track the source of their artillery delivery means and eliminate them.

Strategically? No. Our strategic objectives are to enforce a regime change in Iraq, not to vaporize Iraqis en masse.

It may well be a suicidal stragetic objective of the Saddam regime to provoke the U.S. to cause massive Iraqi civilian deaths in order to become a bunch of martyrs for Islam whose fame will live for centuries. We don't want to help Saddam succeed.

Chemical and biological weapons are effective against unprotected, untrained, massed people in the open. That's not us. We're protected, trained, and dispersed.

Legally? That's up to the U.S.

 

[Mike Irwin]

What's the kill radius of the Mother of All Bombs again?

A few of those detonating about 50 feet off the ground might make all of the impression that needs to be made.

 

[Azrael256]

I highly doubt that we would use nukes against Iraq, even in the event of a chem/bio attack. It would not be to our tactical advantage to do so. What worries me is the great possibility of Iraqi agents drifting into Baghdad. Basra being without water for a week isn't a humanitarian crisis, but VX blowing into Baghdad would be. It would certainly make our point, but I'd rather find a warehouse full of the stuff than have our soldiers wiping it off their chem suits.

 

[WilderBill]

Dubya did say that nukes would be an option.
I expect there will be some nearby and ready.
I don't think they will be used as long as other means (like MOABS) can get the results we need.
Even holding back on the nukes, if the RG fires chem weapons from a civilian area, then a lot of innocent Iraqis will join the RG when that 100 foot deep crater if formed.
Using anything that doesn't incenerate all unfired chemical weapons will just spread whatever is in them, so politacally correct half steps won't cut it.

 

[benewton]

We still have the Koreans to worry about, and it might be a bit better to use a tactical here to illustrate that we can, and will, do so.

True, casualities will result, but we've a problem down the road to consider, and total casualities from both should be considered.

 

[tyme]

What's the kill radius of the Mother of All Bombs again?

Kill radius for a nuclear weapon? That's an interesting term to use.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/effects.htm

If there are really Republican Guard units stationed 30 miles east, west, and south of Baghdad, we ought to consider using tactical nuclear weapons on them if they're in unpopulated areas. Fighting them would lead to numerous casualties, and not fighting them would invite flank/rear attacks as we enter Baghdad. Nuclear weapons are horrible things, but so is war, and low-kT nukes really aren't as horrific as everyone makes them out to be if used tactically in undeveloped areas. Hiroshima burned down, it wasn't destroyed by the blast.

Granted, all soldiers in the immediate area will be killed and the media would [try to] turn it into a political disaster, but when the alternative is getting sandwiched between Baghdad's defenses and RG divisions, perhaps getting slimed, and incurring who knows how many civilian casualties with heavy fighting on the outskirts of Baghdad, I think it could be worth it.

 

[Bruce H]

Leave the nukes in the box. We want to be able to look on Chirac and company with total and utter distain with a clear conscious. We will have to do this one the old fashion way. Becides we need shipping manifests and all other paperwork to really raise a world wide stink. The military will get hurt but the end result, if handled properly, will make life very difficult for several polititions. Wonder what Jim McDermott's thoughts are?

 

[Blackhawk]

Kill radius for a nuclear weapon? That's an interesting term to use.

I think Mike's asking about the 10 ton MOABs, Tyme.

 

[DMK]

We won't use nukes, they don't fit the mission

The biggest problem with them isn't the kill radius, they can use some very small tactical nukes. The main reason they are weapons of last resort is the fact that they are long term "area denial" weapons.

Our supposed intent on being there is to remove the current regime and make it a kinder gentler place for the citizens. Making selected areas of Iraq radioactive and uninhabitable for the next 1k years does not facilitate that mission. Ironically, chem and bio weapons would actually be better to use in retaliation since they have short term affects. Of course, we won't use those either.

 

[illuminatus99]

if I remember right there are people living in hiroshima and nagasaki now............

 

[M1911]

We are not going to nuke Baghdad. That would 1) kill millions of innocents and 2) completely turn world opinion against us. We are going in to free Iraq. We won't achieve that aim by killing all of the Iraqis.

 

[buzz_knox]

B-52 carpet bombing on military targets? Yup.

Nukes? Nope. No one wants to see that particular genie come out of the bottle ever again, even in response to WMDs. Way too much bad press and guaranteed immediate and longterm harm to innocent civilians. Besides, what does Iraq have worth nuking?

The one caveat is that if we find a WMD facility that's buried and we have to take it out with a stand-off weapon, we might use a nuke bunker buster. But that's extremely doubtful as the B-61-11 doesn't penetrate deep enough to preclude fall out or the ensure taking out said bunker.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Tyme,

The MOAB is a conventional explosive device. 21,000 pounds of it, but still conventional.

Something something Air Burst. I believe it may even be a type of FAE bomb, but I'm not 100% certain about that.

 

[OF]

There is no way Dubya is going to authorize tac nukes. We don't need to do it militarily and he has the makings of a major geo-political victory in the works that stands to embarass France, Germany and Russia in a major-league way. Nukes could endanger that.

- Gabe

 

[Coronach]

Nukes? No way. There's simply no need. We have total air supremacy and hold pretty much all of the cards. We can carpet bomb any position into rubble that needs to be obliterated. If something deep needs taken out, we can drop one of the deep penetrators on it...if something out in the open needs to be incinerated, we have the MOAB or the tried and true FAE and Daiseycutter. Nukes have a number of disadvantages:

1. Public opinion, here and abroad. Can you imagine the keening wail sent up by everyone? So very not worth it, given the above.

2. Nukes leave behind radioactive residue. FAEs leave behind BBQed meat and ashes. No matter how overstated the danger of fallout is, why screw around with it when you don't have to do so?

3. Moral objections: dead is dead, but nukes, even the smallest, can best be described as 'overkill.' Seeing as how most of the fighting is going to be very close to Baghdad, I'd rather not start dropping The Big One in civilian areas, especially seeing as...

4. We have to rebuild this country afterwards, unless you subscribe to the myopic POV that we should just kick their arses and leave them to rot (which is a pretty good way to ensure that the subsequent regime hates the US and is every bit as disruptive as the current one is). The less stuff we frag, nuke, irradiate and melt into radioactive slag, the better. Also, the 'hearts and minds' campaign is not exactly helped if you zap the populace until they glow.

Nukes? No need, no way. Counterproductive.

Mike

 

[Gary H]

Give me a break...

Those suggesting that we use Nukes when we are trying to pacify the country must be on a different channel. Tactical nukes may have a small blast area, but the radiation fallout can be a big problem. We can vaporize them with our new MOAB. That will look like a nuke and feel like a nuke, but with less blast and no radiation. That should send a message.

 

[VaughnT]

How many MOAB's do we have? How many are in the AO? How quickly could they be deployed? Just how big of a boom do they make?

 

[scotjute]

If we are ready for any contingency, then I would imagine that we have tactical nukes over there just in case the worst case scenario happens. That scenario would be something on the order of Iraq defying the Geneva Convention and attacking our troops with chemical and biological weaponry, weapons of mass destruction.
If such an attack were to leave thousands of our soldiers dead, dying, or horribly wounded, the use of tactical nukes would be justified to stop the loss of further hundreds or thousands of our troops. In addition, it would serve as a powerful reminder to anyone watching that upping the anti- and using WMD against the US will result in dire consequences. To sit there and suffer thru such an attack by the Iraqi's would tell the world that we are weak, you can attack the US with WMD and more or less get away with it. N. Korea will be watching!
I hope of course it doesn't come to that.
P.S. As I understand it the radiation from the tactical nukes has a very short half life, enabling one to go into such areas relatively shortly after the initial explosion. Perhaps someone can enlighten us on the expected half-life of these weapons.

 

[Waitone]

So what happens when Saddam, in one final act of defiance, does an air burst detonation of a French-made enhanced radiation device over the US 3rd Army?

We also have enhanced radiation devices and they are in no way comparable to "nuclear" weapons of 2 decades ago. Virtually no blast but lots and lots of gamma radiation and virtually no residual radiation. We have 'em. Russkies have 'em and the French have 'em.

 

[Gary H]

Waitone:

Are you discussing the Neutron Bomb? I know that the U.S. claims to have dropped such a weapon from inventory. Also, this weapon had a large blast, just not as large as other weapons. It was tuned for minimum blast, but that was still rather large.