Tactical Nukes Against Iraq?

Oh, well, most of what I just said was said a few minutes ago by Asherman, though more eloquently. Oh well.


Hi, Steissd ... Saw you on The Boards the other night, but spaced saying hello. Glad you're back.




timber

Asherman

And an Iraqui general figures 20,000 yanks good exchange for one brave Iraqui. It's a fairly obvious point you make. Hatred and warfare work that way. Killing and dismembering are no longer evils, they now become happy things.

Fine, in facing the Germans or the Italians or the Japanese. Or Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait (we'll exclude the complexities of America's relationship with Iraq previously).

But here? Now?

Can you imagine any possible scenario where you wouldn't sign on when your political leader says "Those guys over there are bad!" Is there no chance that the American government might make an error? Might have it really wrong? Might not be telling you things that aren't so? Is the US so different from any other country that such might not occur there?

You did get the part earlier regarding Woodward's presence during briefings the day following sept 11, and that Rummy took the opportunity to suggest 'hell, why not Iraq while we are at it' (not those words, but same thing). Did you get that his subsequent statements of ties to sept 11 were deceitful?

Thanks, Timberlandko. I have recently got dismissed from the active reserve service after having served for 24 days, and in case the sequel of the Gulf War starts, I am supposed to be drafted once more for indefinite time (until the USA wins the war). Despite of the fact that Israel is not an active participant of the war, it is one of the most likely targets for Iraqi Scuds, so the reserve service medics (and this is my Israeli military profession) will be drafted to assist the civil health system, since we are trained to act under conditions of the non-conventional attack.
Unfortunately, people are fascinated with the very expression "nuclear" weapons, and they associate these only to the pictures of the nuclear attack on Hiroshima. They merely are unaware of existence of the nuclear devices that fulfil tasks differing from complete destruction of the enemies' infrastructure, that there are precise nuclear appliances having powerful local impact; the devices that are intended to solve certain and well-defined battlefield problems (anti-tank defense, destruction of the deep underground military facilities, etc.) and not to kill millions...

Perhaps I can answer (one) of my own questions...

Since it is probably clear to those who have read what I have posted in this forum that I support neither an unprovoked invason of Iraq, nor generally the actions of the current administration, let me pose the following analogy:

If Iraq (or al-Qaeda, or anyone else, for that matter) were to invade the U.S. suddenly and without warning, then I would do everything in my power, including doing some shooting myself, to repel the invaders. How I felt about my governors, or about war or killing would go right out the window. My homeland is being invaded; I will fight.

What makes me different from an Iraqi citizen who does not support his government but opposes an invading force? Nothing I can see except location, pigmentation, language and a few other semantical (for purposes of this discussion) things.

And if there were invading-force commanders who placed the same value on me as you place on an Iraqi shopkeeper, steissd, then I would be certain that I proved myself to be at least the equal of as many soldiers as I possibly could.

Especially if it came down to urban guerilla warfare.

And this is the sort of logic that really troubles me greatly about this whole business.

If you are an Iraqi shopkeeper, and you continue shopkeeping and do not interfere the hostilities, no military commander would do you any harm. But if you take a gun and try to resist the American military offensive, then you are a dead man. Sorry, PDiddie, I do not mean you personally.
I am sure that the U.S. soldiers differ from warlords of Sub-Saharan Africa (I do not refer to their race, there are lots of Black soldiers and officers in the U.S. Army as well), and they do not kill just for fun. So, civilians that are not going to pretend being Che Guevaras have very good chances to survive and even to get some humanitarian supplies.

Soooo, I guess that brings us full-circle back to 'tactical nukes' and 'collateral damage' and all those other swell euphemisms....

well...steissd will probably go and personally comfort the Arab families whose kids got accidently collateraled, taking one or six hours to die with their burns and their legs blown into the family kitchen, because Iraqui civilians are just as valuable as Israeli citizens, I expect.

What is the connection to the Israeli citizens? Israel is not a participant of this war; she may be attacked by Iraqi Scuds in course of this war, then Israeli response is possible. But if Iraq does not attack Israel, the latter is supposed to be neutral. By the way, Israeli neutrality is a desired scenario for the U.S. Administartion.

steissd

Israel is a neutral country?

Collateral damage is not a euphemism, military operations in the densely populated areas inevitably lead to some percentage of occasional casualties among local civilians. And if Saddam Hussein is really concerned with his compatriots' lives, he can easily save them. He must just accept the proposal of the moderate Arab leaders and to leave Iraq to exile, together with his family and cronies.

I have not yet read all the contributions here - but, having just heard that the possibility of using "tactical nuclear" weapons was being considered - my immediate reaction - after horror - was to think that we have a country possessed of WMD and, apparently, ready to use them - time for a pre-emptive strike, no?

And how, indeed, could one ensure that the radiation would stay contained - or, indeed, that all weapons will hit their target, even?

I agree that this lowers the nuclear stakes all over the world.

And, for those saying that the reaction of those of us opposed to the thought of such an action is purely "psychological" - do you not believe that the planet-wide psychological reactio is an important one? The next lot of people, in other countries, making such decisions have psychologies! Doing the unthinkable has its effect on what becomes thinkable, do-able - acceptable.

In the U.S.-Iraqi conflict she is. Israel does not have any claims to Iraq, except the only one: Iraq should abstain from sending Scuds toward Israel if being attacked by the U.S. Army.

Dlowan, I would advise you to re-read attentively responses of Asherman and Timberlandko; you will find there all the necessary clarifications regarding deep-penetrating nuclear devices; their negative ecological effect is local and minimal. They have nothing to do with the "Nuclear Winter" and other apocalyptic scenarios referring to the total nuclear war of two superpowers. These are just efficient battlefield weapons, and I am sure that no one plans to use them agaist enemy's manpower or civilians. Deep underground military facilities of Iraq are the target (and control centers, Saddam's hideouts and storehouses of the Iraqi WMD are located there), and these are not the same as the residential areas of Baghdad.

Steissd, I am able to see for myself that these weapons are different from nuclear bombs as such, and to understand the likely effects.

My arguments are not based simply on the physical effects of such weapons.

And - if anyone asserts that they KNOW that such weapons never go astray, or that the bunkers will ALWAYS contain radiation - then I have a nice bridge in Sydney to sell them...

Deb, I don't see nuclear weapons being used in Iraq for all the reasons you cite, not to mention the lack of necessity.

You meant this serious, steissd, or have you just been cynical?

Any nuclear weapons may go astray only if every country in the world starts manufacturing them, including such countries as Iraq, Iran and North Korea. That is what the U.S. military operation is aimed against... I understand that Iran and North Korea are not directly involved in this campaign, but Saddam's destiny will become a very sensitive hint to their leaders regarding possible consequences of their misbehavior.

I meant deep-penetrating devices, Mr. Hinteler; their explosion resembles the underground one. USA and USSR used to perform underground nuclear tests on their own territory, since contamination resulting from the underground explosion is minimal.

I hope you are correct, Roger.

dlowan

You've nothing to fear, and roger may be right:

Last week, your PM told the British press:
"If I thought there were going to be nuclear weapons used I would not allow Australian forces to be involved."