WI hours after Desert Storm begins, CENTCOM'S HQ is destroyed by a nuclear device? Stormin' Norman is among the dead.
WMD used in First Gulf War
- Thread starter NoOneFamous
- Start date
Destroyed by a nuclear device?
Israel? The Soviet Union? who, pray, is going to do it?
Anaxagoras
Banned
Saddam Hussein wasn't nearly that stupid. There's no point in holding onto power if the country you rule is turned into a radioactive parking lot.
IIRC, the very fear that the Americans would respond with nuclear weapons was why he didn't use chemical weapons in the field, even though he had deployed them lavishly against the Iranians.
IIRC, the very fear that the Americans would respond with nuclear weapons was why he didn't use chemical weapons in the field, even though he had deployed them lavishly against the Iranians.
GHWBush would not nuke civilian centers over a military use of a nuclear weapon.
At most he would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons, in carefully chosen places, with an eye to minimizing civilian loss of life and fallout.
Thus maintaining the policy of responding to a use of WMD with a WMD.
If there is a chance that he has another nuke that could be targeted on cities near by, that would put Bush is quite a fix.
HOw many nukes does Saddam have? Was it just that one? Does he have another? Does he have another 5?
At most he would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons, in carefully chosen places, with an eye to minimizing civilian loss of life and fallout.
Thus maintaining the policy of responding to a use of WMD with a WMD.
If there is a chance that he has another nuke that could be targeted on cities near by, that would put Bush is quite a fix.
HOw many nukes does Saddam have? Was it just that one? Does he have another? Does he have another 5?
The second night of the Air War, when Saddam started launching Scuds towards Israel, there was a report just before the first missile hit from CNN that "the entire Israeli Air Force has just scrambled". If a WMD had hit Tel Aviv, nothing would have stopped the Israelis from glassing Baghdad...
Anaxagoras
Banned
Did the Iraqis have the technical ability to deliver chemical or biological weapons with Scuds?
No thank God (or Iraq would have been glassed) as far as I know Saddam only managed to fire conventional missiles, the WMD versions and his so called "Supergun" having suffered alot of damage from western bombs, sanctions and before that a few Israeli assassinations.
Where did the Iraqi's get nukes from
I'm guessing the POD here is a TL where Israel never destroyed the Osirak reactor, which is the only way Saddam gets nukes by 90/91. But for the reasons others have stated, I don't think he'd use them.
I think it very likely that a nuke would not be used in retaliation
At worst Tactical nukes (tomahawks) might be used to pick off the republican Guard Brigades - before they could escape
But I suspect that the NATO Tank forces would again go full 'Fulda Gap tank battle mode' but this time the only thing on earth that could stop them wouldn't (GW Bush Snr) and the entire Iraqi Army would be crushed including the Republican Guard Divisions - and regime change would happen 13 years earlier.
I do not believe that a strategic weapon would be used against a population centre in retaliation.
At worst Tactical nukes (tomahawks) might be used to pick off the republican Guard Brigades - before they could escape
But I suspect that the NATO Tank forces would again go full 'Fulda Gap tank battle mode' but this time the only thing on earth that could stop them wouldn't (GW Bush Snr) and the entire Iraqi Army would be crushed including the Republican Guard Divisions - and regime change would happen 13 years earlier.
I do not believe that a strategic weapon would be used against a population centre in retaliation.
A nuclear weapon would have to be used in retaliation. Since it was a military target that was hit, I think - I hope - that Bush would order a remote military target hit with a low-yield airburst, far enough from any population centers to minimize casualties. The point isn't to do damage - we have cruise missiles and tanks for that - it's to make the point that you do not use nuclear weapons, because if you do, the gloves come all the way off.
In 1990-91? Yes. For reasons that have already been pointed out, Saddam wasn't interested in using them though. Given the behavior of the Scud batteries that are believed to have been equipped with chemical warheads at the time, he seems to have intended them as his own deterrence against a WMD first-use by either the coalition forces or Israelis
General Sir Peter Edgar de la Cour de la Billière, KCB, KBE, DSO, MC & Bar MSC
If for nothing else having the longest name.
RodentRevolution
Banned
Collective punishment is specifically forbidden under Article 33 of the IV Geneva Convention so yeah you can be pretty confident that Bush Snr would avoid such a strike.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/GC_1949-IV.pdf
It can be found at page 253 of the pdf (225 of the document itself)
As you point out above given the conventional weapons gap the need for any tactical nukes just is not there. Bush Snr in effect as you pointed out has been handed the perfect casus belli for a full occupation of Iraq and regime change.
The investigation reveals that it was not a airborne delivery of the nuke, it is determined that it was delivered by a ground vehicle and it is determined that it was a Russian nuke