WI: Gulf War Goes Nuclear

[Sandman396]

I can be dissuaded when I feel the argument makes sense. If nothing else, the inertia of public opinion would have forced a reply. If not nuclear, then President Bush would have ordered the conventional campaign extended to include massive bombing of Iraqi infrastructure, and a march clean to Baghdad.

I'll be willing to exchange that information mutually if you wish.

I am looking at 40 in the rear view mirror

 

[King Augeas]

We have to use a nuclear weapon, or we have greenlit chemical weapons in wars against the USA. Cold, evil logic of atomic weapons.

Sounds convincing. I think there is some wiggle room though - there is some scope for declaring the use to have been "accidental or unintentional" or by "rogue officers". Nukes are political weapons and it's illogical to use them to punish a political entity if that political entity no longer exists, or if you can't find it.

In this situation of the Gulf they offer no military capabilities that are a) needed and b) can't be offered by conventional weapons. So there's no reason to start hitting cities or nuclear carpet-bombing fleeing troops. Simply pick a suitably out-of-the-way military target, drop a small airburst bomb on it. The less important the target, the better, probably.

 

[NHBL]

Not an instant yes/no

Nuclear responce is a publicly stated policy of the USA to any weapons of mass destruction. That doesn't mean we will use them--but it does mean they are on the table.

One possibility short of using them would be to state, "Iraq has X amount of time to surrender unconditionally, hand over Sadam Husein, and accept occupation until the guilty parties are caught and tried. Failure to comply will result in the most dire of consequences. The use of nuclear weapons after this deadline is not ruled out if the tactical or strategic situation should merit their use."

Now there's a line in the sand that strongly encourages people to get rid of Sadam NOW. It also puts the USA in a position of exercising what restraint is reasonable in this situation.

Of course, if the deadline pases, then it is indeed a DEAD line...

 

[AHIMPERIALIST]

Coalition (and civilian) preparedness for the use of chemical weapons by Iraq was pretty high, IIRC, more coalition soldiers were hospitalised by the effects of their nerve gas antidotes, mistakenly taken after coming under conventional bombardment, than by the conventional bombardment itself. I think there were also cases of people in Israel sealing up their apartments against chemical weapons (using polythene and duct tape) and doing such a good job that they killed (or at least significantly hurt) themselves due to asphyxiation when the oxygen was depleted.

If anyone's going to start throwing nukes around in retaliation for a chemical attack, my bet would be on Israel.

There were a ton of problems with the auto-injectors issued, and even today quite a few servicemen in the United States, Canada and the UK were medically discharged after the conflict due to medical issues sustained following the use of auto-injectors and other NBCD related medications etc.

 

[RainbowDoubleDash]

Quick cruelty. Just as Master Machiavelli prescribes.

Sun Tzu as well, for the record. And basically most of the best military and political thinkers of history.

Nuclear responce is a publicly stated policy of the USA to any weapons of mass destruction. That doesn't mean we will use them--but it does mean they are on the table.

This seems most likely, though.

 

[Snowstalker]

Nuking Iraq wouldn't be worth the human cost. The army was weak enough that the use of chemical weapons would basically mean that Iraq was about to be smashed conventionally.

 

[Sandman396]

Sun Tzu as well, for the record. And basically most of the best military and political thinkers of history.

Sadly both are a bit out of date when it comes to nuclear warfare.

Better trying Von Clausewitz who despite pre-dating nuclear weapons at least covers the concepts that still play today.

 

[FickleCrossroad]

Considering the US still retained nerve agents in 1991, Bush the Elder would have been able to keep it non-nuclear.

The treaties in place at the time hadn't been around long enough to get the CW destruction ball rolling. Shouldn't the question be here, "Would the US respond IN KIND?"

It's simple and straightforward. The US doesn't nuke a second non-nuclear country in 46 years, and can further the rout of the Iraqi armed forces in one fell swoop. Whoever was the initial victim can have their vengance, and the US feels like it didn't go overboard.

What happens next? Do the US and USSR pull out of the Chemical Weapons Accord, because the superpowers realize they need a larger toolbox?

 

[Sandman396]

Considering the US still retained nerve agents in 1991, Bush the Elder would have been able to keep it non-nuclear.

The treaties in place at the time hadn't been around long enough to get the CW destruction ball rolling. Shouldn't the question be here, "Would the US respond IN KIND?"

It's simple and straightforward. The US doesn't nuke a second non-nuclear country in 46 years, and can further the rout of the Iraqi armed forces in one fell swoop. Whoever was the initial victim can have their vengance, and the US feels like it didn't go overboard.

What happens next? Do the US and USSR pull out of the Chemical Weapons Accord, because the superpowers realize they need a larger toolbox?

I do not see the US using CW or BW to respond "in kind". These weapons are of even less use in this kind of conflict than an air dropped nuke.

Even in 91 the US had sufficiently advanced conventional weapons that nothing in the WMD bracket would be required. Nowadays NBC weapons are more so than ever before, purely political weapons, not military. By that I mean they do not serve a tactical or strategic military need but they do serve a political need.

 

[FickleCrossroad]

I do not see the US using CW or BW to respond "in kind". These weapons are of even less use in this kind of conflict than an air dropped nuke.

Even in 91 the US had sufficiently advanced conventional weapons that nothing in the WMD bracket would be required. Nowadays NBC weapons are more so than ever before, purely political weapons, not military. By that I mean they do not serve a tactical or strategic military need but they do serve a political need.

I'm not disputing the power of the US conventional arsenals, but was mainly addressing the point about "political weapons." Depending on the initial victim, the decision may be made simply to soothe voters.