The US already has the Patriot PAC-3 deployed in theather which can intercept inbound IRBM. The Israeli's have the Arrow ABM system already deployed. The US keeps pushing forward since they are already commited to the invasion.
What if Saddam actually DID have nukes?
- Thread starter Adonnus
- Start date
The US already has the Patriot PAC-3 deployed in theather which can intercept inbound IRBM. The Israeli's have the Arrow ABM system already deployed. The US keeps pushing forward since they are already commited to the invasion.
http://hnn.us/article/1000 It was during the Bill Clinton administration and we bombed the Iraqi Secret Police HQ. In an act of stupidity we did so when there wasn't anyone actually there. The time to hit it is when it was full of Iraqi Secret Police.
No but it adds a X factor into the mix. Which means that just because you launch doesn't mean that you will get the destruction of the target you launched at. It would be kind of embarrasing if you go through and launch a nuclear weapon at Israeli and it gets shotdown before it reaches it's intended target.
Yes, but what if it doesn't get shotdown? You can take that chance with conventional warheads, but not with nuclear warheads.
So you fold in the face of nuclear blackmail? If you already have forces in theather I don't see the US backing down. Better to take care of the situation now since it will just get worse. The big wild card if the Iraqi's launch against somebody not involved like the Israeli's or Saudi Arabi. Saudi Arabi would be worse off since they will have no effective defense. The Isareli's will want to see this resolved ASAP so I don't see the Israeli's telling us to stop the attack into Iraqi. The pucker factor will go up for everyone in theather but it will be more of lets deal with the situation.
If the US invades in 2003, then Saddam would need to decide whether or not to use these nukes. We need to remember that in 1990, Saddam did not use chemical weapons against coalition forces in the first Gulf War. My understanding (which may be incorrect) is coalition leadership (George H.W. Bush) indicated that a chemical attack against coalition forces would invoke devastating retaliation. Likewise, I can see US commanders in 2003, making the same kinds of statements. That a use of nuclear weapons against US forces would require a US retaliatory strike.
Use of nuclear weapons against coalition forces would indicate that the CIA assessment was "correct" and we would have a powerful push against Baghdad. In addition, we would probably see intense US bombing. If the US felt that Iraqi forces only had one or two nuclear weapons then they may take the high road and not respond with nuclear weapons. However, Iraqi forces would be advised that the next use of nuclear weapons by their forces would result in a US nuclear response that would remove Iraq off the face of the map. In addition, the Iraqi leadership would be accused of "crimes against humanity" and we would have military trials during the occupation.
The occupation itself would probably be better handled since the US would want to make sure to "lock down" Iraq after a conflict involving nuclear weapons. A secure Iraq will create a secure and stable Iraq and we do not have the post-war militia movements against stronger occupying forces.
Yep. Ever heard of North Korea? Or, from the other side of the fence and facing a vastly larger nuclear arsenal the Cuban Missile Crisis? Or NATO's refusal to consider military options in the current Russian invasion of Crimea?
Korea it isn't really about nuclear black mail. It is the conventional threat and so much of South Korea's population so close to the DMZ. Also the US isn't the one deciding if a engagement goes hot so they are two different situations. The thing is that Iraqi wouldn't have a large enough nuclear arsenal to make a serious threat. It is highly likely that their arsenal could be completely neutralized either by ABM, or even before it gets off the ground. The Soviet/Russian nuclear arsenal is on a different scale and their is no chance of it being neutralized.
Wasn't Saddam's sanity seriously starting to fray by 2003? Maybe he could use a nuke against all logical sense.
Just wanted to note, that a use of nuclear weapons would not indicate the CIA was "correct" (neither they nor anyone else ever suggested Iraq already had nukes; the most aggressive statements anyone, even the Bush administration IIRC, was willing to make was along the lines of "they are actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program"). It's not like chemical/biological weapons, where there was a widespread belief that Saddam had something (a mistaken belief, but a seemingly genuine one). So this would actually represent a major intelligence failure.
Even ITTL, where ASBs have apparently given Saddam nukes, if the CIA believed that Iraq had nukes, there would be no invasion. Which is another reason why Saddam would want to let people know about his nuclear arsenal ASAP; it's been suggested that one reason he was slightly deceptive with the weapons inspectors even after he had gotten rid of his WMDs was because he wanted to have people think he still had them, so as to deter Iran. If he was willing to try to pretend to have WMDs to intimidate potential attackers, he would let everyone know about it if he had actual nukes. Besides, from an ego perspective, what's the point of joining the nuclear club if nobody else knows?
That said, an Iraqi nuclear strike would almost certainly complicate things drastically. On one hand, the CIA would undergo shakeups even more serious than the ones of OTL. On the other hand, there would be widespread freakouts (especially throughout the Middle East, as people in wealthy nations such as the UAE or Israel started wondering about fallout patterns; even if they didn't have actual fallout, people would panic). Depending on where the nuke went off (was it used against American troops tactically? an American forward base? Israel?), there would probably be serious repercussions.
I agree that TTL's Baghdad War Crimes Trials will make OTL's deBaathification process look friendly and cuddly.
North Korea has both a conventional and a nuclear deterrence, and it works.
Iraq couldn't develop a nuclear arsenal in the nineties, at all. So, at the end, this speculation isn't about political or military analysis. It's a game, because if Iraq begun to enrich uranium, the USA would have bombed the facility in a matter of days. So one, two, a hundred nuclear weapons, it's only up to our imagination. There is no plausible way they could even get one.
Now, if these magically granted nuclear weapons can be delivered by Scuds, then no, they can't be destroyed in the ground for certain. There is also no certainty that ABM could destroy them in the air - Saddam could fire fifty or sixty scuds, only one containing a nuclear weapon. How do you know, in advance, that you're going to hit the one with the nuclear warhead?
And to further complicate matters, even though some Americans don't like to hear it, the 2003 American invasion of Iraq was completely unprovoked. Now, I don't have a good opinion of George W. Bush - maybe few people have. But to consider he would risk the nuclear destruction of one or more cities in the Middle East and/or important oil facilities in order to launch an unprovoked attack on a minor nuclear power... that's a really, really big screw up.
Look at Pakistan's alliance with China(who reportedly have told US officials "Pakistan is our Israel") combined with the size of Pakistan's population and military, along with it's overall geopolitical importance, then tell me nukes are the only reason we won't go at them. Pakistan or Iran would be Iraq and Afghanistan combined times 10.