Response to Iraqi Gas Attack

kernals12

Banned
If Saddam had used Chemical weapons against coalition forces in the Gulf war, how would we have responded? Would Bush have retaliated with nuclear weapons or would we have retained conventional tactics and switched strategies to destroy stockpiles of chemical weapons?
 
IMHO a lot depends on how extensive the attack(s) were and how many casualties the USA had. A small tac nuke on a military target, perhaps a unit where the attack originated might be done but opening the nuclear Pandora's box for one attack probably not. However this would ensure that there would be no Gulf War II as Saddam etc would be thoroughly removed.
 

Ian_W

Banned
If Saddam had used Chemical weapons against coalition forces in the Gulf war, how would we have responded? Would Bush have retaliated with nuclear weapons or would we have retained conventional tactics and switched strategies to destroy stockpiles of chemical weapons?

I'd like you to explain how said conventional weapons were used.

The Iraqi air force was used against the Kurds, so thats not a viable delivery system.

Chemical rounds might have been used by artillery, but the Coalition armored spearheads were usually not where the artillery thought they were, and chemical rounds are very hit or miss against tankers.
 
I think the most likely action would be for whichever artillery unit/airfield the attack came from would probably have suddenly found every single F-15, F-16, F/A-18, A-10, Tornado, Jaguar, Buccaneer and Mirage in theatre over their positions shortly afterwards with a few helicopters worth of Delta Force or SAS coming in behind to lift the survivors.

I can't see a nuclear response personally. Would the US, France or UK even have had tactical nuclear weapons in theatre? By the time you get a nuclear bomb or artillery shells in from the closest stocks (Germany?) the ground war's probably over anyway.
 
Last edited:

Pangur

Donor
The OP states coalition forces rather than the US. Just who got hit would have a bearing on the response Note both the French and British also have nukes. It would seem reasonible that before the war kicked of a chemical attack was considered and planned for with and here is where I am going to make an assumpion that the plan was for all three nations to respond with a nuke each fired from subs on a military target
 
The U.S. had its own chemical weapons stockpile at the time. It could retaliate with those as the chemical weapons convention wasn't even signed until 1993.
 
... but the Coalition armored spearheads were usually not where the artillery thought they were, and chemical rounds are very hit or miss against tankers.

Maybe true for the 'armored spearheads' but my peers in the USMC artillery saw their saw share of Iraqi counter battery fires. It was usually ineffective in terms of HE ammunition, but accurate enough for chemical ammunition.
 

Ian_W

Banned
Maybe true for the 'armored spearheads' but my peers in the USMC artillery saw their saw share of Iraqi counter battery fires. It was usually ineffective in terms of HE ammunition, but accurate enough for chemical ammunition.

The dirty secret about chemical warfare is it's really ineffective in most circumstances. Getting enough gas density in a small enough area is hard, and if the other side can move away from the affected area they do.

The best gas mix is smoke and tear gas to cover an assault, and in modern time white phosphorus does both rather well.
 
To echo Ian_W, it rather depends on how he uses them. It’s one thing if Iraqis arty drops some phosgene on a Coalition spearhead. It’s quite another of a barrage of scuds loaded with VX lands in Downtown Tel-Aviv.
 
I seem to recall that for Saddam the red line was Baghdad falling: how do you see it being attacked under these circumstances?

Bush I was somewhat more judicious than his wayward son. What could possibly give him this idea?
 
Chemical weapons work best in terms of area denial (persistent nerve agent) and attrition against fixed sites (like airfields) - these were the primary assigned usage for NATO and WARPAC in the 80s, so for an effective mass casualty attack the target would either have to be civillian or get through the PATRIOT batteries to hit forces massed in Kuwait.

I believe the stated response was nuclear, and I believe that they would have followed through even if with just a single B53 dialed in at 0.3kt ontop of the firing site. Precedent all that.
 
The dirty secret about chemical warfare is it's really ineffective in most circumstances. Getting enough gas density in a small enough area is hard, and if the other side can move away from the affected area they d ...

We planned our chemical attacks in terms of multi battalion missions and aimed at temporary suppresive effects. The targets were never combat units. Those were low on the priority list.
 
To echo Ian_W, it rather depends on how he uses them. It’s one thing if Iraqis arty drops some phosgene on a Coalition spearhead. It’s quite another of a barrage of scuds loaded with VX lands in Downtown Tel-Aviv.

Well on the 'bright' side, the Coalition won't have to lift a finger in that second case.
 
Chemical weapons work best in terms of area denial (persistent nerve agent) and attrition against fixed sites (like airfields) - these were the primary assigned usage for NATO and WARPAC in the 80s, so for an effective mass casualty attack the target would either have to be civillian or get through the PATRIOT batteries to hit forces massed in Kuwait.

.

Those were usually out of range of our cannon. HQ, comm knodes, & forward ammo or fuel dumps were usual first on our target priority matrix. The object being to disrupt their operations.
 
Well on the 'bright' side, the Coalition won't have to lift a finger in that second case.
No it is going to have to react even faster and with more force in that case. The coalition does not want Israel getting involved, as that could have very bad domestic effects on the Arab members of the coalition. So they have to hit hard enough to satisfy the Israelis, and do it quick before the Israelis have to take matters into their own hands for domestic reasons
 
No it is going to have to react even faster and with more force in that case. The coalition does not want Israel getting involved, as that could have very bad domestic effects on the Arab members of the coalition. So they have to hit hard enough to satisfy the Israelis, and do it quick before the Israelis have to take matters into their own hands for domestic reasons

And they're going to have to act very fast indeed. Because Israel is not going to listen to any more pleas to show restraint when hundreds, if not thousands of Jews are dead on the streets of their own capital by gas launched by an Arab dictator.
 
IIRC Saddam was warned via foreign ministers in fairly strong terms that if chemical or biological weapons were used during the conflict that it would be replied to in kind, which for the US meant nuclear weapons. I would be highly surprised if there weren't at least a few tactical nuclear weapons, bombs and missiles, at sea on one of the aircraft carriers and submarines on a just in case basis.

If they had been used then I could easily see the units that launched the shells or missile getting hit. The Republican Guard aren't getting back home in this timeline, they make a very obvious target for several buckets of instant sunshine.


The OP states coalition forces rather than the US.
A coalition of which the US was the leading member, so it could include their forces or not.
 
If Saddam hits the Israelis with gas, expect instant sunshine at various locations in Iraq. If the Palestinians decide to start an intifada in support of the Iraqi attacks/against Israeli retaliation one result will be that you will see the Israelis decide to draw permanent lines on the ground and Palestinians in what is now Israel proper will mostly be told to leave. I would not be surprised to see Arabs in Israel being told that actions against the Israeli state will result in expulsion. IMHO it would be really hard for the Arab states in general to support Palestinians who are taking action in support of WMD attacks on Israeli civilians in this circumstance.

How the US and coalition forces deal with chemical attacks on their forces is up to them, Israel will not count on anyone else to deal with this on their behalf - getting the Israelis to hold back on responding to conventional SCUDs.

Chemical attacks on US/UK/French forces in the battle area will be a nuisance but not produce a lot of casualties. I wonder what would happen if the Iraqis do have chemical warheads for the SCUDs and in the attacks on logistic areas and airfields due to inaccuracies and winds you end up with a lot of Saudi civilians being killed. Even rear area (>50km from the FEBA) US and NATO forces were relatively well equipped and trained to deal with chemical attacks.
 
And they're going to have to act very fast indeed. Because Israel is not going to listen to any more pleas to show restraint when hundreds, if not thousands of Jews are dead on the streets of their own capital by gas launched by an Arab dictator.

I remember watching CNN on the second night of the 1991 Air War on Iraq, which was the first night that Iraq launched a Scud at Israel; there was a very frightened looking reporter in Tel Aviv who said, among other things, that there was an unconfirmed report that the "entire Israeli Air Force has just taken off"--this was before the Scud hit to reveal that it was a conventional warhead. I remember thinking that I had a ring-side seat via TV to the start of Armaggedon, because if that had been a WMD like most people were afraid of, there would have been no holding back the Israelis.
 
Top