Scales of Desire- A Long Time in the Gulf

HueyLong

Banned
REASON, v.t. To weight probabilities in the scales of desire.

"If Israel attacks any Arab country ... we have the means to burn half of Israel."- Saddam Hussein, President and Prime Minister of Iraq

"If Saddam Hussein chooses to use weapons of mass destruction, then the rules of this campaign will probably change."- General Schwarzkopf

"Iraq, after the first use of a missile, won't be the same Iraq any more."- Eliyahu Ben Elissar, Chair of the Knesset Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee

"Whoever will dare to attack us will be attacked seven times more."- Yitzak Shamir, Israeli Prime Minister

"You'd have to consider, if chemical weapons were used against us, precisely what our reply should be."- Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of the UK

"The use of chemical weapons would provoke a response that would completely destroy that country."- Douglas Hurd, Defense Secretary of the UK

"There's enough ambiguity in our deployments of nuclear weapons at sea and our ability to deliver nuclear weapons by air and quickly move them into the region to plant the seeds of doubt in Hussein's mind."- Dick Cheney, United States Defense Secretary [1]

1991

Wednesday Jan 16

"We will not fail."- George H.W. Bush, President of the United States

Desert Storm began at 7 PM EST.

"The great duel, the mother of all battles has begun. The dawn of victory nears as this great showdown begins!"- Saddam Hussein, President and Prime Minister of Iraq

Thursday Jan 17

Two Iraqi SCUD missiles struck Tel Aviv, Israel. Loaded with Sarin gas, a powerful nerve agent, the missiles caused more than 1000 reported casualties in the first day...... [2]

The Israeli government made an agreement with the US government not to retaliate. But it was not clear how long such an agreement would last.

The US Government ordered the deployment of three Patriot missile crews to Israel.

[1]All quotes are OTL, excepting the last from Cheney, which is an amalgamation of his and others' statements.
[2] Iraqi's inventory in 1991 included 30 chemical warheads. In 1989, they had demonstrated domestically produced clusterbomb munitions, which are ideal for chemical agent distribution. The 1,000 death count comes from their saturation of a much smaller city over two days yielding 5,000 casualties. They hit Tel Aviv a few days earlier than IOTL, hoping a bit harder to goad Israel to war

Thoughts? Comments? Speculation? And yes, I am openly copying Blochead's style.
 
Last edited:

HueyLong

Banned
Friday Jan 18

Three SCUD missiles were at Israel. The Patriot Missile systems successfully intercepted one of the missiles, but the Iraqi SCUDs tendency to break up in the atmosphere was an unintentional counter to the Patriot system.

One of the missiles struck in central Israel, with few casualties, but contaminated the area with sarin and mustard gas. The missile intercepted by the patriot system still released its chemical agent into the atmosphere and over the area. The other missile, loaded with high explosives, struck in Tel Aviv, causing 18 casualties.

Israel's government authorized a retaliation, despite immediate American pressure not to respond. They fired 4 SCUD missiles loaded with high explosives at Baghdad (killing nearly 100 civilians) and issued a declaration to the government of Iraq- if Saddam Hussein did not cease all missile attacks on Israel, Israel will respond with their chemical payload.

Diplomatic response was quick. Saudi Arabia declared that they would have to "seriously reconsider" offensive operations in Iraq if Israel continued their operations. Syria and Jordan declared that any missions flown or missiles sent over their territory would be responded to with "overwhelming force."

The United States declared that ground war operations would begin on Jan 29 if Iraq did not immediately cease with their missile attacks and withdraw from Kuwait. [2] A mission to bomb a chemical weapons depot at Khamisiyah was immediately drafted and put into effect that night. [3] However, as many have noted, the Iraqi government had already put work into mobilizing their warhead deployments on al-Nida and al-Waleed launchers. The United States also pleaded with Israel not to respond further.

Saturday Jan 19

Iraqi troops began destroying Kuwaiti oil wells in preparation for the US ground war operations. They also began the dumping of millions of gallons of crude oil into the Persian gulf.

The United States continued their bombing runs, paying special attention to known areas of chemical weapons storage, especially Khamisiyah.

The first SCUD attack occurred on Saudi Arabia, striking Khafji with a conventional warhead. The Patriot missile system intercepted the attack, but the warhead and debris still caused damage, killing 10 Saudi soldiers.

Sunday Jan 20

The Iraqis fired 3 conventional SCUDs at Israel once again, targeting small towns throughout central Israel. The Patriot missile system intercepted these missiles, but failed to stop the damage of warheads and debris.

Israel declined to respond, due to American pressure.

Monday Jan 21

Two Sarin-loaded SCUDs struck Khafji, with both being intercepted by the Patriot missiles. However, Sarin was carried by the wind into the town and saturated the atmosphere in the area around that for a few hours. The US and Saudi forces, lacking chemical weapons detection equipment [4], did not give sufficient warning over the threat of Sarin, causing 15 Saudi casualties and 5 US casualties before a chemical warning was announced throughout the town. The sarin threat dissipated in a few hours.

Iraqi forces being prepared for an assault on Khafji were given the lion's share of protective equipment and most soldiers that would assault Khafji still had less protective equipment than their coalition counterparts.

US Defense Secretary Dick Cheney stated that he would not rule out "[responses] far and beyond chemical weapons" in dealing with Iraqi forces.

[1] Happened IOTL. After the OTL Gulf War, an Israeli panel met before the US Congress to talk about the many failures of the Patriot missiles.
[2] A step up from the date of OTL, and for good reason.
[3] Again, earlier than OTL.
[4] OTL a big weakness
 
Interesting. I like seeing a very omdern subject addressed with a TL, it has a very different, more immediate, feeling than an older historical event. Of course, I'm also just plain interested in the first Gulf War as a historical event in its own right - it was the first war that I can really remember, after all.

Anyways, looking forward to seeing how you develop this TL.
 

burmafrd

Banned
Just for informational purposes Sarin (GB) is a very short lived gas. In temperatures of 70 F and above its lethal time is measured in minutes. At most probably half an hour. If the missile warhead explodes at more then 1-2000 feet in the air, the dissipation will also cut down on its lethality.
 
Aside from the concerns about launching gas weapons from ballistic missiles, I'm enjoying this TL so far. The first Gulf War is full of excellent WIs that deserve exploration, I look forward to seeing where this is headed.

As a side note, I assume you're aware that OTL US forces were on DEFCON 1 for a time during the Gulf War. Quite frightening to think of what could have been.
 

HueyLong

Banned
Just for informational purposes Sarin (GB) is a very short lived gas. In temperatures of 70 F and above its lethal time is measured in minutes. At most probably half an hour. If the missile warhead explodes at more then 1-2000 feet in the air, the dissipation will also cut down on its lethality.

Huh. I couldn't find a good source on sarin's properties under heat and consulted a friend of mine. He said in Saudi Arabian weather, it would dissipate in a few hours. Will gladly retcon that.

Do you know about the viability of mustard gas remaining? Its a less serious agent, of course, but is it anymore viable in heat?

Aside from the concerns about launching gas weapons from ballistic missiles

Started from an FAS article which talked about the possibilities of chemical weapons during the First Gulf War. From there found a defense analysis which stated that strategic chemical bombing was the most likely and most effective means of introducing chemicals into the conflict. Consulted a number of newspaper sources, found his threats and the fears and voila!
 
Started from an FAS article which talked about the possibilities of chemical weapons during the First Gulf War. From there found a defense analysis which stated that strategic chemical bombing was the most likely and most effective means of introducing chemicals into the conflict. Consulted a number of newspaper sources, found his threats and the fears and voila!

I was more speaking of the Sarin issue that a previous poster brought up. I forget if Iraq had any VX at the time, but that would be more effective than Sarin. I believe mustard gas is supposed to be pretty effective from a ballistic missile - I remember a news story about the Syrians and Iranians fitting them on Scud-Cs...
 

burmafrd

Banned
Mustard is a persistent blister agent. Just like VX is a persistent Nerve agent. Sarin is a non persistent Nerve agent. Mustard is the easiest to manufacture (its been called the poor nations nuclear weapon).
I have worked as a DOD ammo inspector with chemical agents.
There are a lot of fallacies around about their effectiveness.

One must remember there is a big difference between aerosol and liquid contamination. Sarin if atomized will quickly in room temperature lose its potency, but if sprayed and maintains a liquid basis will last much longer and offgas extensively.

VX has virtually no off gas potential- you could actually read a newspaper unprotected next to a bucket of VX and you would likely not get sick; it must be absorbed by the skin or inhaled after being atomized.

Mustard is a really bad item since its actually more dangerous overall; you get mustard blisters and you will almost certainly some day get cancer even if you survive the first attack. It destroys the lungs a bout as fast as anything can. The only real weakness of mustard is that at around 50 F it starts to solidify and by around 40 F it is pretty much inert.

I perused the web on Sarin and am amazed that the fact that it dissipates so quickly as an aerosol is hardly mentioned even by the CDC. But then again that is not surprising- a lot of wrong info is out there on a lot of things.
 
Huh. I couldn't find a good source on sarin's properties under heat and consulted a friend of mine. He said in Saudi Arabian weather, it would dissipate in a few hours. Will gladly retcon that.

Do you know about the viability of mustard gas remaining? Its a less serious agent, of course, but is it anymore viable in heat?

While the OTL Coalition force did have some problems with CW detections, the CENTCOM were aware of this and the Allied components did possess adequate PPE and antidotes. Frequent CBRN training exercises were conducted to ensure the troops can don PPE quick in a hot desert and to know how long can the troops stay protected before heatstroke came in. Sarin remains very dangerous to exposed personnel, as it's lethal even if the exposure is minute. That's because it is a nerve toxic.

Mustard gas, on the hand, is a blistering agent, which means its worst effect can be negated by a standard- issue gas mask. Skin exposure creats painful and nasty wounds, but much less lethal as long as the lungs are not affected.

CW is not too effective in desert, DECON is problematic due to lack of water, but the gas probably will dissipate below dangerous concentration quite quickly because of the open terrain and windy weather. So secondary contamination won't be as problematic as in a urban environment.
 

burmafrd

Banned
In the heat of a desert, chemical weapons of the non persistent variety have very limited use. Now on the other hand persistent chemicals, due to the lack of water for decon, is a bigger problem. And any attacks happening within a city would be worse.
 

HueyLong

Banned
Tuesday Jan 22

Khafji is hit with a mustard gas loaded SCUD shortly before the conventional Iraqi forces began their assault on the town. [1]

The city fell with little resistance from the Saudi/Qatar forces. Two US Marine Reconaissance teams were "pocketed" within the city and captured after their cover was assaulted with chemical-loaded artillery fire. [2] The capture of the Marines was a great propaganda point for the Iraqis and was immediately capitalized upon in numerous radio broadcasts by Saddam.

US Air Force bombing runs begin focusing on Saddam's withdrawals from Kuwait, as well as his forays into Saudi Arabia.

US Marines in Oman finish Sea Soldier III, a training exercise for amphibious operations into Kuwait.

Wednesday Jan 23

Dick Cheney and Colin Powell arrived in Riyadh to discuss the final ground war plans. Schwarzkopf's dislike of an amphibious operation is mostly ignored to keep up with the earlier than anticipated date.

In meetings with the Saudi Arabian government, they suggest the possibility that offensive operations may not cease when Kuwait is liberated. The Saudi Arabian government gives the idea a nod, provided Israel is not involved in the operations.

Two SCUD missiles, one loaded with sarin and another loaded with mustard gas, strike Tel Aviv. The PATRIOT missile systems again fail to stop the spread of the agent, although the sarin mostly dissipates before reaching the ground. The mustard gas meanwhile, drifts on the wind, causing the Israeli government to declare a breathing hazard across much of central Israel as a precaution.

The Iraqis set explosives on the Khafji oil fields. They begin to set many of them aflame, apparently in attempt to outrage the Saudis.

Thursday Jan 24

US/Saudi/Qatar forces retook Khafji with minimal losses. "Get in the first shot and the rest will run away," it is said of the Iraqi soldiers. The US Artillery make use of incendiary weapons during the battle, and allegations of their use on fleeing soldiers draw criticism from some. [3]

The Coalition forces fail, however, to stop the destruction of the nearby oil fields.

A UN Security Council vote on Iraq's use of chemical weapons was vetoed by the Soviet Union. The United States had asked for "due means to respond" under a UN mandate.

[1] Happening nearly a week earlier ITTL. Was mainly intended as a diversion anyways, so it makes sense here.
[2] Almost happened. And the small scale decision to use chemical weapons, which have a much lesser pay-off, only comes as a result of their strategic use.
[3] The US is understandably queasy about chemical weapons, even when assaulted by them- but I don't expect them to hold back from other grisly tactics. Not going to comment on the validity of the claims other than that.......
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
It appears that you have grossly underestimated the reaction of both Israel and, particularly, the United States to WMD use against them. Israel MIGHT have been kept from going whole hog (BTW: the Israeli's don't use SCUDs), but that is marginal, extremely marginal if the IDF can get good targeting information on a suitable military target.

The U.S.? Zero Chance that an enemy gets away without retaliation at a level sure to act as an educational event for the rest of the world.

Count on a small, probably 5-10kt, weapon used against an Iraqi military position, perhaps two, probably Republican Guard division(s), well away from major population, there were several such targets available before the start of the ground offensive. AFTER that attack, you would then see the BIG WARNING about what would happen next.

A declared nuclear power can NOT allow a WMD use against it by a nation-state without reacting with force above that used against it. Failing to do so makes the deterrent value of the weapons nil, and a nuclear power without deterrent believability is in serious trouble (as is the rest of the Planet).
 
It appears that you have grossly underestimated the reaction of both Israel and, particularly, the United States to WMD use against them. Israel MIGHT have been kept from going whole hog (BTW: the Israeli's don't use SCUDs), but that is marginal, extremely marginal if the IDF can get good targeting information on a suitable military target.

The U.S.? Zero Chance that an enemy gets away without retaliation at a level sure to act as an educational event for the rest of the world.

Count on a small, probably 5-10kt, weapon used against an Iraqi military position, perhaps two, probably Republican Guard division(s), well away from major population, there were several such targets available before the start of the ground offensive. AFTER that attack, you would then see the BIG WARNING about what would happen next.

A declared nuclear power can NOT allow a WMD use against it by a nation-state without reacting with force above that used against it. Failing to do so makes the deterrent value of the weapons nil, and a nuclear power without deterrent believability is in serious trouble (as is the rest of the Planet).

Well, I actually would argue that Iraqi chemical weapons use wouldn't necessarily mean that the US would need to use a nuke to strike back. It's just a different scale. Now, if the Iraqis used a proper nuke, then sure - there would be no alternative to using a nuke to strike back. But chemical weapons - unless they're using them against US civilian targets, there just doesn't seem to be a real need to use a nuke. Maybe, though, they'd make more use of FAEs - which they did make some OTL use of, anyways. Those were about as effective against troops in the field as low-yield nukes, and would side-step the inevitable anti-nuclear backlash that would accompany any use of nukes.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Well, I actually would argue that Iraqi chemical weapons use wouldn't necessarily mean that the US would need to use a nuke to strike back. It's just a different scale. Now, if the Iraqis used a proper nuke, then sure - there would be no alternative to using a nuke to strike back. But chemical weapons - unless they're using them against US civilian targets, there just doesn't seem to be a real need to use a nuke. Maybe, though, they'd make more use of FAEs - which they did make some OTL use of, anyways. Those were about as effective against troops in the field as low-yield nukes, and would side-step the inevitable anti-nuclear backlash that would accompany any use of nukes.


The U.S. has, as an article of faith, made clear for decades that it saw no difference between chemical, bilogical, and nuclear weapons. If the American government let an attack go without retaliation, it would have been an engraved invitation for every potential enemy to use them without fear.

Iraq was actually a perfect opponent to use a weapon against. History of WMD use, plenty of warning sent through its UN Ambassador, through third party Ambassadors, and the country's leader was a established nut-job with a reputation for being a bad actor. The disposition of the Republican Guard also lent itself to a strike since they were, in several cases, away from population concentrations.

The only reason that American, British, Russian, French, Chinese, even Israeli troops don't have to worry about chemical weapons is that the rest of the world believes that it would lead to a bright flash and a mushroom cloud. The day that changes...
 

burmafrd

Banned
This thread is bogus since as Cal has pointed out if we did not respond then the whole deterrent theory is DEAD. And Saddam makes the perfect one to use it against.

It would have gone like this. After the FIRST scud with CM hits ANYWHERE, Bush would have said the next one is your last.
Now its possible then that Bush would have said one more attack and we take ALL OF IRAQ and hang Saddam to the nearest tree or lampost available when we get him. That would be the only way we would NOT respond. Saddam was always concerned about his survival first last and always- once you make the point that its HIS head on the line then he will stop.
 
Top