WI Sadam were able to test a nuke and missile 1990

WI in the weeks around his aggression agaisnt Kuwait Saddam had let of a nuclear weapon and tested a credible looking balistic missile
 
Considering how much effort Israeli intelligence services have put on surveying signs of nuclear proliferation in Middle East, it is highly unlikely and outright ASB stuff that Iraqi government could complete such a monumental project in secrecy.
 
It could not have been kept secret for a long period, which deevelopment would have been.

It could end up in the type of crisis as we see now with Iran.

IF Saddam could have kept it under wraps, I think it would have scared the .. out of Iran.

After all, Saddam's main enemy was Iran, not US.

Saudi would not have liked it either.

My guess is that the war would not have been limited to Kuwait, would have been a proper occupation as we have now.

Ivan
 
Considering how much effort Israeli intelligence services have put on surveying signs of nuclear proliferation in Middle East, it is highly unlikely and outright ASB stuff that Iraqi government could complete such a monumental project in secrecy.
How advanced was Libya's nuclear program? I ask as I seem to remember them being a fair way along and the Israeli's don't seem to of known.
 
Assuming he did this after the Kuwait invasion it would seriously complicate US efforts in the Gulf a confirmed nuclear capability is probably the one thing no country on Earth has effective defences for.On the other hand it would probably make Israel launch a preemtive strike on Iraq.Also any iraqi missile launched at Israel would be assumed to be possibly nuclear in payload so Israel would be inclined to fire back with its nukes at Baghdad and any other targets of interest.If Iraq hits US forces with nukes or maybe some Saudi Arabian city then a full US retaliation with nuclear weapons is likely.Either way things end badly for Iraq the only way it could avoid anihilation is to not invade anyone.It is a somewhat unwritten rule that basically says nukes are for defensive purposes only.Introducing nukes on the battlefield to further your aims is the kind of thing that would get you isolated and attacked by anyone.Its true since 1945 there have been efforts to find some kind of effective use for them but at the end of the day nothing has come out of it.If Iraq assuming it had nukes availabe decided to also use them in 1990-91 it would have been destroyed as a country and the decision would have been welcomed by all nuclear armed countries.
 
I doubt if US would have used nuclear weapons, even if Saddam had used some on the Coalition forces. They had enough fire power as it was to do the job and nobody would have liked it (Russia for sure wouldn't).

On the use of "peaceful" nukes: PW Botha of South Africa had a word on that: "The only difference between peaceful nukes and military one's is that the military one's have fins in the back".

Ivan
 
Iran and the US come to the table as the enemy of their enemy is someone they can cooperate with. Iraq gets disassembled slowly by Iranians, Coalition forces, Russians, and everyone else in the region. If the Hussein regime is dumb enough to use one on Coalition troops I'm not sure what would happen but I think Baghdad would be a memory. Ultimately the region is freed from the Baathists earlier but it might not be a free country. I could see Iran softening its tone notably if its leaders realize that they came very close to becoming targets of a nuclear-armed madman willing to push the button. I could also see them accelerating their own nuclear efforts with Pakistani or Russian assistance.

Ironically it might lead to US/Iranian relations becoming lukewarm with the prospect of eventual trade.
 
To a nuclear strike there is only one reply also with nukes.Its true the Coalition had the conventional firepower to destroy Saddam but if you use nukes you cannot hit back with standard bombs.The logic being that you appear weak.The whole world would have said afterwards look the US got hit with a nuclear weapon and they didn't respond in kind it means they're weak they don't have the nerve to hit back.It would have invalidated the whole detterence theory they build up over the decades.What faith would South Korea have in US determination to strike hard at North Korea if they couldn't even nuke back when they themselves got hit to give just one example.
 
Top