WI: Saddam Had a Nuclear Weapon When Iraq Invaded Kuwait

Whats the range and payload of that supergun he was suposed to be building?

According to Whiskypedia, the Babylon gun was supposed to be able to put a 2000 kg payload into orbit. So potentially unlimited range, but rather short of the required weight for a nuclear weapon. Which would have to be of the implosion type by default, not the much simpler gun type, which would be too unstable to allow it to be fired (correct me if I'm wrong).
 
I invite you to look at the history of the Yom Kippur War in 1973, when the US military went to DefCon 3 when the Soviets started assembling parachute divisions and transports and threatened intervention.


Now, if tsahal detonates a nuclear bomb or two to show that their country is indeed a nuclear power, would the Soviets have been so keen to intervene?
 
People forget the fact that there were two countries hell-bent on preventing iraq from getting nukes in the first place. So if there are signs that iraq was close to developing nuke in late 1980s either IRIAF or IDF/AF would bomb the shit out facility(ies) where such program would be happening. I mean, it's not as if they haven't done it before. :rolleyes:

The IDF would have taken it out if they found out where it was, and Saddam wouldn't risk using it since the US would retaliate in kind.
The Best case Scenario for Saddam involves the Israelis becoming Co-belligerents with the Coalition while some of the Arab nations, like Quatar, Oman and maybe the UAE, leave the coalition and Jordan might side more completely with Saddam.

Actually both Egyptians and Syrians said, off the record, they'd be cool with measured Israeli response to iraqi Scud attacks. Of course "measured response" does not exist in Israeli terminology. And if smaller arab countries pull out so what? Saudis wouldn't, not with Iraq presenting a threat. Neither would Egypt and Syria. Others hardly mattered, except for improved PR, "see, its not just western christian crusaders(tm) fighting iraqis, it's also other Arabs".
 

Commissar

Banned
I posted something on the Gulf War earlier. But here's a different slant on it.

What if Saddam was able to finish the construction of a nuclear weapon before he invaded Kuwait? And let's say that intelligence was spotty on this until the invasion began, when it became clear that this was now indeed true.

What happens with the first Gulf War with an Iraqi army with a nuclear weapon?

If Saddam had a nuke, he would not have invaded Kuwait till he actually had a chance to talk to Bush, because a fuckup would mean we would have been justified in using nuclear weapons against his forces as a first resort.

Now if he had built a stockpile, then we would have been presented with a fait accompli and would have to weigh whether it would be worth it to destroy Iraq as it can not be beaten.

We would likely guarantee Saudi Arabia a nuclear envelope.
 
Iraq did manage to rebuild a nuclear program after the Israelis leveled their reactor. That program than got blown too hell and gone by Coalition air forces in the Gulf War and that was that.

Apparently, Iraq was three years away from a bomb with that program (assuming Saddam wanted a unwieldy hard to deliver device). A SCUD warhead would probably have required another decade.

Of course, the best way to get Iraq their bomb in time would be for the Israelis to not go ahead with the reactor raid for some reason (the plan gets leaked, maybe?).
 

Commissar

Banned
Iraq did manage to rebuild a nuclear program after the Israelis leveled their reactor. That program than got blown too hell and gone by Coalition air forces in the Gulf War and that was that.

Apparently, Iraq was three years away from a bomb with that program (assuming Saddam wanted a unwieldy hard to deliver device). A SCUD warhead would probably have required another decade.

Of course, the best way to get Iraq their bomb in time would be for the Israelis to not go ahead with the reactor raid for some reason (the plan gets leaked, maybe?).

The Israeli raid did not stop the Iraqi Program. The Iranian Raid on the Research facilities did and the Iraqis were never able to piece it back together.
 
I just don't see it happening. The only possible target that I know of that could come close to being a viable choice would be the H3 airfield in western Iraq, which is actually not a single airport but a cluster of three or four with some bunkers spread between them.

But even that could have consequences: in Every Man a Tiger by Tom Clancy and Desert Storm air component commander Chuck Horner, it's revealed that we suspected in 1991 that the Iraqi army was transferring chemical weapons to H3 for safekeeping. This didn't stop us from hitting the bunkers and airfield during Desert Storm, and even sending the largest raid of Southern Watch after it.

I picked that one as the most likely possible target because it's literally out in the middle of nowhere, and the strong possibility of Iraqi Air Force units and chemical weapons in the same place at the same time makes it a possibly useful target to take out. That being said, it's still nothing that couldn't be taken out with conventional weapons and the planes still could be plinked with AMRAAMs or Sidewinders.

Don't get me wrong, gp: I understand what you're saying. And lord knows folks playing Devil's Advocate don't get enough credit on this site. We oughta give you a medal. Putting a Deep Throat right into Saddam's command bunker might not be that out of line in such a scenario, but detonating a nuclear weapon over Baghdad or Basra or any other large city just surrenders the moral high ground, you know?
Thats sound reasoning but as myself and a few others have said, the Public outcry coupled with the fear of losing face internationaly will almost ensure that nukes would be used, think about it a US Armored Division just got nuked and we do almost nothing in return, how would the Soviet Union see that or the US allies in NATO and the PAcific, how would China and North Korea see that. The US could nuke a republican guard division (though it depends on if the ground invasion has started, if it has in all likelyhood, the division is a smoking wreck). As to the MAD issue, Iraq didn't use chems in fear of US retaliation so therefore the MAD system was in effect during Desert Storm. But OTOH you are correct in your thinking about the US has enough firepower in the area to not even need nukes, if need be, FOABs or Fuel-Air-explosives could do the job just as effective as a nuke but without the decades of fallout and radioactivity.

EDIT: You are also correct in the lack of viable targets that could be hit by nukes that couldn't already be struck with the ordanance in the area.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
The Israeli raid did not stop the Iraqi Program. The Iranian Raid on the Research facilities did and the Iraqis were never able to piece it back together.

Okay...if you're going to say stuff like that, then cite sources that back your statements, please.

Like this:

In Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat by Bishop and Cooper, we have this:

On 30 September at 0530 hrs, several Phantom II formations penetrated Iraqi airspace. Four jets, armed with six Mk 82 bombs and carrying ALQ-87(V)-3 ECM pods, successfully flew through a corridor in the SAM belt between Salman Pak and Baghdad without being detected. Two of them targeted the site of the 'Tammouz' nuclear reactor in Tuwaitha, a southern suburb of Baghdad. Contrary to reports, the bombs did not miss the $275 m reactor core, but were specifically aimed at secondary installations. The result was the destruction of important research facilities, a large fire and casualties, as well as panic among French technicians who were working there. At the time the Iranians were not sure if the reactor was filled, and they wanted to avoid nuclear fallout.

Raid on the Sun by Rodger Claire notes that over a dozen of the released Mk 84 bombs impacted the reactor complex and detonated, citing interviews with the pilots, debriefings, and bomb damage assessments. Then there's the fact that the site was kept unrepaired until the fall of the Hussein regime.


I honestly don't know how you could come up with the idea that the Iranian raid did more damage than the Israeli one. You're welcome to cite some sources and quote them if you want.
 
Okay...if you're going to say stuff like that, then cite sources that back your statements, please.

Like this:

In Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat by Bishop and Cooper, we have this:



Raid on the Sun by Rodger Claire notes that over a dozen of the released Mk 84 bombs impacted the reactor complex and detonated, citing interviews with the pilots, debriefings, and bomb damage assessments. Then there's the fact that the site was kept unrepaired until the fall of the Hussein regime.


I honestly don't know how you could come up with the idea that the Iranian raid did more damage than the Israeli one. You're welcome to cite some sources and quote them if you want.

More detailed account.....

http://www.angelfire.com/art2/narod/opera/

(I have the actual article, BTW)
 
More detailed account...


Interesting link. Rather spottily sourced with the usual "Our contacts insisted on anonymity" statements these sort of articles have.

The authors claim that Israel gave Iran weapons and intel the IRIAF needed to strike Iraq's nuclear facility. They go on the claim that Israel provided post-strike weapons and intel perhaps in the hope that Iran would try again because:

There is considerable controversy over the results of Operation scorch sword. In the West the IRIAF strike was generally regarded as having missed the target completely, or causing only minor damage. The Iraqis and French declared it a "failure", and "ineffective". At best, it was reported that damage of 'only' several million dollars was caused, as well as a 'slight' delay in construction, with all the repairs finished by the end of November 1980. The Iraqis immediately attacked Iran for its "co-operation with Zionist enemy", suspecting - together with the French - that the aircraft did not come out of Iran, but from Israel.
Whatever the actual results of the IRIAF raid, Israel still found it necessary to strike the facility again and finish the job. While the Iranian strike did cause some damage, tt was the Israeli strike that put paid to the program.
 

NothingNow

Banned
Actually both Egyptians and Syrians said, off the record, they'd be cool with measured Israeli response to iraqi Scud attacks. Of course "measured response" does not exist in Israeli terminology.
No. It exists, but it's less what we would consider Measured. It's more along the Lines of "Drop a 1000lb bomb on anything that looks like The Target" for Air raids or "Operation Expedited Urban Renewal" if Ground forces are involved.

And if smaller arab countries pull out so what? Saudis wouldn't, not with Iraq presenting a threat. Neither would Egypt and Syria. Others hardly mattered, except for improved PR, "see, its not just western christian crusaders(tm) fighting iraqis, it's also other Arabs".
Well PR was an important thing for the US (pre-Iraqi Freedom anyway,) but yeah, not all that Important. It might Drive the Jordanians fully into the Iraqi camp, but I doubt they'd be Stupid enough to do that.
 
Well PR was an important thing for the US (pre-Iraqi Freedom anyway,) but yeah, not all that Important. It might Drive the Jordanians fully into the Iraqi camp, but I doubt they'd be Stupid enough to do that.

even if small ones pull out, other would stay. And having Egypt, Syria and Saudis in the camp is more improtant than ahving UAE and such
 

NothingNow

Banned
even if small ones pull out, other would stay. And having Egypt, Syria and Saudis in the camp is more improtant than ahving UAE and such
Yeah, especially since the UAE et al. haven't taken delivery of any really useful weapons systems yet.
 
Top