Worse-case senario for 2003 Iraq war

It is well known Russia had big interest in Iraq's oil reserves. What isn't known is how far Russia could have gone in opposing the US invasion.

Could Russia launch a nuclear attack against the US under a worse-case senario in the Iraq war?
 
Just to simplify the question, Russia can launch its nukes whenever it wants. It can launch them even if Bush looks at them cross-eyed.

Also, for that matter, we can nuke ourselves as well. Could is a very loose word at times.

That explains the "could" part of this question.

The "would" answer is definitely no. If Russia nukes the United States, they're going to get nuked back. Russia would have made such intentions known before the 2003 invasion, and frankly, Bush wouldn't have pushed hard if Russia showed this kind of resolve.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
We GOT the worst case scenario.

A total failure by the NCA to manage the immediate results of set piece combat that resulted in a quagmire which greatly reduced American prestige and military readiness while increasing the standing of both anti-Western Islamist radicals in the Middle East and of Iran as a power player in the Gulf.

The Administration couldn't have gotten a worse outcome from the Iraq War if they had planned it out.
 
Never say never. And I have to disagree: things can always be worse. Unless you're terminally ill, or a prisoner on Death Row. For the rest of us, things can always be worse.
 
^ you could be both :eek:

anyway, it is HIGHLY unlikely that Russia would send Nukes to the US. Of course, that doesn't mean that America got its worst-case scenario.

If the invasion failed, you could see a long, long Iraq war, and one riddled with even more blunders. If the Iraqi Army fought back harder and held back the Americans at the Battle of Nasiriyah and others, the invasion could last until winter, which would demoralize the Americans a little at least.
 
We GOT the worst case scenario.

A total failure by the NCA to manage the immediate results of set piece combat that resulted in a quagmire which greatly reduced American prestige and military readiness while increasing the standing of both anti-Western Islamist radicals in the Middle East and of Iran as a power player in the Gulf.

The Administration couldn't have gotten a worse outcome from the Iraq War if they had planned it out.

I agree fully with CalBear. We did get probably the worst plausible scenario that we could have gotten out of Iraq. For an Iraqi army that at the time was a shadow of its 1991 self, there was no possible way they could have ever hoped to stand up to US forces in a set-piece battle. Yet what was demoralizing to US troops was what came after 'Mission Accomplished', 10xs as many casualties fighting the insurgents than the actual invasion itself.

The only way I can envision the Iraqi war getting worse is if in addition to all that was going on, the Turks would have gotten involved by sending a force to quell the Kurdish insurgents. Or that we would have gotten into a fight with Iran afterwards.
 
Worst Case Scenario A:
1. Hussein Kamil doesn't order the WMD destroyed in 1995. Iraq actually does try and build a concealed program that somehow gets past the UN inspectors and the US.
2. When the US and Coalition go in, Hussein launches the WMDs at the troops, plus Israel, Kuwait, Bahrain and the UAE. Thousands of troops die. Even more civillians die (especially the ones not in Israel, who don't have plans for WMD attacks on civillians).
3. The US goes nuclear. Iraq is glassed. Millions die. The world is upset, and the mideast even more so. (After all, they didn't side with Iraq, but they got the fallout...)
Worst Case Scenario B:
1. Riots break out in Jordan, Bahrain and the UAE over their countries covert support for the Iraq War. (No riots in Kuwait- after all, they hate Saddam more than anyone besides the Kurds!)
2. Al Quaeda takes advantage and topples the governments.
Worst Case Scenario C:
1. The US (or UK), believing that WMD were used or about to be used use nukes on Iraq.
2. Iraq invokes the Non-Proliferation Treaty and asks for help.
3. China or Russia insist on proportionate retaliation (a la "Fail-Safe") and retaliate.
4. The US and UK nuke back-full force.
5. WWIII.
Worst Case Scenario D:
1. As Coalition forces prepare for invasion, Iranian forces go on alert and mass at the border.
2. When the Coalition goes in, so does Iran, claiming (truly or falsely) that they were invited in by Iraqi opposition groups.
3. Iranian troops entering Iraq wind up exchanging fire with Coalition forces (not to mention Iraqi forces and Kurdish peshmerga...).
4. Shi'ites rise up against Saddam and the Coalition in Iraq.
5. Iran attacks the US bases in the Gulf area, in addition to its fleet.
Worst Case Scenario E:
1. Iraq appeals to OPEC to not sell oil to the US and UK in the event of an invasion. OPEC agrees.
2. As soson as the trops cross the border, OPEC ceases selling oil to the US and UK. Gas prices skyrocket.
3. The UK is able to survive, but the skyrocketing Gasoline prices push the US into Recession.
Worst Case Scenario F:
1. As the US troops are in the process of invasion, Taliban forces step up attacks on NATO forces in Afghanistan.
2. Around the same time, North Korean forces cross into South Korea, calling for reunification of the Korean Peninsula by force.
Worst Case Scenario G:
1. The lack of WMD in Iraq causes widespread public protests in the Coalition countries. Opposition groups take to the streets. Anger mounts.
2. Some disgruntled protestors begin calling for action by force.
3. A number of war supporting politicians are assasinated.
4. Countries declare martial law.
5. Declaration of martial law polarizes society. Second US and UK Civil Wars begin (And First Australian, Second Spanish, Nth Polish, First Georgian, etc?)
 
Some senarios:

* A accident happens, say on a carrier or two Herks carrying special forces soldiers.

* I remember a muslim soldier going berserk. Say he is more efficient.

* I wonder if Iraq would could do something about the Special forces/Kurd militias.

* I don't know how to pull it of but getting Turky involved in northern Iraq would be interesting.
 
Superior Iraqi army resistance would probably be better, not worse for the U.S. in the end. A lot of the problems which came about resulted from the American 'Race to Baghdad' in a couple weeks, failing to take time to secure and occupy any gains they made on the way. Giving them this time will make the post-war occupation a lot easier.

However, the possibility of Saddam keeping his chemical weapons for some mad reason does have some weight to it as a way of making things worse. Other possibilities include, in no particular order:

1. The U.S. was bomber-crazy, as we all know ("Shock and awe") and also extremely incompetent. Though unlikely, it would be within the realm of plausibility, I think, for a bomber or two to, perhaps, with bad weather, accidentally go off-course and hit some Iranian border guardposts or even a city. The ramifications of this, even if they aren't 'Open War' big, will be huge. The same might go for accidental bombing of Saudi or Syrian locations.

2. Turkey crosses the border in the North to strike at the Kurds before Northern Iraq can become a base for the PKK.

3... Um... Iraqi flu? Hussein's Revenge? I'm running out of ideas, now, here.

4. U.S. soldiers desecrating and vandalizing Babylon's ruins (which is OTL) awaken the Scorpion King, who unleashes his Army of the Dead against the unprepared invaders.
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The UN had quite clearly established that the Iraqi program had been crippled. The research might be continuing, and their was (or so it was proclaimed) a possibility of stockpiled weapons. Unfortunately, Iraq utterly lacked delivery systems. One of the bits of Intel the UN inspectors gleaned (something that the U.S. knew before Geneva did) was that the Iraqis had never managed to mate their SCUDS to a chemical round.

As far as an Iranian attempt to intervene being worst case... There is much to recommend engaging the Iranian Army and Air Forces in open desert and well outside any SAM defenses Tehran may have emplaced.

Engaging the Iranians would also have had a remarkably positive impact on most Middle Eastern governments.

One of the big, but little discussed, issues around knocking Saddam out of power was the whole Sunni/Shi'a hostility situation. A significant undercurrent (at least as reported in some fairly well respected sources like Jane's) in many Arab capitals was that Saddam was a bastard, but he was keeping the Shi'a "in their place" and who would do that one Saddam was gone.

Worth remembering: The dislike between the Arab world and "The Persians" predates The Prophet, or Christ, or the Roman Empire. It is likely that it is the OLDEST point of friction in all of human history (which makes sense, because this is where "history" began, back when all good Europeans were living in caves & lean-to's).


Worst Case Scenario A:
1. Hussein Kamil doesn't order the WMD destroyed in 1995. Iraq actually does try and build a concealed program that somehow gets past the UN inspectors and the US.
2. When the US and Coalition go in, Hussein launches the WMDs at the troops, plus Israel, Kuwait, Bahrain and the UAE. Thousands of troops die. Even more civillians die (especially the ones not in Israel, who don't have plans for WMD attacks on civillians).
3. The US goes nuclear. Iraq is glassed. Millions die. The world is upset, and the mideast even more so. (After all, they didn't side with Iraq, but they got the fallout...)
Worst Case Scenario B:
1. Riots break out in Jordan, Bahrain and the UAE over their countries covert support for the Iraq War. (No riots in Kuwait- after all, they hate Saddam more than anyone besides the Kurds!)
2. Al Quaeda takes advantage and topples the governments.
Worst Case Scenario C:
1. The US (or UK), believing that WMD were used or about to be used use nukes on Iraq.
2. Iraq invokes the Non-Proliferation Treaty and asks for help.
3. China or Russia insist on proportionate retaliation (a la "Fail-Safe") and retaliate.
4. The US and UK nuke back-full force.
5. WWIII.
Worst Case Scenario D:
1. As Coalition forces prepare for invasion, Iranian forces go on alert and mass at the border.
2. When the Coalition goes in, so does Iran, claiming (truly or falsely) that they were invited in by Iraqi opposition groups.
3. Iranian troops entering Iraq wind up exchanging fire with Coalition forces (not to mention Iraqi forces and Kurdish peshmerga...).
4. Shi'ites rise up against Saddam and the Coalition in Iraq.
5. Iran attacks the US bases in the Gulf area, in addition to its fleet.
Worst Case Scenario E:
1. Iraq appeals to OPEC to not sell oil to the US and UK in the event of an invasion. OPEC agrees.
2. As soson as the trops cross the border, OPEC ceases selling oil to the US and UK. Gas prices skyrocket.
3. The UK is able to survive, but the skyrocketing Gasoline prices push the US into Recession.
Worst Case Scenario F:
1. As the US troops are in the process of invasion, Taliban forces step up attacks on NATO forces in Afghanistan.
2. Around the same time, North Korean forces cross into South Korea, calling for reunification of the Korean Peninsula by force.
Worst Case Scenario G:
1. The lack of WMD in Iraq causes widespread public protests in the Coalition countries. Opposition groups take to the streets. Anger mounts.
2. Some disgruntled protestors begin calling for action by force.
3. A number of war supporting politicians are assasinated.
4. Countries declare martial law.
5. Declaration of martial law polarizes society. Second US and UK Civil Wars begin (And First Australian, Second Spanish, Nth Polish, First Georgian, etc?)
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
...

4. U.S. soldiers desecrating and vandalizing Babylon's ruins (which is OTL) awaken the Scorpion King, who unleashes his Army of the Dead against the unprepared invaders.

Okay. I admit I missed this one. Definite worst case.


:D
 

burmafrd

Banned
GIven the directive- capture Baghdad ASAP- the US military did a very good job. Remember also that the Turks crossed us up only days literaly before the attack by refusing to allow us to come from Turkey on the ground. The big screwup was disbanding the Iraqi Army which would have been very handy in keeping order in the rest of the country. That was a political decision pushed by Cheney from all accounts. But Rumsfield agreed. At that point we needed to put a lot more troops into the country- but due to cutbacks we really did not have them. It would have mean sending virtually every NG infrantry unit we had, plus all regular army units. NO way that could happen without months of preparation. WHich were not there.
 
Stealed?

foller

Apparently, some Russian 1Kt Atomic Demolition Munitions (ADM's for short) a/k/a "backpack nukes", went "walkies" from various Russian storage facilities, when the Soviet Union broke up in the late 80's...
If say, various agencies with 3 letter names happened to acquire one or two, & they suddenly turned up, somewhere in Iraq, just after U.S Forces had "liberated" the area in question, then [VK's] theory could be plausable in justification...
 

King Thomas

Banned
Saddam could have had WMDs in rl and uses them. Iraq gets nuked, and the whole Middle East is outraged, leading to fundamentalists hostile to the US taking over places like Saudi Arabia. Now the US has an even bigger problem and a totally tarnished image.
 
Top