Iraqi WMD Usage and Public Opinion

[Nathan F]

Do you believe that, if Iraq uses banned WMDs, the support for the war will increase?

I, personally, really do not know. On one hand, the usage of WMDs would prove that he has them and is willing to use them, and therefore needs to be forcefully disarmed. It would also proove the ineffectiveness of inspections. On the other hand, people don't like being proven wrong, it is a simple fact. Would this cause public opinion of the war to drop, if the later was the case?

Now, I am not saying that he will or will not use them, just a 'what if' scenario and public opinion on this.

[Montcalm]

Maddass is crazy enough to use them.

[Colonel Olrik]

Do you believe that, if Iraq uses banned WMDs, the support for the war will increase?

I, personally, really do not know. On one hand, the usage of WMDs would prove that he has them and is willing to use them, and therefore needs to be forcefully disarmed. It would also proove the ineffectiveness of inspections. On the other hand, people don't like being proven wrong, it is a simple fact. Would this cause public opinion of the war to drop, if the later was the case?

Now, I am not saying that he will or will not use them, just a 'what if' scenario and public opinion on this.

If Iraq uses WMD, there'll be a change in opinion about the necessity of the war in all western countries. France, for example, has said that it would send military forces to Iraq in that scenario. That is more true specially if the U.S has good enough sense not to order a massive counter attack using nukes or other WMD on the population.

Of course, the argument can be reversed. There is still no proof that Iraq has them. That was the main premise supporting the war. Since the U.S won't be leaving apologizing to Saddam for the trouble, if that proof is not found the war will be seen as unnecessary, at the very least. And Hans Blix will laugh his ass off.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

It depends. I think that if U.S. troops are killed from chemical weapons, it would either enrage Americans or demoralize Americans therefore decreasing war support, based on how the media portrays it. If no U.S. troops are killed, then war support would increase. If Iraqi civilians were killed, war support would dramatically increase. If Iraqi civilians and U.S. troops are killed, I think it would still increase.

[Stormbringer]

I think a lot of it would depend on how the weapons are used. Massive civilian casualtied will certainly cause war support to plummet, few people will want to continue a war of liberation that'll result in most of the population dead. Ineffective attacks on our troops which cause little casualties will bring more people into the war on our side for the simple reason that WMDs have been used.

[Companion Cube]

Does anyone think Saddam would use them? I'm not sure personally, but, considering the fact that that kind of action would bring the UN running, it is quite likely he wouldn't. Of course, the actions of a desperate man may well be born out of something other than rational thought...

[Stormbringer]

Does anyone think Saddam would use them? I'm not sure personally, but, considering the fact that that kind of action would bring the UN running, it is quite likely he wouldn't. Of course, the actions of a desperate man may well be born out of something other than rational thought...

I think he'd use them in a heartbeat. To him the only thing there is in the world is him and possibly his family. The rest of the world just doesn't matter, they might as well to a bunch action figures for all they matter to him.

The realy question is would his commanders use them. They have less to lose than he does and much less to gain.

[David]

Correction: the only thing Saddam cares about is his life and his power, and I wonder which takes priority sometimes. IMHO his only good course of action is to hope his troops can hold off the coalition forces and force them into a war of attrition. If he uses WMDs you'd be looking at another 9/11 day America in a much better position to lash out at it's offenders.

[Stormbringer]

Correction: the only thing Saddam cares about is his life and his power, and I wonder which takes priority sometimes.

At this point there's no distinction at all. He needs the power of his presidency to avoid being killed by any number of people he's pissed off. So he can't leave or he'll die. Therefor he's got to fight to the bitter end and hope for the best.

[Queeb Salaron]

If Sadaam uses WMDs, the only people who would object to some kind of military action would be massochists.

If Sadaam comes out with, say, long-range missiles, chemical weapons, or (God forbid) nuclear weapons, I would predict that every nation on the face of the earth would compile their military forces and converge on Baghdad like piranahs on a snorkler. Everyone agrees that Sadaam is sadistic, and there is evidence abound that suggest that he would use these kinds of weapons if need be. The problem is that no one has proven that these weapons exist. Which is why support for the war failed in a broad sense.

[weemadando]

Saddam currently holds the moral highground in world opinion, hell, you have to wonder how GWB lost a propaganda war with Saddam Hussein. Anyhow, the use of WMDs if he has them means that he loses all of his advantages. Which is why he won't use them until his back is firmly against the wall with the Americans kicking down the door.

He's not stupid, he will milk world public opinion for all its worth.

[David]

I have a feeling he's going to wait until the troops are in or around Bahgdad before he uses chemical weapons. His RG divisions seem to be the only people he trusts with those weapons.