War on Iraq, worst case scenario

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2002-10-15 03:10am

Arthur Tux:

You obviously don't know the meaning of "best" case scenareo.

Who cares? This is about the worst case scenario, not the best! Can you say red herring?

Like what has ALREADY happened in Afghanistan. Best estimate of civilian death toll, by UN numbers, 500/2000 dead, less than 25 US troop deaths. (This is less than the death toll from TRAFFIC accidents, to US soldiers, every year!)

That's because we let the Northern Alliance do most of the dirty work. You're comparing a minor supporting operation to a full scale invasion.

Worst case scenario, Israel gets into the fray, and the "whole" middle east goes into war mode. The "whole" middle east? I don't think so. Only Syrria/ Lebanon, (One and the same since the Syrrian occupation) and MAYBE Egypt, will mix it up. Iran wants NONE of the whoop ass that Isreal has, and HATES Iraq tyo boot! Same with the craven Saudis. Jordan?, don't make me laugh. Who else wants some? Yemen, Kuwate, Libia, United Arab Emirates, Qutar? I don't think so.

All of those countries have one major thing in common, and that's their unity against and hatred for Israel. If Israel crosses the line and unleashes WMD or launches an invasion against a member of the Arab League, even Iraq, there will be war, and not the touchy feely brush fire kind we've become used to.

As to the chemical casualties, that is up in the air. Saddam will not be pulling the trigger himself, and the psy-ops program is well under way, telling the Iraqi commanders, that if they use chemicals, then they can look forwards to a war crimes trial, and a hanging. Will they be loyal to the very end, or will they bail out of the sinking ship?

How many military guys have you seen refuse orders from their superiors, no matter how distasteful? Not many. If that's our military, imagine theirs.

The use of germs, by loyalists, or Al Quiada in the area is the most disturbing possibility.

No, the most disturbing possibility is world fucking war. And you can forget about conventional warfare with all the firepower America has. You think 9/11 was bad? Imagine shit similar to the Maryland shootings in every major city in America. Imagine how safe you'll feel when someone blows up your local police station with C4 and you can't even step out of your door without risking your safety. Imagine seeing a crowd and not knowing who to trust. Who's a terrorist, and who's not? 9/11 and all those suicide bombings are nothing compared to the horrors of full-scale unconventional warfare.

If the last war was any clue, they will surrender to drones and cameramen.

Last time they were being attacked to drive them out of Kuwait, not obliterate them from the face of the Earth. Big difference. How can you bargain with someone you've sworn to kill?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-10-15 04:04am

The US would only use nuclear weapons if it suffered significant losses to a Chemical attack, more then 350 or so. Not many compared to what an hour of sustained conventional combat can produce, or five seconds of a well-planned artillery barrage, but if Iraq gets away with it then it sets a very bad precedent.

In that case, we'd be looking at the use of a B61-11 against one of Saddams uber bunkers, not a weapon exploded on the battlefield. This is because using one in a tactical role would slow down a US advance rather then aid it, and because really, we want to destroy something worthwhile. Wiping out a brigade of Type 69's is not much of a success.

Israel if hit it suffered more then about five losses to a Chemical attack, and shrapnel from the explode gas shells or falling rockets would kill more then that, would use multiple nuclear weapons. What they fired at would depend on the nature of the attack. However that the response would be overwhelming and swift is a sure thing. The country is too small to absorb any form of significant attack.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-10-15 04:07am

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:
If the last war was any clue, they will surrender to drones and cameramen.
Last time they were being attacked to drive them out of Kuwait, not obliterate them from the face of the Earth. Big difference. How can you bargain with someone you've sworn to kill?

We swore to kill all of Iraq's infantry and tank crews when?

Thunderfire · Post by **Thunderfire** » 2002-10-15 05:56am

Worst case scenario hmm.
1. Saddam uses chemical/boilogical/nuclear weapons vs US / Israel
2. US/Israeli response destroyes several large cities in Iraq.
3. Pro islamic & anti western riots in most islamic countries in the
middle east + north africa. As a result the enitre middle east + north
africa is turned into war wretched hell hole.
4. The US and other western powers suffer several 9-11 style attacks.
5. oil price reaces astronomic levels. As a result several western powers
are close to economic collapse.

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-10-15 06:51am

I'm not sure about anything when it comes to things like this, but i'll toss out some thoughts

1: the Iraqi military will likely not be a pushover like they were in 1991. In material terms, they are much weaker than they were 11 years, but in morale terms; there's a big difference between fighting for a territory you've just annexed and fighting for your home.

2: Iraq will not deploy its forces so the US can easily smash them. There's already indications that they're going to go urban rather than let their outclassed forces be smashed into pieces in the desert- and the US forces will have to deal with at least the major pockets of urban fortifications. If not, you're leaving enemies behind in your rear; never smart. Casualties among both sides will be higher.

3: Saddam will probably use his last remaining ballistic missiles on Israel. He used this tactic in 1991, with his survival at stake I see him doing it again. However, Israel has a ABM system (Arrow) in place; and improved Patriot PAC-3s (the Patriot used in 1991 was a dismal failure, despite lies to the contrary) from the US *may* render this tactic ineffective. Then again, it may not. Israel, in its fervour, may use it as an excuse to settle accounts with all its 'enemies'- especially the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. This will inflame the Arab World, period.

4: The Kurds will go ape if they see their oppressors getting defeated. This leaves open the possibility of Turkey getting involved; if the Kurds decide to try and establish their dream of Kurdistan.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2002-10-15 07:58pm

Forgot about the Kurds. Good point. Without the Iraqi military there to keep them down and mustard gas the shit out of them, they'll be a larger, stronger threat to stability.

MattTheSkywalker · Post by **MattTheSkywalker** » 2002-10-15 09:02pm

1: the Iraqi military will likely not be a pushover like they were in 1991. In material terms, they are much weaker than they were 11 years, but in morale terms; there's a big difference between fighting for a territory you've just annexed and fighting for your home.

I disagree with your reasoning.

I don't think there is a "morale" issue the way you described it. The Iraqi soldiers include many 1991 veterans. They know that fighting the US = certain death, but surrendering to the US means staying alive. They can reasonably expect that they will not be killed wholesale by Americans once captured, since many were not last time. experienced soldiers will tell this to the younger ones.

Also, since US intent is to remove Hussein, troops will surrender more quickly, knowing that they will not be going back to face the same dictator after having failed ot fight for him.

2: Iraq will not deploy its forces so the US can easily smash them. There's already indications that they're going to go urban rather than let their outclassed forces be smashed into pieces in the desert- and the US forces will have to deal with at least the major pockets of urban fortifications. If not, you're leaving enemies behind in your rear; never smart. Casualties among both sides will be higher.

I think the Iraqi civilian population will be happy to clear out of the cities before the Americans arrive (through our psy-ops campaigns, we will give them notice), making this much easier.

3: Saddam will probably use his last remaining ballistic missiles on Israel. He used this tactic in 1991, with his survival at stake I see him doing it again. However, Israel has a ABM system (Arrow) in place; and improved Patriot PAC-3s (the Patriot used in 1991 was a dismal failure, despite lies to the contrary) from the US *may* render this tactic ineffective. Then again, it may not. Israel, in its fervour, may use it as an excuse to settle accounts with all its 'enemies'- especially the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. This will inflame the Arab World, period.

Hussein may launch toward Israel. But I don't buy the "Arab world" response. Who?

Saudi? The rulers are more concerned with in-country problems, such as combatting fundamentalists. They can't unify against Israel. The rulers need every oil dollar they can get, because they are literally paying of regional religious leaders to keep the fundies in check and preclude civil war. One step against Israel and we can threaten to slow our oil purchases; in fact, this is porbably going on in secret negotiations now. Corruption and greed by the House of Saud has reversed the oil weapon: it has become (politically) a liabilty to them, not an asset.

Iran: they're not Arabs. They're Persians, who hate Arabs, and Shiite, who hates Sunnis. They won't align with Arab powers.

Egypt? Maybe, but Israel has already shown an ability to destroy them.
As an Army Ranger I trained with Egyptians. Officership in their Army is based on status not merit, anyway, suffice it to say they are a weak military force.

So who is left? I just don't buy the "Arab world" thing. It is a misconception.

4: The Kurds will go ape if they see their oppressors getting defeated. This leaves open the possibility of Turkey getting involved; if the Kurds decide to try and establish their dream of Kurdistan.

Turkey wants nothing more than to get into the EU. They will tread carefully around activities that wil cause them to be denied access.

Just my opinions.....

Mr. Mister · Post by **Mr. Mister** » 2002-10-15 10:15pm

I noticed somebody brought up Kashmir. I think a nuclear war over Kashmir is a total non-issue. Why? Well, India controls roughly 50% and Pakistan roughly 20%. Wait a minute, that's around 30% of Kashmir unaccounted for? Where'd it go?

Oh, yeah. That big lumpy country northeast of India, with more males of draft age fit for military service than every other country in the world except for India, the United States, and Indonesia.

No major war will ever happen in Kashmir between India and Pakistan with China sitting there. No, China's not traditionally a militarily expansionist power (the military didn't even have a place in the Confucian hierarchy, which was the defining political theory of a political system which existed unchanged for over 2,000 years). Still, I think the Chinese government would take measures to preempt anything between India and Pakistan which could negatively impact China. And I'm pretty sure that enough of the leadership in Pakistan and India recognize that the last thing they want to do is have the other country and the PLA breathing down their necks, especially when you consider that the II Artillery Corps probably has more warheads than Pakistan and India combined.

As a comparison, would the U.S. ever allow hostility between Canada and Greenland to go nuclear? Of course not. Same thing over there.

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2002-10-15 10:20pm

I realize that it is only a comparison, but does Canada or Greenland have nukes?

Newtonian Fury · Post by **Newtonian Fury** » 2002-10-15 10:29pm

But the point is, there is definitely enough in stake that everyone would want peace. At least, everyone who is not desperate. While countries may adopt unilateral support for one side or the other, their leaders definitely do not want nuclear conflict to destablize the region.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-10-15 10:43pm

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:I realize that it is only a comparison, but does Canada or Greenland have nukes?

Canada does not, though it could have working warheads within six months if it wanted them. Delivery would be by F/A-18C however, not the most impressive system for nuclear strike.

Greenland is not even a country, it belongs to Denmark, and has the whole of 60,000 people. Denmark does not have nuclear weapons. While small, they just might be able to build a nuclear aresnal if another nation would sell them highly enrich uranium.

The US would dislike the idea of a nuclear war between these powers mostly because the only thing on the island worth nuking is a USAF base.

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2002-10-15 10:46pm

And the fact that Canada is our ally and it is so close to us....it's not just Greenland getting nuked. It's also Canada, which is right next to us.

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-10-15 10:48pm

Absolute worst case scenario:

Saddam fires chemical and biological armed missiles into Israel as well as at US troop formations.
Israel retaliates with nuclear weapons killing large amounts of Iraqi citizens as well as possibly US soldiers.
The US knowing that it can't use nukes with its forces so close holds back with NBC weapons and instead rushes the remaining strongholds in an effort to finish the war quickly.
CQB and city fighting ensue as the Iraqi army swung by propaganda believe that the US nuked their cities without provocation.
After 5 weeks of sustained house to house fighting the war finally ends with massive death tolls on both sides.
This is assuming that other middle-eastern states don't intervene.

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2002-10-15 10:54pm

Wouldn't the worst-case secnario BE the other nations intervening?

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-10-15 11:01pm

I left that out because I couldn't be bothered writing about 5 pages worth of diplomatic interactions and possible scenarios if other nations did intervene.

AND NO, the US could not defeat the entire Middle East without using nukes. Even you guys don't have sufficient force projection to pull it off.

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2002-10-15 11:04pm

(Looks over to Sea Skimmer and points at weemadando.)

Is he right?

Mr. Mister · Post by **Mr. Mister** » 2002-10-15 11:09pm

Canada and Mexico, then, if Greenland was a bad example. Or Lesotho and Swaziland, with South Africa in between. Or any other situation where one large, powerful nation has a lot to lose if two of its smaller, weaker neighbors go to a major war with each other.

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-10-15 11:10pm

US with Euro allies could. As it stands with US and some UK and some Aussie support, no way. Israel could swing things, but the fact remains that every nation west of India and south of Russia would want some action.

*spelling and grammatical edit*

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2002-10-15 11:14pm

(Puts fingers in ears.)
LALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU! LALALALALALALA
(Looks frantically around for Sea Skimmer while still spouting nonsensical gibberish at weemadando.)

Do you have any sources backing this statement up? I always thought the U.S. could just bomb the hell out of them instead of invading.

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-10-15 11:22pm

*looks around and hopes that Phong, Dalton and Shep doesn't notice this thread*

Look at it this way, the American Airforce and Navy Carriers provide a massive amount of force projection allowing them to effectively wage war on a massive scale and obtain air-superiority.

This is of limited use however, when you don't have the capacity to hold territory on the ground. Without men on the ground you can't win a war.

The current White House plan (last I heard) was 250,000 men (correct me if I'm wrong). Your looking at about 20 to 30 times that in the surrounding nations whom are armed and could well join in a war against the west should they choose to invade Iraq without a UN mandate, or should Israel do something excessively silly.

Now you can talk about superior training, air support and all the rest, but ground forces in the Gulf area would be cut off from land resupply, so would have to rely on aircraft resupply. Look at the Berlin airlift, it can be done, but in combat conditions? Look at Stalingrad.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-10-15 11:26pm

weemadando wrote:I left that out because I couldn't be bothered writing about 5 pages worth of diplomatic interactions and possible scenarios if other nations did intervene.

AND NO, the US could not defeat the entire Middle East without using nukes. Even you guys don't have sufficient force projection to pull it off.

If you count out Isreal and Turkey, yes it could. Ammunition would become an issue after a couple countries, but combat power or the ability to deploy it would not.

Turkey complicates things, but they could be dealt with. However they would never go to war with America.

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2002-10-15 11:32pm

Yay!

But seriously, why would we even have to invade at all? Couldn't we just bomb their military and then after we're done with that, bomb their major cities and whatnot until they surrender like in WW2? I know we nuked Japan, but we could have easily kept up bombing raids on them until they just gave up. Of course, we wanted to end the war as quickly as possible and invading would have done so, but without invading we could have won anyway. I think we could do the same in the Middle East.

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-10-15 11:35pm

Problem is that the world isn't under threat like it was in WW2 and the media and the population in general would quickly become rather disillusioned with the bombing into submission of country after country.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2002-10-15 11:39pm

Mass bombings of civilian populations is pretty much a no-go nowadays. The civilian death-toll would be immense, and would likely entrench their populace against the US.

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2002-10-15 11:42pm

Ok, so if they wouldn't surrender despite having no military left to wage war against the U.S., but can't really threaten us without any military left, let the rest of them go. Don't invade. Maybe just blockade their ports and constantly survey the borders to see who's leaving the country, but don't put troops there.