Ultimate Retaliation

[jegs2]

“It would be a hugely bad choice on the part of any Iraqi leader or commander to employ chemical weapons,” [LTG] McKiernan said.
Asked what the response would be to such an attack, McKiernan simply replied “dramatic.”

from this article: http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp?0cv=CA01

[Stravo]

Considering that the only real targets for our neuclear weapons would be population centers I have to regrettably say no. Its one thing if back in the first gulf war he used them, then we could have launched a tactical nuke strike on the massed Republican guards in the desert, quite another to make Baghdad go up in nuclear fire.

I would say no, simply repsond with massive force, unlrelenting bombing and a take no prisoners attitude. Punishment must be taken out on the MILITARY if such an action occurs and NOT the civilian population.

And of course, any and all officers must be executed as war cirminals when they lose and lose they will.

[theski]

MOABs baby lots and lots of MOABs

[Zoink]

Yes to tactical nukes against military targets, if there was an actual benefit to using them (ie. reduce US casualties from chemical weapons).

[Joe]

I wouldn't think so. Say what you will about the U.S., but the War on Terror so far has been pretty restrained.

[Zoink]

Tactical nukes might almost be a necessity, because you must show the world (read: Bin Laden, Pakistan/India, NK) that WMD use will not be tolerated.

[Lord Sander]

I believe by UN law, a country can only use nukes on a country that also possesses nukes. But I could be wrong. And then there's the question how much attention the US still has for the UN.

[Cpt_Frank]

Hopefully not or otherwise there will be probably be many civillian casualties and all chances of getting the Iraqi population on the side of the US are ruined.

[phongn]

I believe by UN law, a country can only use nukes on a country that also possesses nukes. But I could be wrong. And then there's the question how much attention the US still has for the UN.

I'd like to see a cite for that.

Anyways, the United State has expressedly reserved the right to nuclear retaliation for a CBW attack; that much is clear. We may not do so (instead opting for an enormous MOAB/Daisy Cutter strike)

[phongn]

Hopefully not or otherwise there will be probably be many civillian casualties and all chances of getting the Iraqi population on the side of the US are ruined.

Depends on where they initiate the device. If they're doing an airburst over a troop concentration in the middle of the desert, I doubt there would be many, if any, civilian casualties.

[Zoink]

I believe by UN law, a country can only use nukes on a country that also possesses nukes. But I could be wrong. And then there's the question how much attention the US still has for the UN.

I *think* nukes are allowed in response to any WMD attack. Somebody might be able to provide a quote or something which could help...

I know its been stated that WMD attacks by Saddam are allowed if the US nukes first.

[Faram]

Nuke = Sure way to get the USA really hated.

[Cpt_Frank]

Hopefully not or otherwise there will be probably be many civillian casualties and all chances of getting the Iraqi population on the side of the US are ruined.

Depends on where they initiate the device. If they're doing an airburst over a troop concentration in the middle of the desert, I doubt there would be many, if any, civilian casualties.

I was more thinking of cities (where most of Iraq's troops currently are stationed)

[phongn]

Hopefully not or otherwise there will be probably be many civillian casualties and all chances of getting the Iraqi population on the side of the US are ruined.

Depends on where they initiate the device. If they're doing an airburst over a troop concentration in the middle of the desert, I doubt there would be many, if any, civilian casualties.

I was more thinking of cities (where most of Iraq's troops currently are stationed)

I somehow doubt that we'll be airbursting over cities unless truly extraordinary events occur.

[Montcalm]

Yes to tactical nukes against military targets

Knowing Saddam all military instalation are located near cities and villages.

[Lonestar]

EVERY country that has/had nukes (S. Africa included) has stated they consider use of chemical weapons = use of nukes.

[Coyote]

I doubt it. The US administration is quite awre that the world opinion now is a delicate thing that has already showed signs of cracking. Nukes would be a nail in the coffin of any US relations.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

I'd say no. Chemical weapons used against America would be a pure act of terror, and although it would justify a war, it would not be an excuse to launch nukes, since that would lead to massive civilian casualties, and ruin the world's view on America. Smarrt bombs aimed at military targets would be a better idea.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Probably not.

Either way, lets hope that no acts of terror ever come to pass to make such a scenario neccesary. WMD attacks are the last fucking thing we need.

[Sea Skimmer]

At most I think America would use a single B-61 against a Republican guard unit, some are a fair distance from the cities. Beyond that, some bunkers or bases might be worth a nuke or just be hit because the balance of lunacy demands it.

[Axis Kast]

The likelihood of Hussein’s deploying chemical weapons at all – let alone effectively – against Coalition targets is slim. More probable would be an assault on Israel – via his few remaining SCUDs – or a series of detonations in Basra and Baghdad that could then be blamed – falsely, of course – on American bombers.

Although the United States would take action to annihilate the unit actively responsible for any attempted non-conventional attack – we’re talking no quarter here -, it would almost certainly not respond with a tactical nuclear weapon unless Hussein’s first-strikes were successful. In that case, we’d attempt to locate a strategic military target distant from key population centers on which to exact our atomic revenge. If unable to do so, conventional bombs – potentially of the 21,000lb type – if available – would be used to utterly erase a given Iraqi position.

Interestingly enough, Israel – even if hit – is not as likely to respond to any provocation. At best, Sharon will authorize a handful of conventional missiles on Baghdad as a token response. There is no clear need for the State of Israel to uphold a policy of retaliation against a dictator now being actively removed from power. Not to mention that the Israeli government isn’t stupid enough to launch a nuclear war with American troops in the theater.

[Enlightenment]

There should be absolutely no doubt that the Texas junta will retaliate with nuclear weapons should Iraq use gas. The only question is how large the warheads will be and where they will be targetted.

Note however that the most likely target for an Iraqi gas attack would be Israel rather than US troops. In this event, Israel would not hesitate to destroy the entire Iraqi civilian population.

[Edi]

Probably not, I think the US would settle for total annihilation of the offending units and large portions of the rest of the Iraqi military. Like Stravo said, the nukes don't have any viable targets. The PR damage would be too great.

Edi

[Enlightenment]

The PR damage would be too great.

Given that the US is more or less acting unilaterally with only the UK token allies for support I'm afraid that there might be an administration mentality of simply not caring if any fewer people support the US' actions. Certainly the rabid right wing here on sd.net believes that the US has very little if anything left to lose by alienating the rest of the international community.

[Joe]

The PR damage would be too great.

Given that the US is more or less acting unilaterally with only the UK token allies for support I'm afraid that there might be an administration mentality of simply not caring if any fewer people support the US' actions. Certainly the rabid right wing here on sd.net believes that the US has very little if anything left to lose by alienating the rest of the international community.

I think there is quite a bit of difference between merely going to war without world approval and using nukes. The war will just strain relations; using nuclear weaponry without adequate justification would destroy them. There are still limits to what the U.S. can do.