time to give your odds

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-03-24 11:48pm

just cuz I like knowing the numbers, what would you put the odds of:

saddam using chemical weapons
bush using tacnukes in reply
isreal using nukes in reply

and any other topic you think worth betting on?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-03-24 11:49pm

Enforcer Talen wrote:just cuz I like knowing the numbers, what would you put the odds of:

saddam using chemical weapons
bush using tacnukes in reply
isreal using nukes in reply

and any other topic you think worth betting on?

1 - 15%
2 - 0%
3 - 5%

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-03-24 11:51pm

1 - 50%
2 - 0%
3 - 100% if israel is hit directly, 10-35% if israel is not hit but targeted and fired against, 0.1% if nothing is shot towards israel.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-03-24 11:51pm

Assuming Hussein has chemical weapons (I don't discount the potential of a bluff or misinterpretation), I would say 80% chance he uses them.

Bush won't use tacnukes. His staff will be able to talk him out of it. 10% chance of nuclear retaliation by us at best.

Israel is more of a wildcard. Assuming we shoot down any Iraqi SCUDs or other missiles with PAC-3s, and we get a good diplomat out there quickly saying to let us take care of Iraq, no more than a 10% chance they'll use nukes. If a chemical weapon hits in a significantly populated area, 75% chance they'll use nukes.

As usual, just my opinions, and I'm usually wrong

.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-03-24 11:58pm

1: 100% that Saddam will issue orders if and when he sees himself as backed into a corner. Unknown if the Iraqi troops will follow--Iraqi generals talked Saddam out of gassing the Americans during Gulf War II, after all.

2: 99%. The only real question is if there will be a 'demonstration' strike or if Shrubby's puppet masters will go for all-out ciity busting.

3: 100% if hit directly.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-03-25 12:00am

enlightenment, i doubt bush is that stupid. 99%? i mean cmon, thats pretty much guaranteed and while we reserved the right to do so, it would kill local support in iraq.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-25 12:02am

saddam using chemical weapons - 15% to 20% Chance of them actually beign used.

bush using tacnukes in reply - 0%-5% He smart enough to know that if we fire nukes in reply we'd be risking too much for too little gain.

isreal using nukes in reply - 100% If they get gassed it'll be an all out war.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-03-25 12:02am

kojikun wrote:enlightenment, i doubt bush is that stupid. 99%? i mean cmon, thats pretty much guaranteed and while we reserved the right to do so, it would kill local support in iraq.

Shrubby is a none-issue. What Wolf-no-witz, Chainy, and Rumpsfelt want is much more the issue. They're all rabid jingoist nationalists.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-25 12:05am

Enlightenment wrote:2: 99%. The only real question is if there will be a 'demonstration' strike or if Shrubby's puppet masters will go for all-out ciity busting.

Ah, the ever objective Enlightenment spews another fountain of bullshit.

Even a foriegn policy simpleton like Bush wouldn't unleash nukes lightly. We'd only lose if we unleash nuclears weapons and Bush and his advisors both know that.

Hell, they've been talking about war crimes trials for those that use chemical weapons. US nukes are unlikely to be used at all.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-03-25 12:05am

yeah but they arent THAT capable. only bush can authorize nuking, and he wont.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-25 12:07am

Enlightenment wrote:Shrubby is a none-issue. What Wolf-no-witz, Chainy, and Rumpsfelt want is much more the issue. They're all rabid jingoist nationalists.

And you're a leftist idiot. Cheney and Rumsfeld might be hawks but they certainly aren't retarded and neither is Bush. They know that if we use nukes it'd be a no win situation for us.

Post by **RogueIce** » 2003-03-25 12:08am

Enlightenment wrote:Shrubby is a none-issue. What Wolf-no-witz, Chainy, and Rumpsfelt want is much more the issue. They're all rabid jingoist nationalists.

So, have you ever had anything nice to say about them, or, for that matter, not twisted their names into some derogatory new meaning?

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-03-25 12:08am

Saddam: That he'll give the order, near 100%. That it'll actually be followed, maybe closer to 60%.

Bush: Deterrence demands some kind of retaliatory strike, and now we pay the price for not having any significant useful supplies of chemical weapons. We can't blow the dams on the Euphrates like we would have in '91, either. Chance for a retaliatory tactical nuclear strike against the unit which launched the weapon, or another division if that one is too close to a populated area: 75% or higher. A full city-buster strike, 0%. Not a chance in hell no matter how many Coalition troops are killed.

Israel: If they're hit with chemical weapons, probably a 50-50 shot they'll retaliate with nukes. Otherwise, we talk them out of it by promising to turn the commanders and missile crews over to them instead of the Hague.

KhyronTheBackstabber · Post by **KhyronTheBackstabber** » 2003-03-25 12:08am

60% to 80% for Iraq using chemical.

0%-5%. There's no point to use nukes if you can just drop a MOAB on their heads. Gets the job done, without the radiation.

0%-10% No one wants to start that ball rolling. Israel can be a little jumpy, and they may target, but I think they'll back down.

Sokar · Post by **Sokar** » 2003-03-25 12:33am

Enlightenment wrote:
kojikun wrote:enlightenment, i doubt bush is that stupid. 99%? i mean cmon, thats pretty much guaranteed and while we reserved the right to do so, it would kill local support in iraq.
Shrubby is a none-issue. What Wolf-no-witz, Chainy, and Rumpsfelt want is much more the issue. They're all rabid jingoist nationalists.

Enlightenment, nukes are NEVER on the table as retaliation weapon! If Iraq chems our troops and civilians in Iraq he will only push thoes on the fence into our camp and will silence his pseudo-supporters. To retaliate with nukes is like spanking your dog with a hammer for pissing on the rug!

Nuclear weapons exist as a strategic deterrant, not as a theater level tactical weapon. Their use if fraught with so much peril that to actually use them in an offensive manner is practically unthinkable!

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-03-25 12:41am

Enlightenment wrote:
kojikun wrote:enlightenment, i doubt bush is that stupid. 99%? i mean cmon, thats pretty much guaranteed and while we reserved the right to do so, it would kill local support in iraq.
Shrubby is a none-issue. What Wolf-no-witz, Chainy, and Rumpsfelt want is much more the issue. They're all rabid jingoist nationalists.

Why don't you get a "Leftist Anti-American BS Spewer" title?

<edit: added quotations>

Post by **fgalkin** » 2003-03-25 12:44am

35%-50% For Saddam using chemical.

0%-1% Bush using Nukes.

85-95% Israelis nuking Iraq.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Akm72 · Post by **Akm72** » 2003-03-25 03:50am

Bush has no reason to use nukes, he can use the politically correct MOAB instead - similar overpressure effects to a tac nuke, none of the nasty radiation.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-03-25 07:04am

saddam using chemical weapons 50-75% and thats a conservative number. if he feels his back is to the wall and it is his only means of survival,

bush using tacnukes in replyReally, <5%. Bush41 said after the last Gulf War that the implied nuke threat was a bluff. I don't see Bush43 making that mistake. Besides, France said , if Iraq uses any WMD, they would join the war effort...

isreal using nukes in replysadly, near 100% if they are attacked with bio-chem first. That is what would start WWIII.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-25 11:28am

saddam using chemical weapons: If backed into a corner, near 100%
bush using tacnukes in reply: Deterrance demands 100%
isreal using nukes in reply: If hit with CBW agents, depends on the US's skill at persuading them not to.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2003-03-25 12:08pm

saddam using chemicals: 0% because he has none and he's not an idiot. He managed to draw sympathy to Iraq as a victim of agression: he's not an idiot to do such things. Possibly he'll go to France and try to come up with political protests and legal actions.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-03-25 12:46pm

Stas Bush wrote:saddam using chemicals: 0% because he has none and he's not an idiot. He managed to draw sympathy to Iraq as a victim of agression: he's not an idiot to do such things. Possibly he'll go to France and try to come up with political protests and legal actions.

if saddam does use chemical weapons, will you publicly announce to evryone here that you are wrong and apologize?

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-25 12:48pm

Stas Bush wrote:saddam using chemicals: 0% because he has none and he's not an idiot.

::blink::

Stas, it is strange that Saddam would authorize chemical attacks on troops approaching Baghdad if he had none?

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-03-25 12:51pm

phongn, Don't be suprised if you have read his posts.. "head beating on wall"
1. Using Chem weap 40%
2. Tac Nukes 1%
3. Israelis nuking Iraq15%

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-03-25 01:01pm

Stas Bush wrote:saddam using chemicals: 0% because he has none and he's not an idiot. He managed to draw sympathy to Iraq as a victim of agression: he's not an idiot to do such things. Possibly he'll go to France and try to come up with political protests and legal actions.

Damn Stas...

Do you REALLY have your head that far up your ass?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

time to give your odds

time to give your odds

Re: time to give your odds

Re: time to give your odds

Re: time to give your odds