Topic awaiting preservation: Worst Case scenario (Page 1 of 1)

OK i know this really falls under the korea and iraq threads, but i think this question needs answering, or is it a question no one wants to answer.


OK the un/usa/coalition whatever attacks iraq,


So now the way i see it one of two things is going to happen.

1.sadam runs and goes into exile. (best case)
2Sadam decides to take people with him and starts to use his weapons of mass distruction.

now nato and many countries have a policy of like for like response for such a scenario.

If he uses them, it cannot be avoided, if he does it once he will do it again, he has used them on his own population before, i personally dont think he will not use them if his survival depends on it.

i honestly think that it could happen, its the NIGHTMARE SCENARIO.

What do you think should be the appropriate response...

if the forces attacking Iraq are faced with these weapons being deployed against them, the options are frightening. Maybe i have missed somewhere the discussion about this scenario, but when i was in the military, the response to use of WMD was a like response.

Does it go to tactical nukes....where do they stop and draw the line.

If he uses them, world opinion will rally against him, but what kind of counter measures would it support.

I think the USA/UN/Coalition whatever(henceforth WE) have a good chance of avoiding using 'Like for Like' responses if we're careful enough beforehand to eliminate his ability to use such weapons. Before any actual infantry skirmishes I would expect heavy bombing of suspect areas and thermite plasma (or whatever would be used)cleansing of areas we suspect to house chemical weapons. Not to mention that if there is any EMP technology avialable for use we can knock out the entire communications/targeting systems in areas we are heading into. If we look at this from the front end rather than being reactionary we stand a good chance.

Beyond that... we are trying to be prepared for what he is capable of so gut reactions to the decimation of our troops might be at a minimum because his attacks won't be as effective. If he launches a nuclear weapon, Intercontinental or not... we'll probably just level the entire country. Whether we do that conventionally or not... I don't know. The repercussions of using nuclear weapons in so central an area isn't worth the risk IMO. I would expect to see flight after flight of heavy bombers go through after a total withdrawl of our troops.

It could go so far as a nuclear war. I don't think the world would support it however. I know I certainly don't. I think there are enough conventional means at our disposal to 'do the job'.

GrythusDraconis
I admire a man who can budget his life around his pint of Guinness and I envy a man who's wife will let him. ME, inspired by Suho1004 here.

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 02-06-2003).]

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 02-06-2003).]

I think that if the UN and the US are REALLY interested in avoiding war (which I seriously doubt... Bush is too gung-ho for it) We have every available resource to do so. Certainly either organization has some special ops folks who could just sneak in there and assassinate Saddam and all of his look-alikes?

Then we wouldn't have to worry about him anymore... then the UN and the US between them would just set another one of their governmental puppets on the throne there and have access to all that oil, which they want anyway.

Oops... sorry... did that sound bitter? The US president is trying very hard to make a real case against Saddam for the express purpose of finishing what his father started 11 years ago. It's not a governmental battle, it's personal. I honestly don't think that he needs to drag several countries, including the US into it... Not that I think that there is NO case against Saddam, just that they are trying hard to make the public aware of it... Justifying their actions so to speak... The man is evil, no doubt, but surely there's other ways to get rid of him than blowing up the Middle East... or the rest of the world for that matter...

Based on the propaganda on CNN - war is inevitable. It's no longer "if" we bomb Iraq, it's "when". What appears to be happening is that we're pushing Saddam to make the first strike so we can hit back in self-defense and not appear responsible for the whole mess... (Imagine two guys outside a bar arguing: You wanna fight man? Come on then, hit me!) If he hits first, we'll hit him back until we all make a huge mess of the world... Once a pissing contest like that starts, you don't have a whole lot of options to turn back...

Bodhi - Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 02-09-2003).]

This article caught my eye after knowing about this thread:

Online Game Simulates 'Worst Case Scenario' in Iraq

. . : slicePuzzle

On a side note, I hate Yahoo. How hard would it have been for them to put in a blasted link direct to the page? Yes, I know they do print the url text, but links right next to the first mention of the game itself lead to Yahoo searches! I do not like this trend...

Back on topic, though, I'm going to go check this thing out. I don't know how he can say that there is only one possible outcome to war--is he God or something?

[Edit: Here's a direct link to the game. Sheesh. Thanks, Yahoo. ]

[Edit2: OK, just "played" the game. Great reporting by Yahoo there. "The game appears interactive but leads players down a set path." Um, what? The game never pretends to be interactive. It is also supposed to be darkly humorous, something that Yahoo doesn't note. Oh, have I mentioned that I hate Yahoo? I think we should launch a pre-emptive strike on Yahoo, if you ask me. Strangely enough, nobody's been asking me. I wonder why.

I'm going back to stew in my juices.]

[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 02-10-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 02-10-2003).]

Hehe, shouldn´t come as a surprise that I like this one.
But don´t worry, they´ve got it all under control, or have they?