during the opening hours of the coalition advance into Iraq, Saddam unleashes Biological and chemical weapons on U.S. troops......what happens?
1st Gulf War.....with WMD
- Thread starter SAVORYapple
- Start date
There have been persistent stories that either the US or UK or both passed a back channel message to Saddam Hussein before the outbreak of hostilities along the lines of "Use biological or chemical weapons and we nuke you".
They'd look for a different solution first but I' sure you could quite easily see tactical nukes being deployed.
Cook
Banned
Absolutely not.
During the initial advance the Coalition forces had the advantage of being in armoured combat vehicles that have chemical warfare filters. They’d advance at speed and get clear of the contaminated areas as quickly as possible, after which they’d have an even greater combat advantage; their chemical warfare equipment was a generation ahead of the equipment Saddam’s forces had, and not all of his forces even had them. Chemical weapons are good against infantry, ineffective against armour designed against it.
The big difference is that there would be overwhelming demands to advance on Bagdad and capture the Butcher of Bagdad and his cronies.
True, but if the threat was made and not carried out then the west would loose credibility. Not a big enough reason to respond with nukes IMO but it might be for those on power
I could totally see opposite reaction. Instead of loss of credibility it may enhance the standing of coalition, as in "They used the WMDs, but our wise leaders refrained to answer in kind. Instead we will arrest and condemn this criminal in fair trial." Unless, of course enraged people get him first.
in case of chemical warfare i would not think they start nuking, but biological warfare is a whole different ballgame. If saddam would have been stupid enough to use biological weapons, there is no doubt he would get nuked, just to make sure other countries that might have ideas in that area will get the message.
I think response depends somewhat on exactly what is used, esp w/bioweapons, and what casualties they cause among coalition forces &/or Kuwaiti/Saudi civilians. US (and UK/Commonwealth & French) forces had good chem gear and training, not so sure about the Arabs & other odds & sods that were in N. Saudi.
CONTINUING use of chem/bio and/or major casualties especially if population centers are targeted with SCUDs with nerve gas warheads might very well cause the US to use tac nukes.
CONTINUING use of chem/bio and/or major casualties especially if population centers are targeted with SCUDs with nerve gas warheads might very well cause the US to use tac nukes.
Delta Force
Banned
I doubt we would have used any nuclear weapons in such a scenario. It would have set a bad precedent and would not have been necessary because chemical and biological weapons are really only useful in World War I/Iran-Iraq War style attrition warfare where forces are mostly not mechanized and static. We had a large speed advantage so the Iraqis would have been hard pressed to find much use for the weapons against Coalition forces. They would be more an annoyance than something dangerous, but it would have been very expensive to decontaminate all of the equipment involved. We might even have had to just scrap equipment and buy many new systems, especially if something as large as a naval warship ended up contaminated.
The real challenge would have been what the response would be if Saddam had been ruthless enough to use the weapons against his own populace in a bid to get the Coalition to go away, such as gassing cities when Coalition forces drew close. Then you would be stuck between getting justice by hunting down Saddam and backing off to prevent a bloodbath.
The real challenge would have been what the response would be if Saddam had been ruthless enough to use the weapons against his own populace in a bid to get the Coalition to go away, such as gassing cities when Coalition forces drew close. Then you would be stuck between getting justice by hunting down Saddam and backing off to prevent a bloodbath.
Cook
Banned
On what? The Scud launcher trucks were dispersed out across the countryside and proved to be surprisingly difficult to locate. That doesn’t change just because their warhead is chemical instead of High Explosive; they still remain an extremely small target in a very large country and still best destroyed with strike aircraft and special forces ground teams.
There are plenty of valid military targets even if none of them contain scud missiles Cook.
Cook
Banned
No there isn’t, not for employing a tactical nuclear weapon. And none that would reduce the use of chemical weapons; the bulk of which were artillery shells rather than aircraft deployed of Scuds. Once the ground campaign’s commenced the most effective way of stopping Iraqi chemical weapon use is simply to overrun their positions.
Jason222
Banned
Israel responds in kind they would have hit Iraq major cities with chemical weapon leave Iraq warning for other Arab states. Israel turn nukes when it has better options available.
First off, we're talking real life EMP not the Hollywood "Local Dies The Fire IN A CAN!!!". So, you require a high altitude air burst to get a meaningful effect.
Beyond that there are a few problems:
1. Most military electronic are designed to withstand EMPs. Therefore cooking it off over the battlefield is pointless.
2. Under ideal conditions EMPs can be nasty for civilian electronics and power systems for quite a range... fire it off over the battlefield and you may fuck up Saudi Arabia's power grid more than the Iraq army.
3. If, as per OTL, you're expecting a relatively quick campaign the damage to industry caused by fried electronics and wrecked power grids is largely irrelevent (not like many new tank will be built in time to face you, etc.), and thus you end up largely screwing over enemy civilians. In a total war that'd be useful, but in a short UN sponsered intervention it's not acceptable.