WI Saddam Hussein uses chemical weapons against coalition forces during the Gulf War?

[Meshakhad]

Let's imagine that Saddam suddenly becomes terrified that the Americans intend to remove him from power, and orders the use of chemical weapons against coalition forces as they invade Iraq. Obviously, this will not go well for him.

Key questions:
1. If he uses chemical weapons, would he limit them to military targets, or would he also hit civilian targets in Saudi Arabia and Israel? I'd normally assume the latter, but a terrified Saddam might order every chemical weapon he can deploy fired at coalition troops.
a) If he uses chemical weapons against Israel, then I rate the chances of Israel not getting involved at somewhere around a snowball's chance in Anbar Province. I think the US could convince Israel to keep its retaliation to conventional weapons, but we would see a major Israeli air assault. How does this affect the coalition? Do any Arab states drop out?
2. How much damage does this do? How well protected against chemical weapons were the coalition troops?
3. What sort of immediate retaliation would there be from the coalition?
4. Long-term, I don't see how this ends with Saddam still in power. What would a 1991 occupation of Iraq look like? Would we see the same level of insurgency?

 

[Not James Stockdale]

The Air Force has Aardvarks sitting on pad alert in Saudi Arabia with SRAMs to make sure they could nuke Baghdad before the Israelis got out of bed. Extensive preparations were made to keep the Israelis out of the war in any circumstance, including this.

 

[Ravinoff]

Well, military and civilian targets blend a lot where that war was concerned, any tactical use of chemical warfare is going to hit civilian areas (Kuwait City in particular jumps to mind). Widespread strikes against Saudi Arabia and Israel would seem fairly likely, IIRC they managed to drop a couple Scuds on Haifa IOTL.

How well-protected are the coalition? On the frontline, extremely. Just about everything they fielded was made to fight World War 3 and had solid NBC protection, from tanks to the poor bastards sweating in MOPP-4. The big problem is if the Iraqis can hit the coalition rear echelons with chemical weapons. They had personal protective gear, but no real way to work under chemical conditions, so logistics will be utterly hosed.

Retaliation? Gotta break with your assessment there. If the Iraqis start throwing chemical weapons around, something is gonna catch a nuke. Whether that's precision strikes against NBC stockpiles or a decapitating strike on Baghdad...not sure. A fictional version (that's a brief aside in a really great horror novel) that seems decently likely is Baghdad gets a nuclear-tipped Tomahawk from the assembled naval task force, while the Air Force hits things like missile launch sites, artillery batteries and weapons depots with whatever they can put a tactical warhead on.

 

[Asp]

@Ravinoff is right. It’s extremely well-established that the U.S. considers chemical weapons to be nuclear equivalents and will respond accordingly. Failing to do so would give stronger powers the impression that they could use them without fear of retaliation. The U.S. won’t turn Iraq into Threads, but if they hit coalition forces, they will respond with dial-a-yield small warheads against military targets. If they go for massive strikes against cities, then Iraqi cities will get hosed.

This will without a doubt change the coalition’s goal from “remove Saddam from Kuwait” to “remove Saddam’s regime from Iraq.” There is no chance a madman who ordered such a thing would be allowed to maintain power.

 

[Rfl23]

I wonder how will the iranian react if this ever happened

 

[Meshakhad]

Retaliation? Gotta break with your assessment there. If the Iraqis start throwing chemical weapons around, something is gonna catch a nuke. Whether that's precision strikes against NBC stockpiles or a decapitating strike on Baghdad...not sure. A fictional version (that's a brief aside in a really great horror novel) that seems decently likely is Baghdad gets a nuclear-tipped Tomahawk from the assembled naval task force, while the Air Force hits things like missile launch sites, artillery batteries and weapons depots with whatever they can put a tactical warhead on.

I thought about the possibility of American (or even Israeli) nuclear retaliation. It would be in line with known American doctrine (Israeli nuclear doctrine is obviously not well known). However, I'm unsure how far the US would go. Nuking Iraqi chemical weapon sites would be a given, and perhaps even conventional military bases, but would President Bush (the Elder) authorize a strike on Baghdad? Consider that the Soviet Union is still around at this point.

The Israelis might show less restraint, however. There's no question that Shamir would order a massive air attack following a chemical attack on Israel. But would he go nuclear? Israel had not (and still hasn't) confirmed that it even has nuclear weapons (although everybody knows they do). I think a lot depends on the amount of damage. If the attack ends up being relatively ineffective, then Shamir probably holds off on the nukes. But if the death count is in the thousands, then I think all the gloves would come off, regardless of what the US says. Israel would vaporize as much of Baghdad as needed to eliminate Saddam Hussein.

 

[starman]

Consider that the Soviet Union is still around at this point.

But demoralized and not in a position to oppose the US or the whole coalition, especially if the latter came under attack by WMD first.

But if the death count is in the thousands, then I think all the gloves would come off, regardless of what the US says.

A high death toll wouldn't be likely as the Israelis had masks. And they couldn't afford the alienate the US and the rest of the coalition which, to keep the arab members on board, went to considerable lengths to keep Israel out of the war.

Israel would vaporize as much of Baghdad as needed to eliminate Saddam Hussein.

Just leave retaliation to the US. It may not go that far but Iraq would get it awful bad.

 

[Monk78]

I wonder how will the iranian react if this ever happened

"told you so"

 

[Alanith]

I thought about the possibility of American (or even Israeli) nuclear retaliation. It would be in line with known American doctrine (Israeli nuclear doctrine is obviously not well known). However, I'm unsure how far the US would go. Nuking Iraqi chemical weapon sites would be a given, and perhaps even conventional military bases, but would President Bush (the Elder) authorize a strike on Baghdad? Consider that the Soviet Union is still around at this point.

The Israelis might show less restraint, however. There's no question that Shamir would order a massive air attack following a chemical attack on Israel. But would he go nuclear? Israel had not (and still hasn't) confirmed that it even has nuclear weapons (although everybody knows they do). I think a lot depends on the amount of damage. If the attack ends up being relatively ineffective, then Shamir probably holds off on the nukes. But if the death count is in the thousands, then I think all the gloves would come off, regardless of what the US says. Israel would vaporize as much of Baghdad as needed to eliminate Saddam Hussein.

The Soviet Union is not getting involved in 1991 to protect a former ally from its own stupidity, especially not if pissed off TWO TO FOUR nuclear states enough to make them release their own special weapons.

 

[Monk78]

The Soviet Union is not getting involved in 1991 to protect a former ally from its own stupidity, especially not if pissed off TWO TO FOUR nuclear states enough to make them release their own special weapons.

saddam was hardly a soviet ally, he liked to purchase their arms but not influence

 

[Father Maryland]

Well, military and civilian targets blend a lot where that war was concerned, any tactical use of chemical warfare is going to hit civilian areas (Kuwait City in particular jumps to mind). Widespread strikes against Saudi Arabia and Israel would seem fairly likely, IIRC they managed to drop a couple Scuds on Haifa IOTL.

How well-protected are the coalition? On the frontline, extremely. Just about everything they fielded was made to fight World War 3 and had solid NBC protection, from tanks to the poor bastards sweating in MOPP-4. The big problem is if the Iraqis can hit the coalition rear echelons with chemical weapons. They had personal protective gear, but no real way to work under chemical conditions, so logistics will be utterly hosed.

Retaliation? Gotta break with your assessment there. If the Iraqis start throwing chemical weapons around, something is gonna catch a nuke. Whether that's precision strikes against NBC stockpiles or a decapitating strike on Baghdad...not sure. A fictional version (that's a brief aside in a really great horror novel) that seems decently likely is Baghdad gets a nuclear-tipped Tomahawk from the assembled naval task force, while the Air Force hits things like missile launch sites, artillery batteries and weapons depots with whatever they can put a tactical warhead on.

What's the name of the horror novel that's from?

 

[mial42]

Frankly, I don't think there'd be any change militarily (chemical weapons are not magic or nuclear; Coalition forces are well protected and the Iraqis can't effectively deliver chemical weapons any more then they could conventional ones OTL); it would simply be held up as proof of how evil Saddam is. Politically, Saddam probably gets ousted in 1991, and I don't know enough about Iraqi politics to know what would happen from there.

 

[Monk78]

Frankly, I don't think there'd be any change militarily (chemical weapons are not magic or nuclear; Coalition forces are well protected and the Iraqis can't effectively deliver chemical weapons any more then they could conventional ones OTL); it would simply be held up as proof of how evil Saddam is. Politically, Saddam probably gets ousted in 1991, and I don't know enough about Iraqi politics to know what would happen from there.

I think the biggest Use will be terrorizing the civilians Or staging areas logistical units not Frontline military

 

[CalBear]

Third, 4th, and possibly 5th use of nuclear weapons in combat. Mortal Lock.

Only real question is target selection and who launches. If it is a purely U.S./UK/French decision the most likely target will be a Republican Guard division/Corps. It gets wiped off the map with a "y'all have 48 hours to surrender unconditionally or shit gets real" ultimatum.

If he strikes Israel, the shit will hit the Fan. Best case the Americans get the Israels to to allow the U.S. to handle it and the "best guess" about where Saddam is hiding takes a W-84 dialed down to under 5kT. Otherwise? Otherwise goes from bad to "well, civilization was fun".

 

[mial42]

I think the biggest Use will be terrorizing the civilians Or staging areas logistical units not Frontline military

Could the Iraqis hit logistical units with conventional weapons OTL? Like I said, chemical weapons aren't magic; if the Iraqi's couldn't deliver conventional ordinance they won't be able to deliver chemical weapons.

 

[Monk78]

Could the Iraqis hit logistical units with conventional weapons OTL? Like I said, chemical weapons aren't magic; if the Iraqi's couldn't deliver conventional ordinance they won't be able to deliver chemical weapons.

No they are not but possibly rear echelon troops are less equipped for CW and fear factor will cause more delays confusion etc

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Could the Iraqis hit logistical units with conventional weapons OTL? Like I said, chemical weapons aren't magic; if the Iraqi's couldn't deliver conventional ordinance they won't be able to deliver chemical weapons.

They dropped some Scuds on them OTL, one landed concerning close to an ammunition ship that was being unloaded if I remember correctly

 

[andys]

Israel cannot afford to let a chemical strike go unanswered. Best case the give the coalition a very few hours (single digit) to glass several - NOT just one - place in Iraq. Worst case, or best depending on how you look at it, they ensure there's no reason for the coalition to invade the-glowing-hole-that-used-to-be-Iraq.

 

[Alanith]

Israel cannot afford to let a chemical strike go unanswered. Best case the give the coalition a very few hours (single digit) to glass several - NOT just one - place in Iraq. Worst case, or best depending on how you look at it, they ensure there's no reason for the coalition to invade the-glowing-hole-that-used-to-be-Iraq.

Ex-fucking-actly. The US has probably under six hours to retaliate or Israel does it for them, which makes things "Exciting". Assuming the Israeli's are actually willing to hold off at all to begin with! Not exactly sure what plausible assets Israel had for delivery of their strike in 1991 TBH, besides the obvious F-16 or F-15. Jericho family, but did their subs have a practical cruise missile design at that point?

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Ex-fucking-actly. The US has probably under six hours to retaliate or Israel does it for them, which makes things "Exciting". Assuming the Israeli's are actually willing to hold off at all to begin with! Not exactly sure what plausible assets Israel had for delivery of their strike in 1991 TBH, besides the obvious F-16 or F-15. Jericho family, but did their subs have a practical cruise missile design at that point?

Israel did not test Popeye Turbo SLCM until 2002, they have Sub-Harpoon since '83 but I highly doubt that is nuclear capable, so either Jericho or air delivered