what is the worst possible scenario in a war against iraq?
- Thread starter stalin006
- Start date
.:KNAS:.
Civfanatic
Originally posted by Juize
*cough, cough*
This is during war, again?
Is it not allowed to kill during war? You're starting to sound absurd:
"When we attacked them, they shot down our bombers! That's a serious war atrocity!"
...or what are you trying to say?
About the Washington Post-article:
I'd like to see this "compelling evidence". Or would it endanger your troops, being
such up-to-date information? A single attack towards Iraq, retaliation not allowed,
no evidence. Wow, now you got my support
Such an obvious Hitler-card? I'm really disappointed, sharpe.
Just how stupid are you? Are you implying that gassing a village full of civilians is justified?
Edit, a little info: In 1984 Iraq became the first nation to use a nerve agent on the battlefield when it deployed Tabun-filled aerial bombs during the Iran-Iraq war. Some 5,500 Iranians were killed by the nerve agent between March 1984 and March 1985. Tabun kills within minutes. In addition, some 16,000 Iranians were reported killed by the toxic blister agent mustard gas between August 1983 and February 1986.
In one horrific case, Saddam Hussein's forces reportedly killed hundreds of Iraqi Kurds with chemical agents in the Kurdish town of Halabja in March 1988. Saddam Hussein ordered the attack after he accused the Kurds of supporting Iranian troops.
Soruce: http://home.swipnet.se/~w-93281/irakskem.htm
redtom
Proudhonist
The use of those gas bombs were actually provided by the British and US governments. The US actually helped in the deployment of the gas bombs against the Iranians. It suited US foreign policy to support Iraq against Iran as Iran doesn't produce as much oil as Iraq. Though just like Hitler said of Franco, they didn't want hundred per cent victory for Iraq so they didn't support him in any other way.
Switch625
I don't care.
Prove it.
Switch625
I don't care.
IIRC, the pogroms against the Kurds have stopped in Turkey. But, YES, I am angry about it. It sickens me, to be truthful. The Kurds should have their own nation. I'd love to see Kurdistan created out of sections of Iraq and Turkey (and Syria?). As a matter of fact, I'd also like to see ethnic Armenian areas of eastern Turkey sliced off and given to Armenia. Armenians have had a bad time of it at Turkish hands as well.
For all that, I believe Turkey has the potential to be a truely western state, with democracy and freedom and all that good stuff. Closer ties to Europe is probably the best hope Turkey has to keep out of the fundamentalist Islamic quagmire that the rest of the Middle East is stuck in. That, and putting the Trukish army in it's place. That would be good, too.
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
That's what will be really interesting (note the "will", there will be a war without much doubt).
The only reason for a war would be Saddam having weapons of mass destruction. The war, however, would be directed at his head, so he wouldn't have the slightest thing to lose.
So simple logic tells us that he will use everything he can. If that won't mean a massive use of WMD against the US forces or even Israel it would mean that the accusations had been wrong and therefore there shouldn't be any war at all.
So doesn't that only leave two options?
Either an unjust war (in terms of what is presented as a reason) or a catastrophic war with massive use of WMD?
Doesn't sound good to me either way...
amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
Hussein might try everything, but who's to say if the forces will remain loyal to HIM?
Worst case? I voted nucluer weapons issued to terrorists.
Maybe I'm an alarmist, but time will tell. Given only about 40% of Russian nucluer metrial is considered secure by western standards. The relative ease of smuggling Nucluer material across former soviet republics bordering afghanistan. I think Uzbekistan was the main concern there.
I think the worst case will come when we see what happens after we have an attack and conquest of Iraq. Which seems inevitable.
It seems to me Al-queada's game plan was to provoke America into action. Spread her forces across the globe, feed her paranoia, keep her looking anywhere and everhwere. You have to be lucky all the time, they only have to be lucky once. Which I would expect so they can strike at the heart of American political power with a nucluer device/bomb of some type in Washington (lets hope it never comes to pass).
I can't see Hussien delivering Terrorists a nucluer bomb, but I can see him delivering components so they can make one.
The conflict/War on Terror (or what ever you want to call it) is definately beginning to widen. And I see nothing to slow it down or stop it, from occuring happening anytime soon.
Maybe I'm an alarmist, but time will tell. Given only about 40% of Russian nucluer metrial is considered secure by western standards. The relative ease of smuggling Nucluer material across former soviet republics bordering afghanistan. I think Uzbekistan was the main concern there.
I think the worst case will come when we see what happens after we have an attack and conquest of Iraq. Which seems inevitable.
It seems to me Al-queada's game plan was to provoke America into action. Spread her forces across the globe, feed her paranoia, keep her looking anywhere and everhwere. You have to be lucky all the time, they only have to be lucky once. Which I would expect so they can strike at the heart of American political power with a nucluer device/bomb of some type in Washington (lets hope it never comes to pass).
I can't see Hussien delivering Terrorists a nucluer bomb, but I can see him delivering components so they can make one.
The conflict/War on Terror (or what ever you want to call it) is definately beginning to widen. And I see nothing to slow it down or stop it, from occuring happening anytime soon.
redtom
Proudhonist
EdwardTking
Deity
You are wrong.
The USA sold Britain the Ballistic Missiles (Polaris and others) to deliver nuclear bombs on at least two generations of UK strategic deterrent submarines (Trident and other); in exchange for the UK
selling weapons grade fissionables to the USA.
It made a lot of sense in the cold war; when the US was short of
fissiles and the UK did not want to pay to develop its own rocket.
Switch625
I don't care.
That's not proof, that's propaganda!
Originally posted by Switch625
That's not proof, that's propaganda!
Looks like proof to me?
newfangle
hates you.
Well, it does appear to be biased towards the left, but there is no question that every one of its points are correct 
.
.
CrazyScientist
Those crazy scientists...
Why would Saddam give or sell nukes tro terrorists?
I thought fundamentalist groups like Al Qaeda hated secular muslim countries like Iraq as much or more than they hate the US.
You'd think he'd be concerned that they'd be just as likely to nuke him as anyone in the west.
Just becasue they all hate us doesn't mean they like each other.
I thought fundamentalist groups like Al Qaeda hated secular muslim countries like Iraq as much or more than they hate the US.
You'd think he'd be concerned that they'd be just as likely to nuke him as anyone in the west.
Just becasue they all hate us doesn't mean they like each other.
Rodgers
Following YOUR child home
What about this for a scenario - Saddam is ALREADY DEAD and the Iraqi generals are just using one of his imposters to pretend he is still going strong. All that war and death for nothing - plus, they could go on claiming he is still alive by using the stock of imposters he has built up over the years regardless of any CIA assasination attempts on him that "succeed". Could happen.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2001
- Messages
- 30,080
Or any other citizens for that matter.
Ah yes, yet again a thread degenerates into a pro vs anti war / foreign policy / propoganda / truth / us / U.S. / them argument.
Worst case for me - escalation to a general war in the ME, which IMO will stuff the world oil-dependent economy. Even worse, Iraqi weapons will be smuggled out to the hands of non-military fighters ('terrorists' if you like), and used on targets world-wide.
How about this one
Iraq tries to hide away biological and chemical weapons, but the UN- inspectors find them after going after sites not reported by Iraq in their dec 6 report. After an short three day meeting in the UN-security council a consensuses is meet that Iraq need to be disarmed with force. A UN force(mainly US and British troops) start the campaign against Iraq at dec 18. After a three week bombardment ground troops go in and meet surprisingly little resistance from the supposedly loyal and well trained republican guard. Little did they now that Saddam had hidden is most trusted republican guard under the flag of regular troops and as the UN-force bombarded what they though was the republican guard they had actually only dropped bomb on regular troops.
On jan 16 saddam attacks with scuds stacked with chemical weapons on the two major bulk sites for the UN forces and launching a surprise attack against the UN force, that is so convinced of that the war will end within a week or two, that the attack works! The combined panic that the report of the chemical horror together with the now fearful fighting adds to the confusion and it takes over 36h before the UN force is back in control over the situation.
The result is: over 15 000 dead UN soldiers (mainly US) in the chemical attack. 1000 UN soldiers dead, wounded or captured in fighting with Iraq republican guard. Several tanks and planes destroyed or crippled. One aircraft carrier damaged past operation status. 2000 dead from the republican guard.
The public is outraged, and demand retaliation. 6h later the Iraqs now visible republican guard is bomb to oblivion. But the propaganda value of saddams first strike makes the moral of the regular troops to boost and fighting on new fronts break out. Even more chemical weapons is but into action.
The UN-command is baffled but believe that the situation will be solved within 12-24h now when they got a fix on the chemical weapons that were hidden, and even if the moral of Iraq regular troops are higher now it is believed to fall fast as casualties rise. Because of the situation (we are getting a lot of casualties here) that is USA (the UN-force leader) accepts the Russian proposal of reinforcements(a bomber wing and ground infantry) and for the first time US and Russian troops fight side by side.
On jan 20 it gets interesting though. An uprising in Afghanistan starts, with the reorganised Taliban forces flooding over from the Pakistan border and within, together with a successful attack on the Afghan president: Kasrzim, the afghan administration fall with new fighting. The US is now fighting on two fronts not a problem considering that Iraq is a UN problem and Afghanistan should be able to get together with the help of the still active Nordic force. But on jan 24 a fatal mistake is maid, in a situation with several US soldiers trapped in a deadly battle with Taliban forces and no quick solution ready. The US decide to ask for help from a Russian spec troops team in neighbouring Uzbekistan all to avoid more US casualties. The operation is a success and labelled as proof of the new US-Russian relation.
The Taliban is however able to use it as propaganda against the US and Nordic forces and suddenly a majority of the afghan (they dont what the Russians back) is supporting the Taliban. A number of former Nordic commanders switch side and within 24h the Taliban is back in control as before the US intervention.
The Economy is freefalling, Oil prises souring and the public in US though supportive of getting even on saddam is in agony over the high casualties.
Now lets take a look at Iran Already in chaos since the president and parliament resigned over new laws from the high religious council, now new protested occur both for the president and for support of their Islam brothers in Iraq and Afghanistan. After, what will in the history books be labelled a two day civil war the Ayatollah stands victorious. Over 10 000 pro president students die in the fighting.
The all of the Middle East is threatened to explode, with protests all over the Muslims world where extremist priests call for a support for their Muslim brothers. To avert the situation after several massive demonstrations and violence in major capitals and on the west bank and Gaza, the US push and have a resolution on the fact that after the Iraq war is over a Palestine state will be maid permanent and all Israel settlers will be removed from the west bank. It is deemed crucial to calm down the situation and not force the US to intervene in all of the Middle East.
A think that however is looked by is that the falling economy is not only hurting the western economies, and with the shortcoming of oil on the market there is no aid to be giving. The North Korean leader is suddenly faced with a country that is at the brink of revolution. With the economy at its worst ever, almost drained supply of oil he sees only one why to avid the situation to get out of his hands. To attack
At 12 feb the south Korean capital is bombard with artillery and a offensive on all fronts is begun by north Korean troops, within 6 h over 50 000 is dead, only in the capital.
The UN security council is called on by the US to make an resolution on north Korean, as its pacific navy is already heading for the defence of south Korea. Now this hah probably been all dealt with but a misunderstanding between a journalist and the Taiwan president, has it to be said that to avoid the same situation Taiwan will NEVER agree on a unified china. What the president actually said falls into the books of history as China (because of inner tensions between reformers and hard liners, have the hard liners to come out strong) launch there attack.
As Pakistan falls into chaos with hard core Taliban supporters gaining power India both feels threatened and see the chance to take Kacmire. Then the first missile is launched
The world holds its breath and prays.
Iraq tries to hide away biological and chemical weapons, but the UN- inspectors find them after going after sites not reported by Iraq in their dec 6 report. After an short three day meeting in the UN-security council a consensuses is meet that Iraq need to be disarmed with force. A UN force(mainly US and British troops) start the campaign against Iraq at dec 18. After a three week bombardment ground troops go in and meet surprisingly little resistance from the supposedly loyal and well trained republican guard. Little did they now that Saddam had hidden is most trusted republican guard under the flag of regular troops and as the UN-force bombarded what they though was the republican guard they had actually only dropped bomb on regular troops.
On jan 16 saddam attacks with scuds stacked with chemical weapons on the two major bulk sites for the UN forces and launching a surprise attack against the UN force, that is so convinced of that the war will end within a week or two, that the attack works! The combined panic that the report of the chemical horror together with the now fearful fighting adds to the confusion and it takes over 36h before the UN force is back in control over the situation.
The result is: over 15 000 dead UN soldiers (mainly US) in the chemical attack. 1000 UN soldiers dead, wounded or captured in fighting with Iraq republican guard. Several tanks and planes destroyed or crippled. One aircraft carrier damaged past operation status. 2000 dead from the republican guard.
The public is outraged, and demand retaliation. 6h later the Iraqs now visible republican guard is bomb to oblivion. But the propaganda value of saddams first strike makes the moral of the regular troops to boost and fighting on new fronts break out. Even more chemical weapons is but into action.
The UN-command is baffled but believe that the situation will be solved within 12-24h now when they got a fix on the chemical weapons that were hidden, and even if the moral of Iraq regular troops are higher now it is believed to fall fast as casualties rise. Because of the situation (we are getting a lot of casualties here) that is USA (the UN-force leader) accepts the Russian proposal of reinforcements(a bomber wing and ground infantry) and for the first time US and Russian troops fight side by side.
On jan 20 it gets interesting though. An uprising in Afghanistan starts, with the reorganised Taliban forces flooding over from the Pakistan border and within, together with a successful attack on the Afghan president: Kasrzim, the afghan administration fall with new fighting. The US is now fighting on two fronts not a problem considering that Iraq is a UN problem and Afghanistan should be able to get together with the help of the still active Nordic force. But on jan 24 a fatal mistake is maid, in a situation with several US soldiers trapped in a deadly battle with Taliban forces and no quick solution ready. The US decide to ask for help from a Russian spec troops team in neighbouring Uzbekistan all to avoid more US casualties. The operation is a success and labelled as proof of the new US-Russian relation.
The Taliban is however able to use it as propaganda against the US and Nordic forces and suddenly a majority of the afghan (they dont what the Russians back) is supporting the Taliban. A number of former Nordic commanders switch side and within 24h the Taliban is back in control as before the US intervention.
The Economy is freefalling, Oil prises souring and the public in US though supportive of getting even on saddam is in agony over the high casualties.
Now lets take a look at Iran Already in chaos since the president and parliament resigned over new laws from the high religious council, now new protested occur both for the president and for support of their Islam brothers in Iraq and Afghanistan. After, what will in the history books be labelled a two day civil war the Ayatollah stands victorious. Over 10 000 pro president students die in the fighting.
The all of the Middle East is threatened to explode, with protests all over the Muslims world where extremist priests call for a support for their Muslim brothers. To avert the situation after several massive demonstrations and violence in major capitals and on the west bank and Gaza, the US push and have a resolution on the fact that after the Iraq war is over a Palestine state will be maid permanent and all Israel settlers will be removed from the west bank. It is deemed crucial to calm down the situation and not force the US to intervene in all of the Middle East.
A think that however is looked by is that the falling economy is not only hurting the western economies, and with the shortcoming of oil on the market there is no aid to be giving. The North Korean leader is suddenly faced with a country that is at the brink of revolution. With the economy at its worst ever, almost drained supply of oil he sees only one why to avid the situation to get out of his hands. To attack
At 12 feb the south Korean capital is bombard with artillery and a offensive on all fronts is begun by north Korean troops, within 6 h over 50 000 is dead, only in the capital.
The UN security council is called on by the US to make an resolution on north Korean, as its pacific navy is already heading for the defence of south Korea. Now this hah probably been all dealt with but a misunderstanding between a journalist and the Taiwan president, has it to be said that to avoid the same situation Taiwan will NEVER agree on a unified china. What the president actually said falls into the books of history as China (because of inner tensions between reformers and hard liners, have the hard liners to come out strong) launch there attack.
As Pakistan falls into chaos with hard core Taliban supporters gaining power India both feels threatened and see the chance to take Kacmire. Then the first missile is launched
The world holds its breath and prays.
Switch625
I don't care.
Vonork, that would make a good novel. You post was a very good read. However, it is unlikely that such a scenario would come to pass. The central crux seems to be massive casualties from a chemical attack, which won't happen. US and British forces have state of the art NBC (Nuclear/Biological/Chemcial) equipment, and are prepared for a chemical attack. Actually, it would be a surprise if Saddam didn't use chemical weapons against our forces. Casualties would be very light - negligable among the troops, but the surrounding civilian (read: Iraqi civilian) population would suffer heavily. As for disguising the Republican Guard units? I don't think so. The disparity in quality of equipment between that which is issued to the Guard units and to the regular troops makes spotting a Republican Guard unit rather easy. It's not just morale and training that makes them better, it's also better equipment.
I will agree with you that there is a certain danger of Afghanistan destabilizing as Taliban remnants take advantage of a perceived distraction on the part of American troops. However, I can't imagine the US asking for Russian troops to help in Afghanistan. That would be insane, and a sure way to turn EVERYONE there against us.
I will agree with you that there is a certain danger of Afghanistan destabilizing as Taliban remnants take advantage of a perceived distraction on the part of American troops. However, I can't imagine the US asking for Russian troops to help in Afghanistan. That would be insane, and a sure way to turn EVERYONE there against us.
Similar threads
