Help Me With These Thoughts, Re: Chemical Weapons and Iraq

[Ben E Lou]

I've been wondering about this...

1. The US suspects that Iraq will use chemical munitions, and therefore would presumably take measures to be prepared for them.

2. The US has the financial wherewithal to equip every soldier in the field with the proper clothing and gas mask.

3. The use of chemical weapons by Iraq would severely hurt them in the PR campaign.


It just seems to this simple Southern boy that usin' chemical weapons would give them little/no tactical advantage and be an utterly HORRID move for them politically.


So, why do so many people seem to think they're going to use them?????

[Fritz]

You assume some logic on the part of the Iraqi leadership.

[CamEdwards]

I second Fritz. Plus, he'll blame the chemical weapons use on us, and most of the Middle East will believe him.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Fritz
You assume some logic on the part of the Iraqi leadership.

LOL. It may be just as simple as that.

In the good ol' days of the cold war, the Russians could be counted on to do whatever was in their own best interests.--Gene Hackman as Captain Ramsey in Crimson Tide.

I guess I'm still viewing the enemy as being akin to the Soviets. Gotta update my thinking to account for madmen...

The logic can be turned to say that once Saddam realizes that he will be gone whether he uses them or not and that the public will eventually find the chemicals, assuming that he does have them, then he will have no choice but to use them. If he wasn't a madman then his choices would be broader but considering the type of person that he really is then it will come down to use them or lose them anyways. Either way the world will see the light and he will look bad regardless. Insanity dictates that he will use them if he has them.

[Bee]

Several reasons IMO.

1. Fear. By using chemical or biological weapons, you scare the American public. In the past that type of fear has often led to increased anti-war feelings.

2. Slows the war. The assumption they are making is the longer the war lasts, the less support the war will get in the US and worldwide. Those kinds of attacks will slow any advance.

3. They can always get "lucky". If the troops response time isn't sufficient it can be fatal. Also, depending on the situation the gas masks and equipment are not always 100% effective from my understanding.

There are reasons not to use them as well, but it's always best to assume the worse.

[ACStrider]

Another point...If the man was looking at global PR, would he really broadcast video of opposition troops being handled in a manner that is WAY out of bounds of international warfare rules? He's thrown PR out the window a long time ago.

So with that and the above reasons, here's some reasons why he has waited to use them to this point.

1. Control. Having the illegal weapons closer to his direct control allows for a more tactical and devastating use and impact.

2. Security. As the allied forces come closer to Baghdad and central Iraq, the battle becomes one with troops more loyal to him and more likely to actually use chemical weapons if dispensed to them.

3. Concentration. In the southern and northern fronts, the battlefields are more fluid. They occur and many places and are very spread out. An effective use of chemical weapons would be against a concentrated and massed enemy, for instance, in a siege of Baghdad.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Good summary ACStrider

[ACStrider]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
Good summary ACStrider

That's a first for me...I'm proud. Thanks Jon, you made my day!

[JPhillips]

From what I have read we may actually have a problem with widespread chemical weapon use. My understanding is that the suits can only be worn for about twenty four hours at one time. Due to heat buildup and the need for water, food and sleep, they can't be worn forever. The problem is that we don't have good plans for mass decontamination. If thousands of troops get covered in sarin or VX, we can't clean all of the suits before they need to come off. In fact, due to our rapid progression, we can't really decontaminate hardly anyone right now.

I'm afraid that even with our NBC protection capabilities we will suffer a number of casualties from a wide spread chemical attack.

[DukeRulesMAB]

Yes, I think the faulty assumption in the first post is that the US protection will be 100% effective; it likely won't be. And regardless of the number of casualties due to it, it will definately slow the advance.

As for bad PR, why on earth would Saddam care about bad PR at this point? So we can rub him out with most of the world on his side? Obviously he's going to pull out all the stops. In fact, contrary to posts earlier in this thread, I think it's entirely logical for Saddam (and the other higher ups in the regime) to do this. Evil, but logical. You're dead either way, maybe this lets you live a little longer. Maybe he gets lucky and hits a home run with this.

The better question is why the troops "loyal" to Saddam would fire them. Unlike Saddam, they have something to lose, as most of them probably aren't high enough on the food chain to get severe punishment after this is over. Unless they have a part in firing chemical weapons, in which case all bets are off.

[John Galt]

Kenneth Waltz, probably the most prominent academic regarding "realism" in international relations (usually the foreign policy approach of military hawks) actually defends the notion that Hussien followed a rational, logical war plan in the first Gulf War. He has argued that the notion of the "crazy leader" is usually inaccurate (sometimes based on racism as in the case of China) and leaders like Saddam may miscalculate (and thus lose), but aren't really irrational. Because CW use will likely undermine his international status, I think Saddam will only use them in the absolute endgame of his regime (and even then it is probably doubtful). He used them in the past because he could do it under the international radar (and because the US was supporting him) - now that is not the case.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by SkyDog
It just seems to this simple Southern boy that usin' chemical weapons would give them little/no tactical advantage and be an utterly HORRID move for them politically.

See my post in the other chemical weapons thread. I think you're right in your assessment, but I'm not convinced Saddam can be counted on to act rationally.

Here's a quote from a recent article in National Review. Substitute "chemical" for "nuclear".

But why can't we allow Saddam Hussein to obtain nuclear weapons? After all, the Soviets had nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War, yet none were used. The reason we cannot allow Saddam Hussein to obtain nuclear weapons is that Saddam cannot be deterred. That is proven beyond any reasonable doubt in Kenneth Pollack's vitally important new book, The Threatening Storm.

Saddam has a nearly 30-year history of defying the logic of deterrence. Saddam regularly and radically miscalculates the dangers of his aggressive actions. He is ignorant of the outside world, and punishes or kills those who come to him with bad news. He is apt to seek revenge (as in the assassination attempt on former president Bush), even when revenge could cost him his life. And Saddam is possessed by a driving wish to dominate the Middle East.

He also holds a vision of taking down his enemies when he goes, if go he must, with a terrible act of destruction that will permanently impress his "glory" into the pages of history.

[ice4277]

I think that Saddam's main interest has always been, and always will be, his own personal survival, meaning that he does what he thinks needs to be done to keep himself in power. Up to this point, that has meant refraining from attacks using chemical/biological weapons, as worldwide reaction would have been so great as to force his removal from power. However, now that a conflict to remove him from power has already begun, I am afraid that he may see them, at some point, as his only hope to remain in power. He seems to view the U.S. as having little stomach for battle. I think he believes that, if he can rachet up the number of U.S. casualties to an extremely high number, the public here would basically force the leadership here to put an end to the conflict, thus buying him a little more time. It's easy to say this would not be the case, and we will get him no matter what, but lets be honest about this: if Hussein attacks with chemical weapons and manages to kill, say, six or seven thousand U.S. troops, there would be a HUGE push here for the war to stop. I think he realizes this and I am very very afraid that this will be what happens once we get closer to him.

[wbonnell]

Originally posted by ice4277
if Hussein attacks with chemical weapons and manages to kill, say, six or seven thousand U.S. troops, there would be a HUGE push here for the war to stop.

On the contrary, I think if Iraq uses WMD on our troops, the outrage would be so great, that Americans would support a more sustained and intense war. Moreover, I think other countries (ie France) would join in the fight.

[ice4277]

I'm not saying the war would stop, rather there would be a much bigger outcry for it to end from the population here at home. I think Hussein believes that that would be enough to force the war into a stalemate, which would buy him a bit more time.

[sachmo71]

I think a large number of deaths from chemical attacks might galvanize the American public and convince them to support the war. With all of the horrible things that I have learned in these past few years, one thing has become abundantly clear...

Hell hath no fury like an American seeking revenge.

[Bee]

i think it would depend on the rate of deaths as to the reaction of the American public. If it was one big attack with chemical weapons, that would probably solidify the US on removing the regime and there would be a demand to step up the attack regardless of collateral damage. If the deaths were to come 100 one day, 60 the next, etc. I think we'd see a gradual decline in the support for the war and an increase in protests. JMO.

[HornedFrog Purple]

They will be used by Iraq but not on our troops. Most likely they will be used on their own people and then Iraq will blame the coalition for using them. It will be an attempt to gain on the court of popular opinion with the target those opposed or on the fence.

The longer it takes for the coalition to find verifiable chemical weapons the worse it gets.

[ACStrider]

Originally posted by ice4277
if Hussein attacks with chemical weapons and manages to kill, say, six or seven thousand U.S. troops, there would be a HUGE push here for the war to stop.

...yeah, and the Japanese thought that if they struck our navy at Pearl Harbor it would so paralyze us that it would pacify us into seclusion from the Pacific.

[Airhog]

Originally posted by DukeRulesMAB
Yes, I think the faulty assumption in the first post is that the US protection will be 100% effective; it likely won't be. And regardless of the number of casualties due to it, it will definately slow the advance.

As for bad PR, why on earth would Saddam care about bad PR at this point? So we can rub him out with most of the world on his side? Obviously he's going to pull out all the stops. In fact, contrary to posts earlier in this thread, I think it's entirely logical for Saddam (and the other higher ups in the regime) to do this. Evil, but logical. You're dead either way, maybe this lets you live a little longer. Maybe he gets lucky and hits a home run with this.

The better question is why the troops "loyal" to Saddam would fire them. Unlike Saddam, they have something to lose, as most of them probably aren't high enough on the food chain to get severe punishment after this is over. Unless they have a part in firing chemical weapons, in which case all bets are off.

Well, I think he will ethier use them, or try to destroy them. I think destroying them would be a wise move on his part. Then all of the world will say I told you so, when we dont find those weapons...

[ice4277]

Originally posted by ACStrider
...yeah, and the Japanese thought that if they struck our navy at Pearl Harbor it would so paralyze us that it would pacify us into seclusion from the Pacific.

Two points:

One, I never said we WOULD stop fighting, just that there would be a larger outcry for the war to end then there is now. And two, comparing Pearl Harbor to the current Gulf War is comparing apples to oranges.