Mass destruction weapons in Iraq

[Gabriel Fleseriu]

As we are all discussing the evolution of the newest events in the Persian Gulf, I thought we best pick up one issue at a time and try to handle it as analythical as possible.

I have thought about the question "why didn't Iraq use any mass distruction weapons yet?".

Fact: at the time I'm posting this, no source reported the use of mass destruction (i.e. chemical, biological or atomar) weapons. Moreoever, the allied troops haven't found any such weapon in Iraq yet.

Analysis: I see three possibilities:
1. The iraqis don't have any such weapons -- this is the most simple possibility.
2. They have a limited quantity of such devices. I guess that they cannot have a large quantity of mass destruction weapons, because that would have been noticed by the UN inspectors. Ok, then. If they have it why don't they use it? One issue that didn't come in the news (yet) is, that if they would use mass destruction weapons, in any form, this would instantly legitimate the war against iraq. We know that many states do not aggree with this campain. I think this would be a strong argument against using such weapons.
3. They save the limited ammount of weapons for the ultimative defence of Baghdad. Hummm...somehow the argument from 2. holds here too, but who sais that the decisions necessarily have to be purely rational ones? They have put some oil filled channels in flames around Baghdad today (CNN and other media sais) to "hinder the pilots of the bombers". Not necessaily a usefull decision, if you ask me; cruise missiles don't have pilots.

What is your oppinion about this particular issue?

[Mick]

My opinion on this is I think supported by the 91 campaign, because for the same reason they did not use WMD (which they clearly had at that time) was the fear of the retrubution that would follow. Our largest tactical nuke I think is 1000 times the power or maybe it's 100 times the power of Hiroshima, and we have a number of them. I would hesitate to think of the destruction in terms of lives they would cause.

The second point is, as we have seen or has it has been reported or has you might have read, if you read expatriate accounts. Is the majority of iraqi troops do not want to fight, nor would they follow those orders. Using WMD on someone elses property is one thing, using it on your own is another.

The third point would be..why, our troops are protected by the best and finest chemical and biological suits. If your into the line of thinking ohh those won't work, well we spent a considerable amount of time and money invested in the average solider and protetive equpiment and they _d_a_m_n well better work




[Edited: Inappropriate language in the context of the topic]
[Edited: heh heh removed the doctor strangelove text]

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
My opinion on this is I think supported by the 91 campaign, because for the same reason they did not use WMD (which they clearly had at that time) was the fear of the retrubution that would follow. Our largest tactical nuke I think is 1000 times the power or maybe it's 100 times the power of Hiroshima, and we have a number of them. I would hesitate to think of the destruction in terms of lives they would cause.

I thought Saddam did not care about his people. Last time he knew he could survive without using them, this time he knows he couldn't. So why wouldn't he use them? He's a dictator after all, he can bomb soldiers or Israel with these weapons if he wants to and if he has them. Unless Saddam is indeed taken out, which would be the first good thing I hear in this stupid war.

Originally posted by Mick_2002
The second point is, as we have seen or has it has been reported or has you might have read, if you read expatriate accounts. Is the majority of iraqi troops do not want to fight, nor would they follow those orders. Using WMD on someone elses property is one thing, using it on your own is another.

There are Iraqi troops that do want to fight, as you might have noticed by now in Umm Qasr. Do you believe Saddam would have entrusted these weapons to the soldiers that do not wish to fight? And he has used these weapons already against his own people in the North, I don't recall him liking the South (Basra, Umm Qasr) either, remember the little Shia thing last time?

Originally posted by Mick_2002
The third point would be..why, our troops are protected by the best and finest chemical and biological suits. If your into the line of thinking ohh those won't work, well we spent a considerable amount of time and money invested in the average solider and protetive equpiment and they _d_a_m_n well better work

Since when has the use of protection means preserved the enemy from using these weapons? In WWI, despite of gas masks, gas was still used against the enemy. And he can still throw them on non-military targets or on bases such as those in Kuwait? Or do the US troops walk around in their outfits there? And remains the fact that you have to pull these outfits on real fast, often that fast that the time is not available.

[Mick]

Originally posted by Simon666

I thought Saddam did not care about his people. Last time he knew he could survive without using them, this time he knows he couldn't. So why wouldn't he use them? He's a dictator after all, he can bomb soldiers or Israel with these weapons if he wants to and if he has them. Unless Saddam is indeed taken out, which would be the first good thing I hear in this stupid war.

Here we go again. So Saddam has a missle in his pants? He can run around and fire off every piece of artillery or missle in one night. We are talking about soldiers. We are talking about their home, and their country. We are talking about their will to fight, and while I am sure they would lay down their life for a just cause, but defending Saddam is not a just cause.

There are Iraqi troops that do want to fight, as you might have noticed by now in Umm Qasr. Do you believe Saddam would have entrusted these weapons to the soldiers that do not wish to fight? And he has used these weapons already against his own people in the North, I don't recall him liking the South (Basra, Umm Qasr) either, remember the little Shia thing last time?

Hmm Saddam trusts any of his soldiers? Which one would that be?

I don't call Umm Qasr a fight, I call it a coffee break. If you can not see the overwhelming force, tactics and equipment we have then your missing something. But as I say that I am reminded of the french. The french could have stopped the germans cold in WWII, they had a superiour tank, the renault. The had inferriour tactics, and thus succumbed. It is the sum of the parts, and right now Iraq has no parts to sum.

Since when has the use of protection means preserved the enemy from using these weapons? In WWI, despite of gas masks, gas was still used against the enemy. And he can still throw them on non-military targets or on bases such as those in Kuwait? Or do the US troops walk around in their outfits there? And remains the fact that you have to pull these outfits on real fast, often that fast that the time is not available.

Gas Masks came about why then? Logic, Simon, Logic.

And BTW yes they are walking around with protective suits on, some of our armoured vechiles are chemical/biological proof (which is to say why I call a bullet proof vest, bullet resistant) so the specs say. As far as pulling them on fast, well we kinda know when artillery has been fired or a missle has been fired. See 'radar', see how we counter fire artillery battries, some how I really do think it has to do with rader, but I could be wrong...but that isn't likely in your lifetime or mine.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
My opinion on this is I think supported by the 91 campaign, because for the same reason they did not use WMD (which they clearly had at that time) was the fear of the retrubution that would follow. Our largest tactical nuke I think is 1000 times the power or maybe it's 100 times the power of Hiroshima, and we have a number of them. I would hesitate to think of the destruction in terms of lives they would cause.

Originally posted by Mick_2002
Here we go again. So Saddam has a missle in his pants? He can run around and fire off every piece of artillery or missle in one night. We are talking about soldiers. We are talking about their home, and their country. We are talking about their will to fight, and while I am sure they would lay down their life for a just cause, but defending Saddam is not a just cause.

I was not talking about soldiers, I was talking about Saddam who would not hesitate to use this weapons to save his own life. You're maybe reacting to the wrong part of my answer.

Originally posted by Mick_2002
Hmm Saddam trusts any of his soldiers? Which one would that be?

At some point, you have to rely on other people to defend you. If you're talking about individual soldiers, Saddam indeed trusts none. That doesn't mean however he will not ask anybody (Republican Guard, nephew he hasn't killed yet) to defend him, thus entrust his defense to them. If he trusts none of his soldiers, he could take no action.

Originally posted by Mick_2002
And BTW yes they are walking around with protective suits on, some of our armoured vechiles are chemical/biological proof (which is to say why I call a bullet proof vest, bullet resistant) so the specs say. As far as pulling them on fast, well we kinda know when artillery has been fired or a missle has been fired. See 'radar', see how we counter fire artillery battries, some how I really do think it has to do with rader, but I could be wrong...but that isn't likely in your lifetime or mine.

Mr. strategic genius, how much time in advance does radar give a warning that a missile has been fired and how much time does it take to put such a suit on? And how would you discern a chemical from a conventional artillery shell?

Small calculation example: Al Samoud missile. Let us say this missile is rather slow and flies at Mach 3, thus around 1 km/s. The Al Samoud flies 180 km far, if you believe US/UN claims. A small multiplication learns you have at most 3 minutes time between launch and impact. This implies you also have some time to detect it when it is a certain distance in the air, a certain time to sound the alarm, find out what is going on, find where the hell all your equipment is and put it all on in the remaining time. This is in the case it impacts right on top, unlikely, but even then. Let alone what happens if artillery shells are fired over much shorter range at around the same speed.

[Mick]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Simon666

I was not talking about soldiers, I was talking about Saddam who would not hesitate to use this weapons to save his own life. You're maybe reacting to the wrong part of my answer.

No..you missed the point. Who fires the weapons? Saddam? If I am going to Nuke brussels, my president might give the order, but whom do you think follows that order, or not follows it as we hope they/I would if given that order

At some point, you have to rely on other people to defend you. If you're talking about individual soldiers, Saddam indeed trusts none. That doesn't mean however he will not ask anybody (Republican Guard, nephew he hasn't killed yet) to defend him, thus entrust his defense to them. If he trusts none of his soldiers, he could take no action.

What action has he taken? Some broad pre-defined orders, he has no command and control. He never did.

Mr. strategic genius, how much time in advance does radar give a warning that a missile has been fired and how much time does it take to put such a suit on? And how would you discern a chemical from a conventional artillery shell?

I don't need to worry about that, I leave that up to our fine armed forces to deduce. And you don't discern, you be prepared.

Small calculation example: Al Samoud missile. Let us say this missile is rather slow and flies at Mach 3, thus around 1 km/s. The Al Samoud flies 180 km far, if you believe US/UN claims. A small multiplication learns you have at most 3 minutes time between launch and impact. This implies you also have some time to detect it when it is a certain distance in the air, a certain time to sound the alarm, find out what is going on, find where the hell all your equipment is and put it all on in the remaining time. This is in the case it impacts right on top, unlikely, but even then. Let alone what happens if artillery shells are fired over much shorter range at around the same speed.

I'm sorry you have already violated the UN resolutions. 180km what were you thinking?

[SolarFlare]

The fact is, firing weapons of mass destruction on US troops would not save Iraq or Saddam. Even if they could kill hundreds of thousands of troops by firing off all the weapons, (which is very very very very unlikely), there are still millions more against them. I think the reason he doesn't use them, if he has them, is because he knows there are better uses for them.

So what could he do with them that would be more effective? He could be selling them to dangerous groups, or he could plan to use them himself against local cities - possibly even Baghdad.

[Goodz13]

I don't think that Iraq has WMD. I beleave that Saddam has complied with UN inspectors and got rid of the weapons before the inspectors came in. I beleave that Bushes strategy has been from the beggining, disarm then attack.

Please note that I'm not on Iraq's side, nore do I think that Saddam should stay in power, I'm just against the whole campaign.

[Mick]

Originally posted by Goodz13
I don't think that Iraq has WMD. I beleave that Saddam has complied with UN inspectors and got rid of the weapons before the inspectors came in. I beleave that Bushes strategy has been from the beggining, disarm then attack.

Please note that I'm not on Iraq's side, nore do I think that Saddam should stay in power, I'm just against the whole campaign.

I don't disagree with you about Bush wanting to remove Saddam, I believe he put that in his dear diary as soon as he started his run for presidency. I do disagree with you about WMD. They have them, and they have labs to create them. It will all come out in short order.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
It will all come out in short order.

The US claim to have arrested a general who could know more and have searched a chemical plant they suspected of producing WMD. Then there are four options:

1. There will be found WMD, Bush is right.
2. There will be found WMD, Bush is right but has misled us by keeping it silent for weapons inspectors just to prove only invasion works and not the weiners of the UN.
3. There will be found WMD, but later it will turn out it is as fake as Bush citing a non-existing IAEA report, the Nigerian false documents of Iraq trying to purchase uranium, and Blair's magnificently original report that's actually copy-and-pasted and that the factory found is actually a teddybear-production line.
4. There will not be found WMD, only some chemicals for civilian use showing Bush' stupid invasion is a big lie from day one.

My best guess is that is will either turn out to be nothing or else later turn out as fake evidence and propaganda to justify this stupid war. Which option(s) do you think is (are) likely?

[Elrond]

Originally posted by Mick_2002
We are talking about their home, and their country. We are talking about their will to fight, and while I am sure they would lay down their life for a just cause, but defending Saddam is not a just cause.

Their homes are being bombed. It seems that some soldiers have decided to fight, and that not every one surrenders.

Obviously, the Iraqis are poorly equiped and will probably not be a big trouble, but some of them doesn't welcome the US soldiers. Given the coalition tactics of bombing cities, they HAVE something to fight for that is worth much more than SH.

Hmm Saddam trusts any of his soldiers? Which one would that be?

None, But he still have some parts of his army in which he would have much more confidence than others.

I don't call Umm Qasr a fight, I call it a coffee break. If you can not see the overwhelming force, tactics and equipment we have then your missing something. But as I say that I am reminded of the french. The french could have stopped the germans cold in WWII, they had a superiour tank, the renault. The had inferriour tactics, and thus succumbed. It is the sum of the parts, and right now Iraq has no parts to sum.

Lousy argument. The French had a good tank, may be two... They had so few that they had no chance against the german tanks. This came from an initial strategy mistake. After, that, they really didn't have a real chance of doing anything. When the war started, it was already too late.

About Iraq, they have a very poor army, and we know they have about no chance to beat the US-led coalition. But they can still do some damage and kill some coalition soldiers, even if that's about all they can do.

Would some dangerous crazy leader attack your country, with an army so big you would have no chance of success, would this army bomb your cities, would you just surrender because the opponent is too strong?

And I don't know why they wouldn't use their WMD. Launching a few missiles with gaz have very little chances to trigger a nuclear ripost by the US. It could kill a few soldiers, as they don't wear their gas-mask 24 hours a day. And SH has not really anything to loose anymore, and probably have enough loyal soldiers to launch a few of them.

[Simon666]

I didn't notice Mick's original reply yet, but now that I see Elrond reacting to it:

Originally posted by Mick_2002
No..you missed the point. Who fires the weapons? Saddam? If I am going to Nuke brussels, my president might give the order, but whom do you think follows that order, or not follows it as we hope they/I would if given that order

Saddam gives the order, soldier carries out. Why would a soldier not agree on launching a SCUD missile against Kuwait, Israel or Qatar if there would be no retalliation? I think there are no SCUDS. And I also agree with Elrond, nuclear retalliation is unlikely or would turn the entire world - not just muslims - against the US if they only fired some chemical shells in their defense, which might work as US soldiers do not were gas masks all the time. So the point that soldiers would refuse to execute these orders is unlikely, especially if he entrusted these to the Republican Guard.

Originally posted by Mick_2002
What action has he taken? Some broad pre-defined orders, he has no command and control. He never did.

I believe he did set up a strategy in advance, although by now he has probably indeed no command and control. Apparently the US army's assumption of "isolated pockets of resistance" is not correct whatsoever as are the assumptions they would be accepted with open arms in the south. Dropping such controversial weaponry as cluster bombs on Basra is not helping in turning the people against Saddam, rather on the contrary.

Originally posted by Mick_2002
I don't need to worry about that, I leave that up to our fine armed forces to deduce. And you don't discern, you be prepared.

Your fine armed forces brilliant strategists had occupied and secured Umm Qasr after one day. Guess again. And I ask myself how the heck is it possible soldiers can drive lost and get captured with present day technology and GPS? Maybe to many uneducated people in the army and people for which the army is the only job they can get?

Originally posted by Simon666
Mr. strategic genius, how much time in advance does radar give a warning that a missile has been fired and how much time does it take to put such a suit on? And how would you discern a chemical from a conventional artillery shell?

Small calculation example: Al Samoud missile. Let us say this missile is rather slow and flies at Mach 3, thus around 1 km/s. The Al Samoud flies 180 km far, if you believe US/UN claims. A small multiplication learns you have at most 3 minutes time between launch and impact. This implies you also have some time to detect it when it is a certain distance in the air, a certain time to sound the alarm, find out what is going on, find where the hell all your equipment is and put it all on in the remaining time. This is in the case it impacts right on top, unlikely, but even then. Let alone what happens if artillery shells are fired over much shorter range at around the same speed.

Originally posted by Mick_2002
I'm sorry you have already violated the UN resolutions. 180km what were you thinking?

Giving good counter-arguments isn't your strongest point, isn't it?

[Mick]

Originally posted by Simon666

Your fine armed forces brilliant strategists had occupied and secured Umm Qasr after one day. Guess again. And I ask myself how the heck is it possible soldiers can drive lost and get captured with present day technology and GPS? Maybe to many uneducated people in the army and people for which the army is the only job they can get?

I'm pretty sure that supply groups don't have GPS, but you should be able to read a map. But then the desert isn't the best place to try and pick out landmarks to go by.

Giving good counter-arguments isn't your strongest point, isn't it?

Asking questions that are not ridiculious in the first place isn't yours

[Gabriel Fleseriu]

Dang it! Mick, Simon, why on earth do you have to attack each other again??? C'mon, people, I'm sure we can analyze the facts impartally and without jumping at each other.

[Mick]

Originally posted by Elrond


Their homes are being bombed. It seems that some soldiers have decided to fight, and that not every one surrenders.

Obviously, the Iraqis are poorly equiped and will probably not be a big trouble, but some of them doesn't welcome the US soldiers. Given the coalition tactics of bombing cities, they HAVE something to fight for that is worth much more than SH.


None, But he still have some parts of his army in which he would have much more confidence than others.

My comment was to reflect using WMD on your own terriotry. But they have done it before in Iraq. I don't find it hard to believe anyone being patriotic and wanting to defend their own lands, but lauching WMD on your own land, I would any person doing so would hesitate. Also the circumstances are different, some don't want to fight for Saddam. I don't say all, I say some. And we are doing our best not to bomb their homes, just saddams homes.

Lousy argument. The French had a good tank, may be two... They had so few that they had no chance against the german tanks. This came from an initial strategy mistake. After, that, they really didn't have a real chance of doing anything. When the war started, it was already too late.

Actually they had more tanks than the germans. They just spread them out. While the Germans used their blitzkrieg and concentrated armour tactics.

About Iraq, they have a very poor army, and we know they have about no chance to beat the US-led coalition. But they can still do some damage and kill some coalition soldiers, even if that's about all they can do.

Would some dangerous crazy leader attack your country, with an army so big you would have no chance of success, would this army bomb your cities, would you just surrender because the opponent is too strong?

No I wouldn't surrender if I beleived in what I was fighting for. My point is I do not think the vast majority of Iraqi soldiers believe in what they are fighting for.

And I don't know why they wouldn't use their WMD. Launching a few missiles with gaz have very little chances to trigger a nuclear ripost by the US. It could kill a few soldiers, as they don't wear their gas-mask 24 hours a day. And SH has not really anything to loose anymore, and probably have enough loyal soldiers to launch a few of them.

They may or may not kill a few soilders. Gas masks are not the only thing you need when dealing with WMD. They are as prepared as they can be with chem/bio suits and gas mask ready. I'll point out again that some of our armour M1A2 I believe is chem/bio resistant. I have to agree, you'd have to kill alot of our soilders to trigger any tactical nuke usage. I don't know about SH, if you have read his bio you would see he is the consumate survivour. I believe he believes he can get out of this. If he uses WMD he certainly wouldn't be able to negotiate at the end for exile. But who knows his mind...