60% of Americans Support Nuking Iraq

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Well maybe you want to care what the average voting American thinks as soon they will vote Ashcroft or worse to be the president.

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave


Well who do you nuke?

The ground troops or the city if it is war in the city for example?
b) do noting - that means defeat them using conventional means - shouldn't be to hard for you, or is 1000 of your soldiers worth 100 000 Iraqi civilians, sounds like Nazi tactics to me.

Considering that a chemical attack is expected to inflict 40% casulties on the afflicted forces your estimate of 1000 deaths is sadly and pathetically low. You are not dealing with some agient like anthrax, a modern chemical weapon attack with an agent such as Sarin or VX is beyond an act of war, it is an act of national suicide. How would any nation react if they lost 80,000 citizens in less than an hour? Note: What if the force included Brits, Germans, ect. And of course any attack by WMD's would be bound to kill off a good number of innnocent Saudi, and Kuwati's at the very least. If Iraq uses WMD's the world would not give a rats ass about what had happened to them, that debate would begin with the next generation (or two).

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber



Considering that a chemical attack is expected to inflict 40% casulties on the afflicted forces your estimate of 1000 deaths is sadly and pathetically low. You are not dealing with some agient like anthrax, a modern chemical weapon attack with an agent such as Sarin or VX is beyond an act of war, it is an act of national suicide. How would any nation react if they lost 80,000 citizens in less than an hour? Note: What if the force included Brits, Germans, ect. And of course any attack by WMD's would be bound to kill off a good number of innnocent Saudi, and Kuwati's at the very least. If Iraq uses WMD's the world would not give a rats ass about what had happened to them, that debate would begin with the next generation (or two).

And the US soldier knowing that Saddam has WOMD go into the war unprepared ready for chemicak/biological agents to be unleashed upon them.

If someone should be ready for such an attack it is the invading troops.

[DanS]

" However, I think Sloww missed the bigger point on the thread, one I also agree with--it is disturbing and abhorrent that 60% of the public would favor using nukes in such a situation. It does not paint a pretty picture of Americans."

That's not the point of this thread.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by DanS
" However, I think Sloww missed the bigger point on the thread, one I also agree with--it is disturbing and abhorrent that 60% of the public would favor using nukes in such a situation. It does not paint a pretty picture of Americans."

That's not the point of this thread.

What is the point than ...

*OUR WORDS ARE BACKED WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS*

We will trash you if you don't obey?

[Mad Bomber]

Sure if you call a chem suit with a filter only good for 4 hours and a single shot of epinepherine prepared.....

[Capt Dizle]

anti-american trashspeak..

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
Sure if you call a chem suit with a filter only good for 4 hours and a single shot of epinepherine prepared.....

Well I guess US militaty should know how to prepare well, apart from that, does an attack at military still warrant nuking cities to stop the war? Started from the outside especially as there are no WOMDs found yet.
We are not talking Saddam WOMD'ing Israel or Saudis. But the attacking army in self defense. If it was Iranian army surely noone would be saying *nuke the bastard* he used WOMD.

It just tells you about the average american egocentric view. As long as it is not me on the line it's OK. And even more " if we nuke them" well someone might try much harder to hit us back (like terrorists). Can you stop that? Always? For sure? Of course not, but not many are thinking about possible consequencest that is for sure. Still egocentric, "we are the best" worldview warrants the below.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by DanS
" However, I think Sloww missed the bigger point on the thread, one I also agree with--it is disturbing and abhorrent that 60% of the public would favor using nukes in such a situation. It does not paint a pretty picture of Americans."

That's not the point of this thread.

Fair enough, not the point originially intended, but I think that's what most of the posts have been driving at.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
anti-american trashspeak..

Please back your words with reason not spam.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
Well I guess US militaty should know how to prepare well, apart from that, does an attack at military still warrant nuking cities to stop the war?

Hasn't that question already been answered in the affirmative?

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave


Please back your words with reason not spam.

Stick it in your ear.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Hasn't that question already been answered in the affirmative?

That is the whole point - as it has been answered in the affirmative, that tell you a lot about the people answering.

Should be sent to Iraq for 3 months community service.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


Stick it in your ear.

Sounds reasonable to me

[GePap]

What the american public thinks is reall not any concern: they have no say in foreign plicy decisions unless we speak of prolongued wars (which they can try to stop through elections), which is not going to happen in Iraq.
Calling Chemical weapons a Weapon of Mass destruction is a by-product of history, but it does not make much pratical sense: Chemical warheads are more deadly than explosive ones, but to achieve mass casualties, both for troop or civilians, you still need a significant ammount. Look at the 1995 sarin attack on the tokyo Subway. 11 died. A granade attack in suc a small crowded space might have done just as much damage and created a similar death-toll. Or take those Kurdish vilages gassed: 5,000 dead in several towns: the Iraqis could have killed the same amount with conventional might, at a higher (but not extravagantly higher) cost. So yes, Chemical weapons reduce the cost per kill, but they are nowhere near as effective as even a small nuke in the same given area.


The US would never use nukes against Iraqi population centers without a directed Biological or Nuclear attack against US cities from Iraq (which ain't going to happen). Using chemical weapons on our troops would not by enough to get the US political leadership to act in such a provocative manner as to use nuclear weapons, even if we had thousands of casulties (and perhaps a few hundread fatalities)

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
That is the whole point - as it has been answered in the affirmative, that tell you a lot about the people answering.

Polls aren't used to make policy and Iraq isn't Imperial Japan.

[Capt Dizle]

Yes, GePap. I think we could expect a reasoned, proportionate response.

[TCO]

I thought the Iraqis declared they had no Chemical weapons. And the inspectors would never let any get by them, right? So it's all academic.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Polls aren't used to make policy and Iraq isn't Imperial Japan.

Sure it is not about the policy it is about the poll- to quote myself

That is the whole point - as it has been answered in the affirmative, that tell you a lot about the people answering.

Good that GW Bush was not a participant in the poll

[aahz_capone]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
Well maybe you want to care what the average voting American thinks as soon they will vote Ashcroft or worse to be the president.

Nooooooooooo!!!!

[SlowwHand]

Let's look at the facts, including history, objectively.

The U.S. used nuclear weapons against one country 60 years ago (almost).

Today, countries are trying to get to where we were 60 years ago.
Why don't we just throw rocks? Nukes? Nukes are passe.

[Gatekeeper]

It could be interesting if we end up fighting in Iraq.

Reports are surfacing that Saddam Hussein is planning on a "scorched earth" policy that involves destroying oil wells, obliterating warehouses of food and "manufacturing" civilian deaths (gee, I wonder what that means). There was also something mentioned about WMDs, but I didn't catch it all. He also plans to withdraw into Baghdad and draw enemy troops into urban combat (other cities as well, I suppose).

On a final note, Saddam also apparently still harbors a great deal of hatred for Kuwait's royal family. Wait a sec. Didn't he just extend an "olive branch" a week or so ago to Kuwait? What's up with that? Was he being two-faced about it? That bastard.

Gatekeeper

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap
What the american public thinks is reall not any concern: they have no say in foreign plicy decisions unless we speak of prolongued wars (which they can try to stop through elections), which is not going to happen in Iraq.
Calling Chemical weapons a Weapon of Mass destruction is a by-product of history, but it does not make much pratical sense: Chemical warheads are more deadly than explosive ones, but to achieve mass casualties, both for troop or civilians, you still need a significant ammount. Look at the 1995 sarin attack on the tokyo Subway. 11 died. A granade attack in suc a small crowded space might have done just as much damage and created a similar death-toll. Or take those Kurdish vilages gassed: 5,000 dead in several towns: the Iraqis could have killed the same amount with conventional might, at a higher (but not extravagantly higher) cost. So yes, Chemical weapons reduce the cost per kill, but they are nowhere near as effective as even a small nuke in the same given area.


The US would never use nukes against Iraqi population centers without a directed Biological or Nuclear attack against US cities from Iraq (which ain't going to happen). Using chemical weapons on our troops would not by enough to get the US political leadership to act in such a provocative manner as to use nuclear weapons, even if we had thousands of casulties (and perhaps a few hundread fatalities)

Good post GePap. The consideration of Chemical Weapons a weapon of mass destruction is a stretch.

While deadly the area of effect is greatly dependent on weather conditions and terrain. As you indicated rather large doses of chemical weapons would be required in order to have large effect.

If memory serves cost to kill ratios are in the following order (ranked highest to lowest)

Conventional weapons
Chemical Weapons
Nukes
Biologicals

[Az]

It all depends, really

Try to place a battery of MLRSs in brooklyn, Aim at Manhatten, and see how it kills tens of thousands of people.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

True but considering the two big monsters Nukes and Biologicals your considering deaths of hundreds of thousands to millions in the same target area no?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel
It all depends, really

Try to place a battery of MLRSs in brooklyn, Aim at Manhatten, and see how it kills tens of thousands of people.

As certain single buildings in Manhattan do hold tens of thousands of people, it would all depend on a certain lucky hit.

The nuber of likely fatalities from a chemical attack vary greatly with weather conditions at the target site far more than conventional weapons. Carry out an attack of a blustery night, and you will have far less effect than on a cam balmy night. The same variability does not apply to a bomb. Besides, many of Iraqi's chemical weapons are not even nerve agents, but blistering agents like Mustard Gas, far less lethal tan Nerve gas, but great at creating casualties (and thus hampering enemy logistics). In fact, the 'side effects' of chemical weapons, like demoralization, hampering movement, and causing a logistics logjam with casualties are as important as its 'direct' consequences (fatalities) as far as military use goes.

Nuclear weapons are not terribly effective agaisnt field units comared with modern US precision guided munitions, and nuclear attack on civilian centers is out of the question without a preceding similar act aganist US cities.

[MichaeltheGreat]

The point to using WMD's in retaliation (let's keep in mind that's the scenario) is not killing Iraqis per se, but making it clear to all other nations in all future wars that use of WMD's in warfare will have devastating consequences to the initiators.

If you back down like a bunch of spineless chickenchokers, you're telling the entire world that anything goes on the battlefield. From there, it's not a big stretch for people who rationalize that the battlefield is everywhere and that anyone's a legitimate target to extend use of WMD in battle to use of them in guerrila/terrorist actions.

You don't need to use city-busting megaton plus devices over baghdad - kiloton yield devices on Saddam's "presidential palaces" or Iraqi forces in the field would also work, but with an enemy like Iraq (if we do go to war), I don't think even that would be necessary.

The entire point of the issue is deterrance, nothing more.

[SlowwHand]

Dear Ma and Pa:


Am well. Hope you are. Tell Brother Walt and Brother Elmer the Army beats working for Old Man Minch a mile. Tell them to join up quick before maybe all the places are filled.

I was restless at first because you got to stay in bed till nearly 6 a.m., but am getting so I like to sleep late.

Tell Walt and Elmer all you do before breakfast is smooth your cot and shine some things -- no hogs to slop, feed to pitch, mash to mix, wood to split, fire to lay. Practically nothing.

Men got to shave, but it is not bad they git warm water. Breakfast is strong on trimmings like fruit juice, cereal, eggs, bacon, etc., but kind of weak on chops, potatoes, beef, ham, steak, fried eggplant, pie and regular food. But tell Walt and Elmer you can always sit between two city boys that live on coffee. Their food plus yours holds you till noon, when you get fed again.

It's no wonder these city boys can't walk much. We go on "route marches, " which, the Sgt. says, are long walks to harden us. If he thinks so, it is not my place to tell him different. A "route march" is about as far as to our mailbox at home. Then the city guys all get sore feet and we ride back in trucks. The country is nice, but awful flat.

The Sgt. is like a schoolteacher. He nags some. The Capt. is like the school board. Cols. and Gens. just ride around and frown. They don't bother you none.

This next will kill Walt and Elmer with laughing. I keep getting medals for shooting. I don't know why. The bull's-eye is near as big as a chipmunk and don't move. And it ain't shooting at you, like the Higsett boys at home. All you got to do is lie there all comfortable and hit it. You don't even load your own cartridges. They come in boxes.

Be sure to tell Walt and Elmer to hurry and join before other fellows get onto this setup and come stampeding in.



Your loving daughter, Gail



P.S. Speaking of shooting, enclosed is $200 for barn roof and ma's teeth. The city boys shoot craps, but not very good.

[Pekka]

I've given this more thought, and come to conclusion that US will not us nukes what ever the situation.
Just rethorics Dubya likes to use a lot. Maybe try to prevent Saddam using chem weapons. And even if he does, nuking wouldn't be the response.
War against Iraq can be won without nukes. Even if it responds with chem weapons, it doesn't mean anything but some losses, win is still coming pretty quickly. So the point of using nukes would be a matter of principal, and because Aschroft is not the President, it won't happen.

[mrmitchell]

have not read through all of your arguments, but:

Saddam can do whatever the heck he wants to. We're supposed to be above that. And bio, chem weapons are supposed to not be in the rules of war, but this is Saddam Hussein. Do you think he's going to play by the rules? We follow our morals, he follows the 0 that he has. Generally it's been shown anyone who doesn't stick to their beliefs gets the short end of the deal (not that war is a deal.)



(In other words, no, nuking is wrong)