Iraqi Republican Guards Given Specific ORDERS To Use Chemical Warfare!

FNC - FNC embedded reporters. | Bill O'Riley / FNC

[applemac_g4]

Does anyone know what percentage of our armor, infantry, and air forces are committed to Iraq?

[Wil H]

I hope we are going to have the good sense to attack them from upwind..

[henbane]

I'm pretty sure A-10s are pressurized.

[carl in alaska]

I agree. We will not use nukes on the Iraqi troops that are firing chemical weapons into our positions, because the Iraqi's are too close to us. The radioactive fallout could be devastating to our soldiers and to the civilian population of Baghdad. I think instead we will use the MOAB or Daisy Cutters dropped from fairly high altitudes. There's a slight chance that we might drop a tactical nuke on a remote Iraqi WMD site just to tell them we're really angry and the next tactical nuke will be closer to Baghdad. But the political and diplomatic ramifications of using nukes near a civilian population are extremely serious. We will absolutely not use nukes near Baghdad, because that could cause us to win this war but ultimately lose the war on terror by losing the cooperation of a number of our allies.

[infowarrior]

Do you have any idea how our troops can defend themselves...

It's called thermal-imaging and can see in a blowing sandstorm, as it relies on temperature differentials, rather than light. Our troops aren't as blind as you may think...

the infowarrior

[babygene]

"I agree. MOAB and cousine "Daisy Cutter" are in order. However, I think both of these massive bombs can only be dropped from relatively slow C-130 turbo prop cargo planes or some similar planes. "

As I understand it, the new MOABs are dropped from 20,000 feet without a parachute. An improvment over the daisy cutter...

[geege]

Yogi?????

[We Happy Few]

Thanks. So what does "arc light" refer to?

[libertylover]

The Friday before the war, Fox carried footage of an officer telling his troops that if the enemy uses chem/bio, 'we'll head for the bunker's and ride it out, then we'll emerge and smite this guy with a force he's never seen before.'

I saw an interview where an officer was asked what our response to a chemical attack would be. He answered (twice) that the response would be "dramatic".

[TexasGunLover]

While I certainly think we should use nukes in response. It is my opinion that we won't. Historically we haven't when chems have been used against U.S. soldiers in the past. Having it as an option isn't the same as using it.

[the_doc]

Thanks for the info.

[algol]

They could always use neutron bombs. They kill all life forms but leave buildings and infrastructure intact.

The ability of neutron bombs (aka "enhanced radiation weapons") to leave buildings intact is greatly overrated. You still get a bloody big explosion, it just that more of the energy of the bomb comes out as neutrons vs blast than in other nukes of equivalent yield.

They were designed for use against tank columns in Europe, where the towns are "about 5 kilotons apart", and where the radiation is more likely to damage the tank crews than the blast would. They'd still make a mess of the buildings if detonated in/over a city.

[spunkets]

"what is the vulnerability of Apaches and Warthogs to chemical attack?"

Low. They both fly high and would not likely fly into a chem cloud. Chem weapon mists are quite dense and tend to stick close to the ground. If they're in close enough, they'd note chem suits and oil mists. VX types are the only dangerous ones for consideration anyway, because they have effects after sub milligram doses. Less than 10 mg kills. They would want a chem suit and mask for these just to exit the craft if the stuff was stuck to the outside of the craft. Although some are outfitted for NBC situations, I don't know if that's a regular engineering feature on the std. crafts.

[Centurion2000]

Bush approves nuclear response
Nicholas Kralev<>P THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Published January 31, 2003

A classified document signed by President Bush specifically allows for the use of nuclear weapons in response to biological or chemical attacks. Apparently changing a decades-old U.S. policy of deliberate ambiguity, it was learned by The Washington Times.

The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force including potentially nuclear weapons to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies, the document, National Security Presidential Directive 17, set out on Sept. 14 last year. .....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/875360/posts

Some facts you might want to look and think about on this subject.

[TexasGunLover]

Facts that I had taken into account... having the option doesn't mean using it... I've never said the option wasn't there... All I'm saying is that we won't use the option.

[JimRed]

however, in defeat, they might use them on the civilians and then blame the US.

Except that we really DON'T have them. That's why the nuke response option exists.

[JimRed]

We will not use nukes on the Iraqi troops that are firing chemical weapons into our positions, because the Iraqi's are too close to us. The radioactive fallout could be devastating to our soldiers and to the civilian population of Baghdad.

You're thinking too big! Low yield battlefield nukes airburst over their formations would be very effective with little fallout or danger to civilians (unless they are looking the wrong way and get flash-blinded).

[Revel]

Thanks. And it looks like at this time that they have been doing just fine.

[Revel]

Thanks. And it looks like at this time that they have been doing just fine.