[John H K]

Despite the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" moniker it's unlikely that Iraq using Chemical weapons would have killed many coalition soldiers or slowed down the fall of Baghdad by much.

Simply not that great if you have trouble delivering them effectively, and you're delivering them against troops trained in chemical warfare and with plenty of protective suits.

[WOSG]

right, chemical weapons are great against innocent villagers of poor conscripts stuck in trenchs, not so great against a fast-moving mobile army with sealed venting systems on their armor that make them immune from WMD attacks and well-equipped and well-trained troops with MOPP suits galore.

They would have just ended up killing civilians if they pulled that stunt. That would have been the main reason it would have slowed us down - we'd have stopped to assist others affected by it.

[alnick]

Despite the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" moniker it's unlikely that Iraq using Chemical weapons would have killed many coalition soldiers or slowed down the fall of Baghdad by much.

Simply not that great if you have trouble delivering them effectively, and you're delivering them against troops trained in chemical warfare and with plenty of protective suits.

That makes sense. It explains why the regime would have destroyed them right before the war rather than try to use them against us.

Still though, I got very nervous whenever an air raid siren would go off in Kuwait.