[RightWhale]

This is one of the scenarios. Degree of difficulty is exceptionally high. Besides which, the country would be turned upside down and inside out overnight looking for devices.

And Baghdad, too. Overnight. Game Over.

[JoeSixPack1]

Your equation is in error because you are discounting the "insane" factor.

[Arkinsaw]

Hussein is not going to waste a functioning nuclear device on a desert demonstration. Even if he did, this would mean the end of him, his regime, and a bunch of people in Iraq also. The government is just as likely to wipe him out for a nuke in Nevada as in LA, its all US territory and the American people would not be so discriminating.

If he was planning to do what you said he would most likely, IMO, detonate one at home and then inform our government privately that he had placed one. Whether he had or not it would make us sweat.

[DoughtyOne]

He would most definately do it, because we couldn't tell who set it off. We could surmise, but I doubt we could completely pin it down. To pin it down, it would almost require prior knkowledge to make the case. IMO, once it's done, most if not all tracks are vaporized.

[Blueflag]

As I understand them, small "suitcase" atomic weapons are inherently unstable and degrade rapidly. Also they are reputed to be high neutron and Alpha emitters. We are already looking for them, have been. Afterall, we found commercial tile with too high a background radiation level in shipboard cargo containers.

You have to play out the scenario -- At what risk do you decide to play HIS game.

I say never.

[vannrox]

You are also forgetting the possibility that he will threaten other nations so as to get his way during UN negotiations, etc. I personally believe that that is the reason why France is so anti-US action. They are afraid of internal Terror cells operating in France.

[Thud]

All those hyperventilating about Iraqi/terrorist nukes pretend that (a) we don't have any nukes and (b) we wouldn't use any if we somehow obtained somebody else's nukes.

"Major Strosser has been nuked!"
"Nuke all the usual suspects."

The trick is to be thorough.

[pfflier]

And he is capable of it.

And we are vulnerable to this scenario.

And it may still be preventable if we do something.

And the UN could care less.

[Go Gordon]

I thought nuke devices need to be maintained. Somewhere on another thread I thought it was like every 6 months or so. If thats anywhere near true, his blackmail will only work for a short period of time (assuming he wouldn't also have the capability to maintain them, secretly, here in the US)

[aristeides]

What makes you think we haven't already been attacked with a weapon of mass destruction? What do you make of last year's anthrax?

[rdb3]

Far-fetched, but plausible. There's no denying that.

[colorado tanker]

Nuclear blackmail is the concern, although I don't know that its been much of a secret.

An alternative would be to float a nuke concealed in a merchant ship offshore from N.Y. or L.A.

I think the more likely scenario would be Saddam takes Kuwait in a conventional attack and then informs the U.S. that if we try to eject him again he will detonate a nuke. Then all the Dims and Euroweenies would try to stop us from calling his bluff, saying Kuwait (or whatever he took) isn't worth nuclear war.

The problem is similar to what we faced in the Cold War. By the 70's the Soviets had overwhelming numerical superiority in Central Europe. What if the Soviets launched a purely conventional attack and because of numbers broke through? Would we actually implement our first strike policy to save Frankfurt? The pressure not to go nuclear would have been enormous. So, Reagan rebuilt our conventional capability so he wouldn't have to face that dilemma.

[jslade]

After this, Hussein would appear in the media and credibly claim that he has hidden several of these devices in secret locations in New York, Washington, Chicago and Los Angeles. He would also state that any attack on his country would lead to massive destruction of these cities, immediately.

Lessee. These are all "blue" areas. Let me think on this one.

[Cold Heat]

He wouldn’t actually detonate these devices in a large metropolitan area. This would be suicide on his part. If he did, there would be massive retaliation, and probably the destruction of Iraq and most of its people. This serves no purpose. Its called MAD, mutually assured destruction. It is what has provided relative world peace for the last 50 years.

Horse apples!

He would simply blackmail the free world by threatening Israel with it. He would detonate it if attacked. He would be dead either way.

[valkyrieanne]

Oh, forget it. If Saddam lit off a nuke anywhere on US soil, it would be bye-bye Baghdad.

[ArcLight]

Oh, it's simpler than that. Saddam just says, "hey guys, I'm going to seize Kuwait again. Mess with me, and I'll nuke the Saudi oil fields." Just like that, a huge proportion of the world's oil supply disappears and the planet is plunged into economic catastrophe. And he'd do it, too.

[Travis McGee]

You fatal error is in assuming that a MAD posture will work with an extreme sociopath like Saddam, who more than anything is intoxicated by grandiose visions of himself leaving an eternal mark on history.

He would gladly see Bagdad and ten Arab capitals get nuked in return for the destruction of the state of Israel.

Take a look at the humongous statues of Saddam all over Iraq: he knows he won't live forever, but is motivated by having his name and legend go on forever.

Cornered, he will act like Hitler in his bunker and try to destroy everything in his reach.

[Zon]

Iraq citizens or soldiers can take out Hussein to save there own butts from being annihilated. Which might happen even if Hussein doesn't detonate a nuke. It is from this that Hussein's worst enemy is himself and not the U.S. or a West coalition.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

This is an old concept that dates from WWII, when many argued that we should drop the A-bomb on top of Mt. Fuji instead of on a city, in order to demonstrate to the Japanese that they were powerless against us.

I think it is fatally flawed in the current situation for two reasons, one practical, one theoretical.

The practical problem: From the moment these devices get near the coast of the country they are subject to capture by the "enemy" (us). There are many points that radiation from such a device could be detected -- everything would have to go just right and no accidental discovery could occur throughout the complex process of importing and placing these devices. This is one of many reasons why no one risks their nuclear weapons in this manner -- the worst possible outcome is to have your ultimate weapon captured 10,000 miles from territory you control.

The theoretical: Even if an enemy nuclear device were exploded in such a manner as no one was killed by the blast, there would be significant environmental damage -- and merely the gaul of setting off such a device on our territory would be enough to result in a massive nuclear strike against Iraq. There is no way to do this in which there would not be an overwhelming response. Hell, we'd probably nuke Iraq if they even thought about such a thing.

[Our man in washington]

A rational government would respond to the "desert scenario" as follows:

1. Evacuate the cities.
2. Profile all middle-eastern looking people during evacuation.
3. Obliterate Iraq.

The great thing about evacuation is that who is that John Q. American probably has relatives in West Virginia (or some other rural area) where he can stay for a few days. Abdul Muhammad probably doesn't. The terrorists would be wandering up and down I 81 looking wondering where to go and what to do. Half decent law enforcement agents should be able to catch them.

I'm assuming a government that behaved rationally, of course. No telling what this government would do.

(Of course, if Bush ever did call for evacuation, Daschle would be decrying it as a partisan move solely intended to get votes. Conservatives would notice Daschle was making such remarks while huddled in some cave west of Mud Butte, South Dakota. We would call him on his hypocrisy. He would call us "mean spirited" which is Democratese for "You're right, now shut up!" And so goeth political discourse in America.)