Yep .....
The first the A-bomb was dropped the response was
"My God, what have we done."
The next one dropped by us will be accompanied by the quote
"It's about d*mned time."
Let the Red Horseman Ride.
There's two ways this will happen:
1. Saddam hits us with bio/chem weapons, or takes steps to do so in a way that allows us to know ahead of time. Then expect tactical nukes, probably all over the place. If you're gonna get doo doo thrung atcha for one, you might as well unload a lot of them.
2. Saddam hits Israel with bio/chem weapons. Then you're looking at Israel retaliating with strategic (not tactical) nukes.
It's this last one that has the potential to get Exceedingly Out of Hand. Can you imagine what is going to happen within the Arab world if Israel nukes Baghdad? Again, if Israel sees a sea of doo doo rising against them for this, they might just say, "Hey, let's be sure we really get the full benefit of this sort of thing," and nuke Damascas and Riyadh in the bargain.
Certainly any sort of nuclear response would change the world as we know it , and I do not mean in warheads being lobbed at whoever, although in such a tense period, there may be the often described "fog of war" that could lead to unintended consequences.
Use of nuclear weapons by any state minimizes the deterrent value of such weapons. Once they are used, the current high threshold for use would be lowered considerably for some time.
This is not to say that Hussein will launch a chemical attack. Launching such an attack would certainly be meant with a response that could be overwhelming and indeed not be nuclear.
I believe what Hussein is doing is introducing the variable that if WMD are employed by Iraq, they will have been done so by theatre commanders and not him. However, most people will not be willing to make such a distinction and would quite reasonably conclude that any use of WMD by Iraq is a use authorized by Saddam Hussein. It's not unreasonable to state that Hussein, although a shrewd leader in some aspects, has erred in the past in regards to past decison-making.
There are elements within Iraq that if given the opportunity, would most likely remove Hussein by authority. What can be hoped for is that these elements can do what they can to remove Hussein from authority in Iraq. Barring that, it may be that fanatical followers of Hussein would have no qualms about participating in the use of WMD. In their minds, they may justify such use by Allied Forces crossing into Iraq, in effect, "invading" Iraq from their perspective.
I wanna say it too.
This fricken war is going nuclear. Period.
Cross your t's & dot your i's.
Fellow FReepers, Be prepared in your lives.
I don't think so. We don't need nukes to win, and win quickly. We want to enter Iraq as liberators; our enemy is Saddam, not the Iraqi people; no one on our side wants to gratuitously kill Iraqi civilians. The use of nukes would enormously complicate postwar politics, both within Iraq and around the world, while restraint in the face of provocation would stand to our credit.
I just don't see what we have to gain from using nukes, and we have a lot to lose.