Do you think this cartoon is correct?

[Oerdin]

They don't hate his guts but they don't see eye to eye either. Many Arab militants find refuge in Iraq because they know the Americans & Isrealis have little influence with the countries government. If the Militants show their faces in Lahore, Cairo, or the Palestinian territories there is a good chance they'll wind up died or in prison so as a realpoltic solution they seek and recieve sanction in Iraq (and Iran too but that's another story).

What was the name of that terrorist who wound up dead in Bagdad last week? I forgot his name but he's been wanted for the Munich Olympic attack for damn near 30 years and most of that time he huh out with Saddam in Iraq. Saddam also has been giving fist fulls of cash to Hamas in order to support their suicide bombers. Is it really such a big jump to go from sponsoring terrorist attacks on Jews to sponsoring terrorist attacks on westerners in general?

[:) Smiley]

No one wants to see a war between nuclear powers; the risks aren't worth it.

Uh huh, as if a war between non nuclear powers is worth it.

[mapfi]

Just think about this:

The UN Charter prohibits any attacks without the approval of the security council unless (article 51) if it is immediate self-defense to an armed attack.

The US Government is thinking of, planning to and probably will violate the UN Charter...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


No one thinks that Iraq is going to nuke the oil fields; why would they do that, when they can invade Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and have the majority of the world's oil to themselves? The effect Iraqi nukes would have is to make Iraq invulnerable to American or other international intervention. If Iraq invades Kuwait after it obtains nukes, no one is going to go fight Gulf War II to save Kuwait again. Nuclear powers don't fight wars against each other; the risks of a nuclear exchange are too great. Even a couple nukes would be enough for Iraq. Would America risk having their army attacked with a nuclear equipped Scud? I seriously doubt it...

So, with nukes Iraq can take over Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and then dictate oil prices to the rest of the world. That sounds great doesn't it?

A nuclear armed scud is meaningless. Any nation without a credible 2nd strike capability cannot play nuclear chicken with a state that does. All the US has to say to Iraq is: you use nukes against us when we try to retake Kuwait, and Iraq becomes a glass bowl. The same thing happened in the first gulf war, its called deterrance. People are mistified with nukes, but they are lousy battlefield weapons, and if Iraq can't threaten the US or European allies directly with them, his nuclear deterrent vis a vi these powers is nill. Iraq with nukes can threaten Israel, but it can't threaten the US, the Europeans, or the oil supply.

[Drake Tungsten]

You're assuming Saddam is rational. I don't agree with the people who claim that he is certainly irrational, but I don't know if he is certainly rational either. American analysts aren't sure either. That makes the situation very interesting, as deterrence only works when both parties are rational actors.

What if Saddam goes mad and launches a nuclear tipped Scud on American troops involved in Gulf War II? Not only will the US take massive casualties, but it will be forced to nuke millions of innocent Iraqis off the face of the planet. How do you think that would go over internationally, especially considering that a war over Kuwait would be fought for the distasteful reason of protecting oil interests? Is it inconceivable that the US would be blamed for starting a war over oil that ended in the death of millions? In the end, is taking Kuwait back from Iraq really worth the risk of nuclear war, however small?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Jesus, doesn't anyone here understand what Iraqi nukes would do to the security situation in the Middle East? American concern about Saddam's WOMD programme has nothing to do with an illogical fear of Iraqi ICBM's raining down on US cities...

You mean about the same thing that Indian and Pakistani nukes do in south Asia, and that great, competent command and control system does with former USSR nukes?

Somehow, I think Saddam having a nuke or two will be less destabilizing than a hornet's nest of pissed off arabs screaming jihad because of a US or western invasion and conquest of an arab country.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You're assuming Saddam is rational. I don't agree with the people who claim that he is certainly irrational, but I don't know if he is certainly rational either. American analysts aren't sure either. That makes the situation very interesting, as deterrence only works when both parties are rational actors.

Your argument relies on the assumption that Saddam is the sole authorizer of a nuclear launch - he might order one in such a scenario, but there are multiple levels of chain of command who can help such an order not get carried out, especially if they think of the repercussions to themselves.

Gulf War I showed that a lot of Iraqis could think for themselves quite well, despite explicit orders from Saddam and his henchmen.

What if Saddam goes mad and launches a nuclear tipped Scud on American troops involved in Gulf War II?

Dispersal of mobile troops in the field, the likely yield and effiency of Iraqi nukes, and their very limited number, plus a priority on air defense plus attack of launch vehicles (the al-Hussein is not a rapid launch vehicle) limit both the probability and magnitude of casualties. Most likely, in the worst case (ignoring NBC shielding of AFVs), you're talking about heavy casualties to something smaller than a brigade sized formation.

Not only will the US take massive casualties, but it will be forced to nuke millions of innocent Iraqis off the face of the planet.

You're assuming the obliteration of Baghdad, as opposed to using small battlefield nukes to guarantee taking out reinforced bunkers that are beyond the reach of conventional munitions. Mass killing of civilians in retaliation is both politically and militarily unnecessary, especially if you have an invading army already in place on the ground.

In the end, is taking Kuwait back from Iraq really worth the risk of nuclear war, however small?

Both the reinvasion of Kuwait and Iraqi use of a nuclear weapon are rather improbable scenarios - the Iraqis have less mobile offensive firepower, and the Kuwaitis are better prepared than 11 years ago. The chain of events that led to the original invasion are also substantially different.

So you're saying that a pre-emptive invasion opposed by virtually the whole arab world is the answer to a hypothetical scenario which may never happen?

[Akaoz]

I love you Michael.

-Alech, Eurotrash forever!

[Akka]

What's very sad about all of this is that while the USA had a HUGE sympathy capital just a year ago that allowed them to destroy the Talibans with the whole world's blessing, Bush managed to isolate them and to anger every single country but UK against them.

I'm pretty sure that if not for the cretinous behaviour of the monkey in the White House, with his "you're with us or against us" and "axis of evil", most of the world would have supported any USA intervention in Irak.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You're assuming Saddam is rational. I don't agree with the people who claim that he is certainly irrational, but I don't know if he is certainly rational either. American analysts aren't sure either. That makes the situation very interesting, as deterrence only works when both parties are rational actors.

Saddam has never done anything that stands out as irrational, when one compares him to any other dictator. He attacks neighbors when he feels he can get away with it (he was rigth with Iran, wrong with Kuwait), uses the weapons he has against the defenseless (Kurds, Iranians) but doesn't when the enemy is strong. Can you give me asimple example of Sadam doing something irrational?

What if Saddam goes mad and launches a nuclear tipped Scud on American troops involved in Gulf War II? Not only will the US take massive casualties, but it will be forced to nuke millions of innocent Iraqis off the face of the planet. How do you think that would go over internationally, especially considering that a war over Kuwait would be fought for the distasteful reason of protecting oil interests? Is it inconceivable that the US would be blamed for starting a war over oil that ended in the death of millions? In the end, is taking Kuwait back from Iraq really worth the risk of nuclear war, however small?

What if he goes insane? That risk lies with every nuclear armed nation. What if Bush goes (if he isn't) nuts tommorrow an order a nuclear strike v. Baghdad? Does Saddam have the right to preempt BUsh? We don't even have to await Bush's madness...does Iraq have the right to premptively attack US installations in the Glf, in whatever way they can, to premept a state constantly making threatening statements and prteparing to invade? Doesn't Iraq, under article 51, have the right to defend itself from imminent US threats, threats far more imminent than Iraqi threats v. US?

You don't start wars because the other guy MIGHT go mad, which is in itself a highly unlikely scenerio- Iraq is a place in which, if Saddam started to go mad, he would be dead within a week. I may add that people keep mystifying nuclear weapons- They are horribly destructive, but modern states are big enough and well organized enough to survive small nuclear attacks (exceptions are small city states and microstates). A ncuclear war between minor nuclear powers isn't the end of the world, and when the lielyhood of such a war is miniscule beyond belief, I find it hard to justify the very probable human and political costs of a conventional war.

People killed by nukes in last 50 years? 250,000
People killed in war by poor states in Central Africe in the last 5 years? At least 2 million. You do the math.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by red_jon
Even if Iraq managed to nuclear missiles there's no way they'd be able to reach the US. It's not like he's capable of building ICBMs.

Didn't you ever hear of that brilliant Canadian (I think he was Canadian, certainly Nth American) who never gave up the idea of using guns to propel satellites into orbit? When no-one in the States took him seriously, Saddam employed him and he designed a very very big gun for Iraq. When the Allies went trooping in in Desert Strom they found the gun almost completed, pointing to the West. It is believed that, with this guy's expertise, a projectile COULD have hit America.

Don't you just LOVE the Discovery Channel?

[DinoDoc]

Wasn't he assassinated?

[MrWhereItsAt]

I think so. Like many true visionaries.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Linkage!

And it may not quite have been able to reach America, but 1000km is nothing to sneeze at.

[Drake Tungsten]

What if he goes insane? That risk lies with every nuclear armed nation. What if Bush goes (if he isn't) nuts tommorrow an order a nuclear strike v. Baghdad? Does Saddam have the right to preempt BUsh? We don't even have to await Bush's madness...does Iraq have the right to premptively attack US installations in the Glf, in whatever way they can, to premept a state constantly making threatening statements and prteparing to invade? Doesn't Iraq, under article 51, have the right to defend itself from imminent US threats, threats far more imminent than Iraqi threats v. US?

The threat to Iraq if Bush goes insane is miniscule, because of checks and balances on Bush's power, as the always insightful MtG pointed out.

Your argument relies on the assumption that Saddam is the sole authorizer of a nuclear launch - he might order one in such a scenario, but there are multiple levels of chain of command who can help such an order not get carried out, especially if they think of the repercussions to themselves.

Gulf War I showed that a lot of Iraqis could think for themselves quite well, despite explicit orders from Saddam and his henchmen.

You are right on this of course. The fact that Saddam is a despot certainly makes it easier for him to authorize a nuclear strike, but it still isn't certain that it would be carried out. I can't help but think, however, that any nukes Iraq may have would be kept and operated by people handpicked by Saddam, which certainly would increase Saddam's control over them.

Dispersal of mobile troops in the field, the likely yield and effiency of Iraqi nukes, and their very limited number, plus a priority on air defense plus attack of launch vehicles (the al-Hussein is not a rapid launch vehicle) limit both the probability and magnitude of casualties. Most likely, in the worst case (ignoring NBC shielding of AFVs), you're talking about heavy casualties to something smaller than a brigade sized formation.

Again, you bring up valid points. I actually consider the whole "Scud attack on American troops" to be a rather unlikely scenario, but it was an easy way to disprove che's point about Iraq not having delivery systems a couple pages back. I think it is far more likely and intelligent on Iraq's part to either launch a nuclear Scud at US base like Dahran in the Gulf War, or hit Tel Aviv and try to rally all the Arab powers against the Zionists. They could also just leave a nuke in a city they might capture during any future war (like Kuwait City) and detonate it if the city is recaptured by American troops. There are lots of ways a nuke could be used to cause devastation.

You're assuming the obliteration of Baghdad, as opposed to using small battlefield nukes to guarantee taking out reinforced bunkers that are beyond the reach of conventional munitions. Mass killing of civilians in retaliation is both politically and militarily unnecessary, especially if you have an invading army already in place on the ground.

Is the taking out of reinforced bunkers with tactical nukes really enough of a threat to deter Saddam? I agree that it would be the smart play, but if that is all America does after a nuclear attack on its troops, then the concept of deterrence would be substantially weakened. Also, the American people will want Baghdad turned into glass.

So you're saying that a pre-emptive invasion opposed by virtually the whole arab world is the answer to a hypothetical scenario which may never happen?

There are lots of good reasons to deny Iraq nukes, beyond this hypothetical situation that has gotten far too complex for my liking.

If Iraq gets nukes, it would start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East between Iraq, Iran, and god knows who else. You mentioned Pakistan and India in one of your posts and that is a great example of what we don't want; blood enemies facing each other down over a volatile border with nukes.

In addition, American freedom of action in the Gulf region would be severely compromised by the introduction of nukes, probably so much so that American military action would be unthinkable. If that happens, the stability of the world's oil supply is in serious jeopardy.

Plus, there's the risk of Saddam deliberately giving nukes to terrorist groups or terrorists groups stealing them or buying them from corrupt Iraqi officials.

Nukes would change everything in the region and I think the consequences are bad enough for America and the world that we should invade Iraq now, even with all the negative consequences associated with it. We should certainly do our best to gain UN approval, by letting inspectors have one more chance or whatever, but we have to stop Iraq from getting nukes. If that responsibility ends up falling solely on America's shoulders, then so be it. I certainly hope that doesn't happen...

[Drake Tungsten]

And it may not quite have been able to reach America, but 1000km is nothing to sneeze at.

Certainly enough range to hit Israel...

[GePap]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Drake Tungsten [
The threat to Iraq if Bush goes insane is miniscule, because of checks and balances on Bush's power, as the always insightful MtG pointed out.

I am intersted in what checks and balances exists on the president ability to use Nuclear weapons in an instant? Also, what do you think about the second question? The US is threatening constantly to attack Iraq, so doesn't that constitute a valid imminent threat on which Iraq can act?

If Iraq gets nukes, it would start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East between Iraq, Iran, and god knows who else. You mentioned Pakistan and India in one of your posts and that is a great example of what we don't want; blood enemies facing each other down over a volatile border with nukes.

Iran already has reasons to develop nukes, in the form of Pakistan and Israel. Any state in the middle east has an interest in nukes to offset the Israeli nuclear arsenal. In fact, one could argue that any iraqi regime, Saddam or not, should get nukes to protect itself in a very dangerous neighborhood.

In addition, American freedom of action in the Gulf region would be severely compromised by the introduction of nukes, probably so much so that American military action would be unthinkable. If that happens, the stability of the world's oil supply is in serious jeopardy.

The stability of the worlds oil supply has nothing to do with America's unfettered action in the gulf. BUt you are right that Iraqi nukes under an anti-US regime would make the US's wish of controlling the region difficult- this though is a different arguement for attacking than 'Saddam is nuts' or 'Saddam is a terrorist', a sort of complex geopolitica arguemnt which the American people don't particuarly care about, which is why the US doesn't mention it.

Plus, there's the risk of Saddam deliberately giving nukes to terrorist groups or terrorists groups stealing them or buying them from corrupt Iraqi officials.

As others have said, Saddam can gain NOTHING from giving nukes to terrorists whatsoever. As for the corrupt giving them to terrorists, thast threat exists elsewhere, not just in apossibly nuclear armed Iraq.

Nukes would change everything in the region and I think the consequences are bad enough for America and the world that we should invade Iraq now, even with all the negative consequences associated with it. We should certainly do our best to gain UN approval, by letting inspectors have one more chance or whatever, but we have to stop Iraq from getting nukes. If that responsibility ends up falling solely on America's shoulders, then so be it. I certainly hope that doesn't happen...

Nukes would inherently change the situation, but that in itself means nothing. Nukes changed the situation in the Middle East already (Israel's large nuclear arsenal) and in South Asia. What has yet been proven is that any of the consequesnces require the war you state is necessary. Also, I hardly doubt the consequesnces will be as global as stated- this is mostly an issue of the US trying to maintain the strategic status quo, or imporving it in its favor, which is why the Iraq and WMD arguemnt has convinced so few as is.

[Drake Tungsten]

Also, I hardly doubt the consequesnces will be as global as stated

Almost every consequence in the Middle East has a global effect, due to the presence of most of the world's oil. If the world economy wasn't so desperately dependent on Mideast oil, I'd be all for leaving Saddam to his own devices. But that isn't the case, so someone needs to stop Iraq's nuclear program in its tracks.

[Uncle Sparky]

If the cartoon were edited so that the person on the left were dressed as an arab & labeled Arab world, the person on the right was dressed as & labeled Saddam & the explosion was labaled Iraq ...

would it be less funny or less meaningful ?