60% of Americans Support Nuking Iraq

DanS · December 18, 2002, 00:25

...if Iraq uses chemical or biological weapons against our troops.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Dec17.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...data121802.htm

OUR WORDS ARE BACKED WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!

Kontiki · December 18, 2002, 01:08

I'm actually surprised it's that low.

I think it's more intersting that only 26% of Americans support attacking Iraq unilaterally, and that support for war in general is dropping.

TCO · December 18, 2002, 01:18

There were a lot of cold feet last time. 90% of Democratic senators voted against supporting the war and for forbidding the war (last time round). It was only popular once we won so dramatically.

Capt Dizle · December 18, 2002, 01:25

Very interesting polling data. 4 out of 5 believe that Iraq poses a "big" threat to America but about half feel that its not an immediate threat.

I would hate to see the use of nukes. In my mind its a threshold we should not cross. Maybe if it were a small tactical used against only a military target. Nuking Bagdad is beyond the pale.

Also interesting is that the polling data shows a lot of dissatisfaction with the costs of heath care and prescription drugs. Shades of Hillary, does anyone think one of the Democratic candidates will have the balls to run on national health care?

Pekka · December 18, 2002, 01:39

I support full attack on Iraq, the sooner the better. I will NOT support any kind of nuking, except if Saddam really uses chemical and biological weapons big time, not just little testing. And that time I want Dubya to clearly give the evidence of that happening, I don't want to see any nuking and then 'yeah we have evidence, but it's secret' crap. Just fight like men. Not like wussies.
But I believe that nuking is so much out of US interests, that it's not likely to happen.

If nuking happens, it can start something we can only guess. Terrorism does NOT stop, it fuels its fire ^1000.
Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

DanS · December 18, 2002, 01:54

Personally, before reading the poll, I put at least chemical WMD in a much lower class than nukes. But apparently the majority of my fellow Americans see little difference among the three. This is surprising to me.

Urban Ranger · December 18, 2002, 01:57

You seriously don't want to use nuclear weapons. Otherwise all hell breaks loose.

DanS · December 18, 2002, 01:58

Apparently, the majority of Americans believe that if chemical or biological weapons are used, then hell has already broken loose.

Bereta_Eder · December 18, 2002, 02:08

The only difference is that chemicals will be used on your invading soldiers

whereas nukes will be used in inocent civilians

get it?

TCO · December 18, 2002, 02:12

Wiser heads are looking at these options at the CINC and NCA levels. Decisions like that won't be done by poll. Although the strong support gives Bush some more freedom to act and to threaten.

(But isn't it all academic anyway? I thought all our faithful pacifists beleive the Iraqi claims of no WMD and claims that US is full of it for saying there are any.)

DanS · December 18, 2002, 02:13

The law of war precludes use of chemical weapons. In this sense, our soldiers are just as "innocent" as civilians.

At least that's apparently what the majority thinks.

TCO · December 18, 2002, 02:13

You look good in that picture, fooker. Kind of crying game cute. Just don't show me your wee wee.

TCO · December 18, 2002, 02:16

DanS, I doubt nukes will be used. 1. We are not targeting civilians. All the individual strikes get vetted for collateral damage likelihood. 2. I doubt there will be formations where a battlefield nuke will be necessary.

TCO · December 18, 2002, 02:17

Plus of course there is the global warming danger. Unless we can ship some engineers over there fast.

chequita guevara · December 18, 2002, 02:19

They might use some of those bunker nukes they've been talking about (don't know if they've actually been developed).

DanS · December 18, 2002, 02:21

Of course, GP. But if presented with that question, what would you say?

I'm interested in the perception of the different WMD. Without much thought, I doubted the linkage among the various WMD, and even the WMD verbal conglomeration. But apparently, the argument for such strong linkage hardly needs to be made--it must be self-evident to the majority.

Urban Ranger · December 18, 2002, 02:22

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Apparently, the majority of Americans believe that if chemical or biological weapons are used, then hell has already broken loose.

Is that why GWB wants to deploy the Missile Shield in '04, when even Rumsfeld admits its crapolarity?

Pekka · December 18, 2002, 02:28

If Saddam clearly uses these weapons against large amounts of troops and perhaps Israel too, then maybe nuking could come into consideration.. but even then it shouldn't be obvious choice. If he uses them against few hundrer man.. then I can't see the point of keeping principals and nuking anyway. Threat is not enough, even if he does so it might not be enough.. if large amounts of people are subjected to it, then maybe.

If Saddam is going to use them, he's also keeping his military targets inside Baghdad or so, that nuking comes more difficult because of civilian casualties. If it happens however, and nuking is response.. it will tear the world apart in opinions and bad image which won't go away in long long long time, and shouldn't be even expected.
I still believe reason and rationality wins.

Bereta_Eder · December 18, 2002, 02:30

Quote:

Originally posted by GP
You look good in that picture, fooker. Kind of crying game cute. Just don't show me your wee wee.

I'm gonna show it to you.

DanS · December 18, 2002, 02:33

"Is that why GWB wants to deploy the Missile Shield in '04, when even Rumsfeld admits its crapolarity?"

Am I GWB's spokesperson?

Yes? Oh, OK then. I've said all I have to say about it. I refer you to the defense department.

TCO · December 18, 2002, 03:03

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Of course, GP. But if presented with that question, what would you say?

I'm interested in the perception of the different WMD. Without much thought, I doubted the linkage among the various WMD, and even the WMD verbal conglomeration. But apparently, the argument for such strong linkage hardly needs to be made--it must be self-evident to the majority.

I'm not an expert on the use of chem or nuclear weapons. But I would be very hesitant to use nuclear weapons in retaliation for chemical ones. What would you accomplish? Of course, I love letting Saddam (and his French/Euro sympahtizers) sweat about it. But I doubt i would use them. I might consider using chemical weapons back if I really needed to. (and there was some advantage for instance in our protective equipment or some agent that we filter that they don't. But I doubt that is necessary anyway.)

alva · December 18, 2002, 03:22

Are people actually considering nukes

???
Even IF chemical weapons are used.

That would set the world back a couple of decenia, and slow down the next ones aswell.....
(This isn't a Worldwar (yet)!!! )

Robert Plomp · December 18, 2002, 04:43

Iraq should not be nuked,
unless Iraq starts to use ABC weapons on a large scale against ie. israel. In that case it shouldn't be used as wrath, but to stop them. (like against Japan in WWII)

but I really hope things won't get that far, because hell will break out after that. (but if Iraq starts to use ABC to israel things will go crazy anyway)

In that case I would say, nuke the entire ME entirely,
and solve all those problems the dirty way

(yes I am kidding, always save to say that)

TheStinger · December 18, 2002, 04:47

America I don't think would nuke back, they would know that a concentional win was only a few days away.

Israel however with Sharon in charge could nuke em if attacked by chemical or bio weapons.

MichaeltheGreat · December 18, 2002, 05:02

Chemical weapons can be dispersed by either ballistic missiles, OR by conventional artillery.

CW munitions were captured last time in and around knocked out Soviet made 2S1 and 2S3 SP arty.

MOPP suits (especially depending on weather conditions) and NBC procedures have a huge effect on combat efficiency, and the mass casualty potential from a coordinated attack is pretty huge.

There wouldn't necessarily be much to nuke though, because Iraqi forces would be dispersed to hell, and I would be surprised in the extreme if a retaliatory strike was ordered against a civilian population center.

You could be that the Iraqi military would be ****ed, though - and if any prisoners managed to be taken, there would be an effort to determine if they were involved in use of CW or BW agents. If that were the case, I'd expect a quick trip to a post and an appointment with Allah.

Gatekeeper · December 18, 2002, 05:03

I'd like to think it'd take a helluva lot of U.S. soldiers dying in in a chemical or biological attack before we'd even consider retaliating in kind, let alone using nuclear weaponry.

But, as others have said, Israel is a wildcard. If Saddam knows he's going down, he'd do everything in his power to smite Israel. If that smiting included chemical or biological agents ... well, let's just say that Israel would be like a bull in a china shop.

Personally, I think North Korea is a more deadly threat right now than Iraq ...

And, Paiktis, I really do think that if the U.S. used nuclear weapons, it'd be the tactical stuff on a military target, not civilian. Of course, that might not keep Saddam from piling on the civilians on his important targets, like he did in 1990-91.

Gatekeeper

Kepler · December 18, 2002, 05:48

The public is, let's put it gently, easily led. The Bushies have been banging the war gongs now for quite a while, and obviously big numbers will fall into line.

"Wanna nuke somebody? No?! You don't HATE America... do you?"

War fever is ginned up about as high as it can go right now, and it wouldn't be a bad time to do some leaking in order to get the racists off the front page. I'd still like to believe these clowns are just playing at 60's-style brinksmanship, but since there's not a brain cell among them, they may just launch in the name of Jesus, and 6000 years of human progress be damned.

Chris 62 · December 18, 2002, 05:57

Looks like Sloww's prediction about Iraq being turned to glass if heated properly may come to pass.

monkspider · December 18, 2002, 06:01

This is very saddening, since it is essentially saying in no uncertain terms that the majority of Americans support the killing of millions of people, no matter what, and damn the consequences. Lo, what bleak times await this country.

We have fallen to despicable levels of greed, materialism, and a thirst for blood. The only way this country is going to find lasting peace, is by learning the doctrine of peace itself.

Kepler · December 18, 2002, 06:08

Myths about Americans aside, we are not a peaceful people. We expanded like cholera until we filled the continent (along with two vassal states in the parts we didn't want), and ever since we've been shaking our MIRV-headed cocks around like Rammstein in heat.

We are the big, dumb jock who starts all the bar fights. Don't mess with us, and don't bother trying to reason with us. Just give us your best looking women and shut the ef up.