What is your worst case scenario when the war begins?

Lincoln · March 11, 2003, 21:44

To be fair, I suppose, we should allow for people to give their best case scenarios as well. Anyway, my worst case scenario goes something like this:

1. shortly after the first bomb is dropped Irag launches a successful attack against Israel with a biological weapon of some sort.

2. Israel returns with a nuke.

3. Some crazy nation (maybe France

) nukes Israel.

4. WW3 ensues with much of the world enraged over Israel (so what is new?).

OK, now what is your worst (and best) case scenario?

Kramerman · March 11, 2003, 21:47

probably the worst thing that could happen in my eyes is the US occupation after the war fails, adn Iraq falls into the quagmire of despair that is anarchy and tribal culture.

Dis · March 11, 2003, 21:51

I don't think that would happen.

Iraq is much mroe civilized than Afghanistan

Althought he Kurds up north could be a problem area.

Ming · March 11, 2003, 21:52

Worst case scenario...

The war is over quick... Saddam commits suicide...
No civilians injured or killed... a new government forms, supported by the people. They take their rightful place in the world community...

Oh yeah... a worse case scenario for all the US bashers

Dis · March 11, 2003, 21:52

Knight2003 · March 11, 2003, 21:54

Iraqi use of biological or nuclear weapons (dirty bombs, etc. not full scale nukes) on US ground troops. Full US retribution as dictated by established Bush Sr. doctrine from the first Gulf War. Destabilization of Middle East and loss of all Arab allies after unavoidable collateral damage that comes with weapons of mass destruction. Following 'you got what you deserve' reactions from protesters in Europe will result in a rift driven between the US and Europe that would not be crossed for several generations producing an economic cold war akin to that following the American Revolution between the US and Great Britain.

This is 99.9999999999999999% UNlikely to happen.

Dis · March 11, 2003, 22:01

The U.S. will never use weapons of mass destruction

Lincoln · March 11, 2003, 22:05

Oh I almost forgot my best case scenario:

The war ends in a few days with a massive defection from Irag's army. Bush is hailed as a hero and the UN transforms itself into a high school debating team. Tony Blair gets his own statue next to Winston Churchill and United Airlines begins tourist flights to Iraq, Iran and N. Korea because of the universal peace on earth and good will toward men.

Skanky Burns · March 11, 2003, 22:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
The U.S. will never use weapons of mass destruction

Name the one country in the entire history of the world that has used WOMD in war.

Lincoln · March 11, 2003, 22:12

Iraq and the United States -- oh wait, that's two...

monolith94 · March 11, 2003, 22:14

Germany, France, Britain, etc...
Gas attacks are a weapon of mass destruction.
Now if you mean NUCLEAR mass destruction, that is a different story...

Skanky Burns · March 11, 2003, 22:17

Despite the fact that chemical/gas/bio weapons are always included in the WOMD label, I only consider nukes to be weapons of mass destruction.

Ramo · March 11, 2003, 22:20

It's not the war that's a problem (although, it might get nasty if Saddam decides to us WMD's). The real problem is the post-war situation.

Skanky Burns · March 11, 2003, 22:28

I don't like the precedent the war sets up - completely ignoring the UN.

KrazyHorse · March 11, 2003, 22:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Worst case scenario...

The war is over quick... Saddam commits suicide...
No civilians injured or killed... a new government forms, supported by the people. They take their rightful place in the world community...

Oh yeah... a worse case scenario for all the US bashers

Apparently Chicago is also home to the slightly less famous "Troll Train"...

Andrew1999 · March 11, 2003, 22:35

The one halfway realistic disaster scenario I've heard of is A Bridge Too Far...the 82nd and 101st are inserted all over the place in too small groups, and they get overwhelmed.

monolith94 · March 11, 2003, 22:37

Skanky - that's you. The rest of the world realizes that whether you're killed by nukes or smallpox, you're still dead.

Kramerman · March 11, 2003, 22:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
It's not the war that's a problem (although, it might get nasty if Saddam decides to us WMD's). The real problem is the post-war situation.

aw, c'mon, i thought you liked anarchy?

KrazyHorse · March 11, 2003, 22:39

Monolith: CNB weapons are all generally accepted as WMD, and usually have been...but your reasoning is pretty terrible. By it, a bullet is alsoo a WMD...

mrmitchell · March 11, 2003, 22:47

Worst case scenario:

Iraq uses a biological weapon, so the U.S. responds with a nuclear weapon, but immediately after that an advanced alien species several million lightyears away teleports thier mothership to our planet. They then commit suicide and take the entire universe with them, exploding all black holes before suicide to ensure that no new universes can continue the pattern. Simultaneous with their self-and-all-destruction, their transuniverse portal destroys all other universes too. There is only blank, and not even that. There is, for the first time, truly Nothing. And this Nothing manages to last for all eterni--wait, there isn't that either, so there isn't Nothing. There just isn't anything. Nor any nothing. To put it simply, the worst case scenario is:

There isn't.

mrmitchell · March 11, 2003, 22:52

Actually, I agree with Skanky--I only consider nukes to be WoMD. They're the only things that actually destroy EVERYTHING, or at least 99.999999% of everything. Also they give everyone a healthy dose of radiation, similar to the health damage caused by biological/chemical warfare.
---
Oh yeah, best case scenario:
Bush comes out and admits he's wrong. Saddam peacefully resigns and the People of Iraq peacefully set up thier own government where true freedom exists. Those "Worst Case Scenario" guys keep writing those books.

lethe · March 11, 2003, 22:52

In case the US is right and Saddam acutally has WMDs the worst case scenario is him using them.

Tactical nukes on a carrier group.

Nukes on Kuwait or Israel.

Biological weapons on either of the above three groups.

(I think tactical nukes against carrier groups or large military bases is more likely than a WMD attack against Israel.)

A pretty low strength bomb, maybe 45kton or so would have devastating tactical implications, and is in my opionion the most likely weapon to be used. (I rate it as unlikely though.)

Upside

Take out Saddam. Chop of the heads of the hydra Baath. Start Marshall Plan #2. And brain wash them enough that itäs safe to give them democracy without it meaning a fundamentalist regime in Bagdad.

Did I mention: Start a Marshall Plan for the region? Iraq needs it more than Europe did.

Dis · March 11, 2003, 22:59

uhh Saddam doesn't actually have nukes.

And he doesn't have the resources to locate one of our carrier groups.

It would be much more easier to hit a land base.

Urban Ranger · March 11, 2003, 23:10

Worst case?

The US offensive gets bogged down, US soldiers getting killed in street fighting, GWB gets upset and razes Baghdad, murdering millions.

monolith94 · March 11, 2003, 23:10

frogger - you're right, that reasoning is pretty terrible. How about this.
A person doesn't really care if them and their city is wiped out by a nuclear explosion or smallpox: they're dead either way.

Is that better?

Caesar the Great · March 11, 2003, 23:22

US attacks Iraq

Iraq attacks Israel with WOMD

Israel attacks Iraq with WOMD

Israel kills 2000 Palestinians in response to attack

Syria, Egypt et al go to war with Israel

US goes to war with essentially all arab nations

Terrorist sleeper cells kill thousands in US and Britain

North Korea nukes South Korea/Japan

Oerdin · March 11, 2003, 23:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Name the one country in the entire history of the world that has used WOMD in war.

WoMD=Chemical, Biological, & Nuclear so right off the top of my head: Imperial Germany, France, Britain, U.S., Nationalist Spain (during civil war) the Russian Empire, the USSR (civil war) and that is just off the top of my head. I'm sure with a little effort people could come up with more names.

GePap · March 11, 2003, 23:45

Realisitc worst case scenerios?

Iraq blows the oil fields, Kurds and Turks fight each other in northern Iraq, with the Iranians allowing more third parties in. Fighting in Baghdad bogs down, leading to massive civilian casualties. Massive anti-Us protests world-wide, massive anti-Us demonstratiuons world wide, especially in the ME. Both Israel and NK exploit the time to do something "unwise". Tony Blair kicked out of power due to disasters in the ground. US eventually wins, but the whole area is in an uproar.

The only good part of this view: Bush precidency ends Jan 2005.

monolith94 · March 11, 2003, 23:46

Oerdin - I already said that... Read the thread first!!!

KrazyHorse · March 12, 2003, 03:13

Quote:

Originally posted by monolith94
frogger - you're right, that reasoning is pretty terrible. How about this.
A person doesn't really care if them and their city is wiped out by a nuclear explosion or smallpox: they're dead either way.

Is that better?

Yes.

The point of contention as argument against that is that most chem+bio attacks will have nowhere near the level of death caused by a nuke. Area bombing would probably be more efficient in killing people than mustard gas. But at some point we decided to start calling CNB "mass destruction". I usually stick to CNB, though, for precisely this reason...