Will Iraq use Chemical weapons?

Will Iraq use chemical weapons?

  • Yes but not very Effectively

    Votes: 8 66.7%

  • Yes, Somewhat Effectively

    Votes: 3 25.0%

  • Yes, Very Effectively

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No (either because it has none or because it chooses not to)

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • Total voters
    12
With the US bragging about all the hi-tech WMDs that we'll launch on the first day, the question seems moot.
 
WMDs = nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and biological weapons. Hex is asking whether Saddam Hussein will be using one of these three.
 
I don't think your garden variety high explslosives based munitions have ever been defined as a WMD. Those are just WRD... weapons of regular destruction. WMD have effects that go well beyond the time and place of the original target... like disease, chemical clouds, radiation. Your garden variety boom-booms are over and done with in 3/8 of a second.
 
Actually i left it at chemical because that's the majority of his illigal substances. I don't think the question is moot but i don't think he's going to be doing a whole lot of damage with these either, at least not to military personnal. Even if he fires a couple hundred and ten get through those scuds are still not very accurate.
 
I think its a definite, he'll try to use them anyway. How effective they are is yet to be seen, but I'm hoping for not very. Saddam knows at this point he is going to be spending the rest of his days either in Cuba or dead, I think he'd rather be dead.
 
I think that the order to use them may be issued ... but they wont get the chance to use them since most of them will only be staring at planes overhead or nailed by artillery fire that has twice their range.
 
:confuse3: "Weapons of Mass Destruction"...pretty cut and dry. You must be thinking of those "Weapons of Lingering Destruction"...Did we have a resolution on the table for those?
 
Israel will retaliate if he hit's them with anything. Israeli special units are on Jordans eastern border just waiting.
 
It'll be tried. I'm not sure it'll be all that effective. It may be so bungled that we never hear about it.
 
HeXp£Øi± said:
Actually i left it at chemical because that's the majority of his illigal substances. I don't think the question is moot but i don't think he's going to be doing a whole lot of damage with these either, at least not to military personnal. Even if he fires a couple hundred and ten get through those scuds are still not very accurate.
Click to expand...

Like I said....We're about to kill alot of people after they've already dropped their guns simply because they may have a knife...
 
I think the troops are going to be somewhat careful about not killing people that aren't necessary. Now of course the bombing runs to take out the communications, supply routes, and other key targets are likely to kill quite a few, but once the ground war starts, I think most of the job will be organizing POW camps for thousands of men.
 
Squiggy said:
:confuse3: "Weapons of Mass Destruction"...pretty cut and dry. You must be thinking of those "Weapons of Lingering Destruction"...Did we have a resolution on the table for those?
Click to expand...
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is generally taken to be a type of weapon which is designed to kill large numbers of people, usually civilians but also potentially military personnel. Weapons of mass destruction are generally considered to be of limited military usefulness because their destructiveness is likely to trigger an extreme response.


The types of weapons traditionally considered to be of this variety are formely known as NBC weapons. The abbreviation "NBC" was traditionnally used to refer to these :

nuclear weapons and radiological weapons
biological weapons
chemical weapons ...

The definition of WMD has never included simple explosive ordinance regardless of how it may be employed. WMD have always been defined as NBCs.
 
My larger concern at this point would be an untold number of cells waiting to act WITHIN the US as soon as the first shot is fired.....
 
I don't buy that at this point Squig. If they could have struck by now they would have. That comes later after at least a few more months of pissing off the Arab world.
 
K. The reason i think this is that Al Qaeda strikes when they can. They've already announced a few strikes in the us over the past year and have failed due to arrests. These terrorist groups aren't likely to be coming from Iraq just yet imo. The population hasn't been that radical towards us such as Saudi Arabias.
Then again who knows. Maybe some Arabs will begin taking it upon themselves as due some in the west bank.
 
Squiggy said:
My larger concern at this point would be an untold number of cells waiting to act WITHIN the US as soon as the first shot is fired.....
Click to expand...
Yeah, me too :(
 
So... what, it's better to have multiple terrorist cells in the US and them not think we have the balls to ever do anything about it?

Yeah... I don't buy that reasoning at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top