60% of Americans Support Nuking Iraq

[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.

[Urban Ranger]

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]

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]

Good to have you back navy

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[monkspider]

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]

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.