What is your worst case scenario when the war begins?

[Andrew1999]

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]

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

[Kramerman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Worst case?

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

[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?

[Caesar the Great]

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

[Dinner]

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]

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]

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

[KrazyHorse]

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...