will coalition use tactical nuclear weapons?

[Fidel]

there have been some statements by rumsfeld that they would counter chemical attack with tac nukes. recently there are many statements from pentagon re saddams last chemical stand in baghdad. do you feel that is a real threat or a pretext for potential nuke strike if things go bad?

[MarkG]

what does "tactical" mean in "tactical nuclear weapons"
they dont kill people?

[The Mad Monk]

It means they're small enough to be used on an opposing troops without necessarily frying your own.

[MarkG]

given the current 20-2 (killed by friendly fire - killed by enemies) count (for the british, dont have the americans numbers), it would be better to avoid the use of nukes.

[TheStinger]

The day coaltion troops use tac nukes is the day Brittney Spears shows me her chuff

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MarkG
given the current 20-2 (killed by friendly fire - killed by enemies) count (for the british, dont have the americans numbers), it would be better to avoid the use of nukes.

Don't see why. Our lads are tough.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by MarkG
given the current 20-2 (killed by friendly fire - killed by enemies) count (for the british, dont have the americans numbers), it would be better to avoid the use of nukes.

4 were firendly fire the rest were crashes, there is a difference

[CerberusIV]

I think the serious answer is that they will use a tactical nuke in particular circumstances. Firstly it would have to be in response to an Iraqi chemical attack on coalition forces. Second, the target would have to be a substantial Republican Guard formation not in an urban area.

If the Iraqis hold off on any chemical weapons use until they are forced into the cities and their larger formations have been dispersed then there will be no politically acceptable target for a nuke. Dropping a nuke in a city, no matter how well it is targeted will mean civilian casualties and that will be counterproductive.

It will be hard for the US/UK to argue that they need to use nukes with the conventional firepower at their disposal so they would have to have a "justification" and be determined to make a point by using such a weapon. There may even be benefits to world opinion for the US/UK if they exercise restraint after any Iraqi use of chemical weapons.

[Thoth]

Why bother with tac nukes when they've got MOABs? From what I gather, the blast effects are similar, but without the radiation.

[Harovan]

I think they won't use nukes by no means, not even tactical and not even if Hussein uses chemical weapons (given he has some). The political drawback would just be too big. What they will use (and probably already do), is the usual armor breaking ammunition with depleted uranium, which will cause increased risk of cancer for the locals over a long time after the war, but is not a WoMD.

[MarkG]

4 were firendly fire the rest were crashes, there is a difference

ok, so the americans wont hit the brits. most likely they'll hit themselves

[CerberusIV]

The problem with MOAB's is the delivery system. Even light AA has a reasonable chance of downing a C-130.

As for depleted uranium rounds, I was reading a story on the BBC website this morning about traces of DU being found from use of the rounds in 1994/95 in Bosnia. Although not an immediate hazard to health the scientists were recommending further monitoring.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2884761.stm

[Urban Ranger]

Re: will coalition use tactical nuclear weapons?

Originally posted by LaRusso
there have been some statements by rumsfeld that they would counter chemical attack with tac nukes.

Either he is trying to scare Hussein or being genuinely stupid (being himself). Seeing that chemical weapons are pretty useless as far as killing the other side goes, you go ahead and draw your own conclusions.

[Ned]

I think it might be possible if a division commander actually used Chem or Bio on US troops and it caused significant damage. The retaliation would be on the HQ of Iraqi division responsible.

[DinoDoc]

Tactical nukes are only for use when there is a danger of you loosing, ie a Nato/Warsaw Pact war, so I don't think there is much danger of them being used in Iraq.