Originally posted by Master Zen
Kramerman, when Iraq attacked Kuwait in 1991 it did not attack the US. Your argument is that if Iraq attacked a country which is not a nuclear power it would do so using WMD. In 1991, Iraq had WMD yet did not use them which invalidates any argument that it would do the same now.
Kramerman, when Iraq attacked Kuwait in 1991 it did not attack the US. Your argument is that if Iraq attacked a country which is not a nuclear power it would do so using WMD. In 1991, Iraq had WMD yet did not use them which invalidates any argument that it would do the same now.
My arguement is that Iraq ccan take neighboring countries CONVENTIONALLY, and with enough effective WMD, it could hold off a world coalition aimed at removing Saddam from the country(ies) that he had invaded by threatening either the coalition itself, or neighboring countries (effectively holding them hostage) with WMD.
It is very unlikely for any country to us WMD on a country they are planning to occupy, such as Iraq hypothetically using them in kuwait, as there is a major risk of blowback on your own troops from infections, chemicals, or radiation, so i doubt any country would use mass amounts of WMD on a country they want to invade.
The theat of Saddam seizing multiple major oil producing countries could have a drastic indirect impact on the US. Though the US gets a very small percentage of oil form the ME, Japan and Europe get around 70%. If Saddam seized the middle east, he could control the oil supply to the countries, potentially cutting it off. The economies of Europe and Japan (which like most industrial economies, depend on oil) could be devestated. Poor foreign markets means an economic failure in the US as well. Saddam would have us at his feet, there would be little we could do about it...
There are many other fears of Saddams WMD, this is just one of many, but it relates to the point i was trying to make in my arguement
Comment