26-03-2003 16:49									#1
	will coalition use tactical nuclear weapons? Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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?

	26-03-2003 17:07									#2
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

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

	26-03-2003 17:12									#3
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

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

	26-03-2003 17:14									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

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.

	26-03-2003 17:15									#5
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

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

	26-03-2003 17:16									#6
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

	26-03-2003 17:16									#7
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: 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

	26-03-2003 17:25									#8
	Tired of ads?

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.

	26-03-2003 17:26									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

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

	26-03-2003 17:27									#10
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

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.

	26-03-2003 17:30									#11
	Got spare money?

quote: 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

	26-03-2003 17:40									#12
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

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

	26-03-2003 17:47									#13
	Re: will coalition use tactical nuclear weapons? Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: 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.

	26-03-2003 18:02									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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.

	26-03-2003 19:57									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

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.

	26-03-2003 20:02									#16
	Support Apolyton

They will not be used. I cannot imagine the storm of political opposition everywhere if they were

	26-03-2003 20:19									#17
	Increase Your PM Length

Probably, we would milk the political backlash against a chem/bio attack by Hussein rather than use tactical nukes.

	26-03-2003 20:26									#18
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Got to go with Ralph, Flubber and DanS:

Nukes always trump chemicals; the political backlash from such an action is too terrible to imagine. After all, everyone sort of expects Saddam to be evil, we have set for ourselves a far higher standard.

	26-03-2003 20:29									#19
	Get a bigger avatar today!

In this war tac nukes won't be used. Sir Ralph is right the political cost is too high.
And I don't think Saddam will use bio/chem for the same reasons: it will prove he has such kind of weapons and he will lose support from many countries...

	26-03-2003 22:47									#20
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by TheStinger 4 were firendly fire the rest were crashes, there is a difference

	26-03-2003 23:46									#21
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by LaRusso will coalition use tactical nuclear weapons?

No.

The coalition would fall apart quicker than a worker can swallow a pint of stout.

	26-03-2003 23:54									#22
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The entire world has an interest in Nukes not being used. To use them would set a precedent that no one wants.

	27-03-2003 00:07									#23
	Remove this text

quote: Originaly 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.

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

Paiktis got banned for war's duration for ridiculing these accidents so you better watc.... ah, wait, you are the site owner.