EagleSteve Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 OK, what are the odds? What are the overall consequences? 1. We invade Iraq after their one last, final, concluding, yes this time we really mean it, chance of disarmament fails. 2. Knowing he can't win, Saddam is able to launch a number of his remaining Scud missiles loaded with chemical weapons before special forces can neutralize the launchers. These missiles hit US-UK forces, Kuwait City and Tel Aviv causing massive civilian casualties. 3. Israel, as expected, responds with a nuclear strike on Baghdad within the hour. If special forces are not able to knock out or locate the scud launchers, I think there is a fairly high probability of this situation occuring, somewhere in the neighborhood of 25%. Will Egypt, Syria, Saudia Arabia strike at Israel in this case? Will Iran and Turkey continue to respect the Iraqi border? How long should I stay out of downtown DC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 Since we are playing fast and loose, here is more speculation. U.S. intelligence thinks al-Qaeda may have nuclear weapons, and says a secret stash of nukes may still exist somewhere in Afghanistan. In December, enough low-grade uranium-238 was discovered in tunnels near a former al-Qaeda base there to make one "dirty" bomb. They probably got the material on the black market, which has been thriving ever since the breakup of the Soviet Union, as smugglers in former communist countries sell off old weapons. Dirty bombs usually aren't powerful enough to blow up large structures, but they can spread radioactive contamination over a wide area. That the retreating fighters from al Qaeda and Afghanistan's Taliban regime chose to leave this behind when they took to the mountains fueled suspicion that their nuclear crown jewels went with them. A former Soviet GRU (military intelligence) agent says, "Mossad [israeli intelligence] reported that bin Laden bought tactical nuclear weapons from some former Soviet republics. They are not the suitcase-type bombs that people often refer to, but more the warhead-type munitions. These are the payloads of short-range missiles, torpedoes, and the like." But Rose Gottemoeller, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, says, "I believe that the chance that al- Qaeda controls actual warheads is virtually nil…I think it more likely that they have some kind of lower-level sources than weapons-grade material…It is possible such material could have come to him from a former Soviet nuclear facility, not only in Russia, but in Kazakhstan, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, etc." Atomic Demolitions Munitions (ADMs) are miniaturized warheads that were developed by the U.S. during the Vietnam War. They were designed for use against structures such as bridges and dams. The Soviets soon built huge quantities of them for their own use, and GRU agents buried them near key U.S. government and military targets. Others were buried along Russia's borders for use as nuclear land mines in the event of invasion. They were often disguised as boulders. Each has a yield of about 1 kiloton, equivalent to 1,000 tons of TNT, and they can be set off by remote control. It’s been estimated that one ADM could immediately kill 100,000 people if it exploded in a major city center, with hundreds of thousands dying from cancer in the fallout. At least 84 of these soviet warheads are missing and unaccounted for. ADMs remain potent for eight years; afterwards they need to be sent to a laboratory for refurbishment. This means we may be able to stop worrying about them if enough time goes by. Paul Rogers, of the Center for Peace Studies in the U.K., says, "There were unconfirmed reports that one or two Soviet-era tactical nuclear weapons had got to Iran a few years ago. Apart from that, I do not have any evidence that al Qaeda has access to such weapons." However, one senior Western intelligence official thinks they have nine of them, bought for $30 million plus 2 tons of opium per nuke. He says, "Reliable sources report that not only atomic munitions were sold by the Russian underworld and smuggled into [Central Asia] during the conflict between the U.S. and the Taliban, but that several Russian nuclear technicians were hired by the Islamic fundamentalists to try and make the weapons operational." These might not be used directly against the United States. Instead, al-Qaeda may be planning to use them to create an Islamic superstate by using them to destroy the oil industry in the Middle East, causing a global economic meltdown, according to a report by the think tank Decision Support Systems. With most of the world's oil reserves inaccessible, the United States would no longer have an economic interest in the region, and Islamic fundamentalism could take over. One sign of this might have been Iraq's attempt to destroy the oil fields in Kuwait during the 1991 Gulf war. Robert Sherman, of the Federation of American Scientists, says, "I presume that someone with a detailed knowledge of the oil field could cause a cascading effect with great damage." Prior to September 11, al-Qaeda accused the United States of "robbing all Muslims" of $36.96 trillion by exploiting its oil interests in the Middle East and blamed the U.S. for the region's poverty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagsbch Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 Originally posted by Blazers21 3. Israel, as expected, responds with a nuclear strike on Baghdad within the hour. WOW!!!!! I am IN dive mode regarding revelation right now. That could explain why the armies of the world get built up around Isreal. It talks about the plagues of chemical warfare as well as an atomic explosion in the detail. The revelation of this event is predicted in the old as well as the new Testament. The more I read the more I see the event's that are unfolding before our eyes being predicted thousands of years ago. From the comet debrix that is about to enter our atmosphere, to the armies it's all there. It is so graphic. I will post a revelation thread by tonight Lord willing. It is awesome... Got to finish. Pray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canyonero! Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Originally posted by Blazers21 3. Israel, as expected, responds with a nuclear strike on Baghdad within the hour. This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard to date. I like how you threw in the <i>as expected</i>. I'm not sure if that's just ignorance or subtle anti-Semitism. If we have forces in Iraq, do you think there's any chance in hell that Israel would launch a counter-offensive of any kind in that time span? Let alone a nuclear one. If I recall correctly, Saddam did launch SCUDs into Israel in 91 (albeit w/o chemical & biological agents), and their response was practically nil. In addition, if Saddam launches these SCUDs because his time is up, why would Israel nuke Baghdad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 It becomes a little less rediculous if you take his points of CHEMICAL warheads hitting Tel Aviv causing "massive civilian casualties" and take into consideration the fact that this scenario could happen soon enough after invasion that our troops aren't near Bahgdad yet. Still, I agree, I don't find it likely and certainly not "expected." Just the journalists present in Bahgdad should be enough to give Sharon pause before immediately responding with nukes. I would expect a massive conventional response coinciding with a warning to get the he11 out of dodge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Originally posted by Canyonero! This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard to date. I like how you threw in the <i>as expected</i>. I'm not sure if that's just ignorance or subtle anti-Semitism. If we have forces in Iraq, do you think there's any chance in hell that Israel would launch a counter-offensive of any kind in that time span? Let alone a nuclear one. If I recall correctly, Saddam did launch SCUDs into Israel in 91 (albeit w/o chemical & biological agents), and their response was practically nil. In addition, if Saddam launches these SCUDs because his time is up, why would Israel nuke Baghdad? MOST senarios that I have read have Israel launching nukes at Iraq. Several "war games" that are floating online have the same happening. Heck, most of us who are againt war in Iraq think that preventing Israel from nuking Iraq is one of the reasons the US wants to handle it anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 FWIW, I had dinner with a friend and his dad a few weeks ago, his dad was a bigshot in the CIA in the 70s and 80s and still well connected. This came up in conversation and he told us that Sharon (with even more hard line support now) has told Bush that in the event ANY type of nonconventional weapon is used on Israel, they would respond with total force. He also said that their armies would annihilate the Palestinian camps and areas of the West BAnk and Gaza. He also said that the other Arab nations know this as well and have told Saddam not to expect their support if he attacks Israel. He also said that he thought Saddam would be assassinated and that the Saudis would claim responsibility for it (even though our Spec OPs would pull the trigger) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 I think it is pretty clear that if Israel gets hit with chemical/biological weapons that they will respond with the nuclear option. My Col. friend who works at the pentagon admitted as much to me last week. They expect Israel to go nuke if we can't get to Saddam in time. My worst case scenario has North Korea invading the south and China taking out Taiwan while we are otherwise occupied in Iraq. Oh, and India taking Kashmir from Pakistan. Did I forget anything? Maybe Ireland will try to throw off the English yoke and Mexico will try and retake Texas;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleSteve Posted March 10, 2003 Author Share Posted March 10, 2003 Originally posted by Canyonero! This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard to date. I like how you threw in the <i>as expected</i>. I'm not sure if that's just ignorance or subtle anti-Semitism. If we have forces in Iraq, do you think there's any chance in hell that Israel would launch a counter-offensive of any kind in that time span? Let alone a nuclear one. If I recall correctly, Saddam did launch SCUDs into Israel in 91 (albeit w/o chemical & biological agents), and their response was practically nil. In addition, if Saddam launches these SCUDs because his time is up, why would Israel nuke Baghdad? That was '91. With an ultra right-wing govt. in Israel now, a nuclear response is quite possible. Take your head out of the sand. From most of the analysis I've been reading, yes, a nuclear response from Israel IS expected in the case of chemical weapons usage. Please do some research before resorting to name calling such as ignorance or anti-semitism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleSteve Posted March 10, 2003 Author Share Posted March 10, 2003 Originally posted by Brave I would expect a massive conventional response coinciding with a warning to get the he11 out of dodge. How could Israel's conventional response be effective? We'll already be hitting Saddam with everything we've got over there. Any Israeli conventional response will go almost unnoticed amid the war raging in Iraq. I thought for awhile before including the words "as expected". But again, from what I'm reading, if Israel takes massive casualties from Iraqi WMD they will respond in kind. Again, it's all conjecture and a not likely scenario, I admit. It is worth considering however given the proliferation of weapons and the hatred evident in that area of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 I'm not worried about N Korea they want to be credible so they can get food to feed the population at others expense. Lets get real N Korea would be a dust bowl if we wanted to do that a thosusand times over to their weak 2 to 15 attempts to hurt somebody. Planned parenhood should be on our side because this would only be late term abortions of several B@stards that dont repsect life any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 Originally posted by Jagsbch WOW!!!!! I am IN dive mode regarding revelation right now. That could explain why the armies of the world get built up around Isreal. It talks about the plagues of chemical warfare as well as an atomic explosion in the detail. The revelation of this event is predicted in the old as well as the new Testament. The more I read the more I see the event's that are unfolding before our eyes being predicted thousands of years ago. From the comet debrix that is about to enter our atmosphere, to the armies it's all there. It is so graphic. I will post a revelation thread by tonight Lord willing. It is awesome... Got to finish. Pray. Jagsbch says the end is near. Quick, run for the hills. :laugh: Dude. Don't you have a bomb shelter to dig or something? I can't speak for everyone but I can tell you from the bottom of my heart that the last thing *I* want to read is *your* interpretation of the bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted March 10, 2003 Share Posted March 10, 2003 So se're going over there and possibly triggering all these events. Why are we doing this again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagsbch Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 Originally posted by joe I think it is pretty clear that if Israel gets hit with chemical/biological weapons that they will respond with the nuclear option. My Col. friend who works at the pentagon admitted as much to me last week. They expect Israel to go nuke if we can't get to Saddam in time. My worst case scenario has North Korea invading the south and China taking out Taiwan while we are otherwise occupied in Iraq. Oh, and India taking Kashmir from Pakistan. Did I forget anything? Maybe Ireland will try to throw off the English yoke and Mexico will try and retake Texas;) Sounds like World War 3 to Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 Originally posted by Storm Why are we doing this again? Saddam can't be allowed to grow so strong that someday he could deny access to the oil. President Bush has said several times that we are going remove the brutal dictator so he will no longer pose a threat to his neighbors and to free the Iraqi people from oppression. Saddam's neighbors just happen to be sitting on most of the worlds petroleum reserves not to mention what's under Iraq herself. Oil is vital to our national security so by threatening the oil he is threatening our nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuckinIA Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 Originally posted by tex Oil is vital to our national security so by threatening the oil he is threatening our nation. I am simply curious if you regard this policy as correct or incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 Originally posted by StuckinIA I am simply curious if you regard this policy as correct or incorrect. I wish we lived in a perfect world but we don't. There are no easy answers here but I'll give it a shot. Even most antiwar protestors admit that Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator, and that the world would probably be a better place if he were removed from power. Getting rid of such an evil man armed with chemical and biological weapons is ok by me and probably the Iraqi people as well. Iraq had granted it's oil rights to a British and American dominated oil firm back in the late 1920s. After the company developed the fields and installed facilities the Iraqis illegally expropriated them so in a sense we would only be taking back what rightfully belongs to England and America anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuckinIA Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 I respect your response. I just get tired of the 'War for oil' crowd that denouces any action simply along these grounds. If oil was the sole purpose for this conflict, then many other measures could have been taken. War is no tgoing to lead to a new abundance of oil in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canyonero! Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 Originally posted by StuckinIA I respect your response. I just get tired of the 'War for oil' crowd that denouces any action simply along these grounds. If oil was the sole purpose for this conflict, then many other measures could have been taken. War is no tgoing to lead to a new abundance of oil in my opinion. Not to mention the fact that we would be invading Canada and various South American countries in addition to, or instead of Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 this is no oil war! this pi$$e$ me off to here people saying its all about oil. don't forget about saddam killing off inocent iraqis what about when he tried to assasinate pres. bush senior? how about the iraqi people who are willing to go to war with us if it means freeing their now third world country. after saddam came into power, they became third world, and can't be cured of a headache before they end up dead. not going to war is an act out against humanity. by all means, KI|_|_ SADDAM!:asta: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 tex....you seem to have done some good research on the oil industry....i've just got around to thinking about it....the attack for oil has some surface crediibilty given our economy (an argument which does not undercut other reasons in my opinion) ....however.......there needs to be a deeper analysis of how the oil industry works...in particular...given the global nature of these huge firms........how much influence does any one government have? how capital moves in that industry and retial pricing (let alone well head) seems largely indepenedent of what our government can manipulate. if you look at the path of oil from well head to the coastal pads to the retailers you can see how prices and deliveries (including refinery inventory time) can be manipulated........short of expropriation, it doesn't appear that governement's can influence this pricing control through tools like excise/import taxes... we need more details on this industry......and the sort of independance gloabalism enables Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 It is about oil. Frances oil contracts. Idiots (and they are idiots) who claim this is about us getting cheap oil dont have the brain capacity to realize the obvious. If all we wanted was cheap oil, we could lift the sanctions and give Saddam a huge oil contract. BAM, cheap oil. And people that claim WE are starting this ball rolling need to open their eyes. Saddam has ignored 18 resolutions, a cease fire agreement, tried to assasinate a US President AND committed human rights atrocities that would make Hitler proud. To do nothing would put the US in a weak position to deal with tyrants in the future. I know most of you think we can just sit in a circle and smoke a J and sing Kumbaya, but the real world needs real leaders and real solutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins Trumpet-Man Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 yeah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 And people that claim WE are starting this ball rolling need to open their eyes. Saddam has ignored 18 resolutions, a cease fire agreement, tried to assasinate a US President AND Maybe I been stuck under a rock, but when did Saddam try to assasinate a US pres?????/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 In the 90s. He tried to kill Bush in Kuwait. http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.