Would the U.S. have used nukes on Iraqi forces?

I'm not sure how many people are aware of this, but back in 1990, General Schwarzkopf threatened to "turn Iraq into glass" if Iraq either used chemical weapons or invaded Saudi Arabia. By this he meant use nukes, which, in 1990, were stocked at both Diego Garcia and on the aircraft carriers in the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf.

So my question is this. If Iraq had continued into Saudi Arabia and overran the outgunned and outnumbered Marines and paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne Division, or used chemical weapons, would the U.S. have used tactical nuclear weapons to halt the Iraqi advance?

Let me also expand the question a bit. Under what circumstances would you fully, unconditionally support our government authorizing nuclear warfare of either limited or full level?

I believe I heard years ago the answer to this question on the news. A lot of what you heard may have been some scare tactics so we wouldn't have to follow through. However I believe there was a plan to blow up some dams and cause a massive flash flood that I heard would devastate parts of Iraq. I don't know how much of this is true but it's what I remember hearing I believe on tv. There also was a story of a ship load of chemical weapons that the US was supposed to dispose of. I don't know if these set sail for Iraq or not but I wouldn't be surprised if someone planned to dispose of them there if someone used the same on us.


As far as supporting a nuclear strike, I believe I would if we were attacked by a nuclear strike and if needed to defend our country. I wouldn't want to be the first to let the nuclear genie back out but I believe there are certain situations where the US plan is to use nukes if our forces are overwhelmed by the opposition. Saying we will use nukes in this situation becomes the US deterrence to an overwhelming attack. I don't know if this is still true or not.

[edit on 18-8-2006 by orionthehunter]

I doubt we woulda used em. Only Norm knows for sure because he had the power and say so.

I would only support a full scale if we were fired upon first by nukes. I would support a samll scale tactical if it was needed to destroy underground/ hardened targets and if troops were being overwhelmed and not before( say threatened).

The response would have been indicated mainly by the use of wide-spread, debilitating chem., biological agents.
They were prepared to drop them from bombers stationed in the area.

Would I have used them? No. Instead, I would use a tactic of carpet bombing with 1500# munitions on the sites where there was use of such agents.

What's unusual to me is that nuclear weapons are always an option on the table, yet it always seems like we dodge the bullet and somehow avoid using them. Its scary in that we never know how close we came to using them.

Orion, are you saying that the nukes would've not been used on advancing Iraqi forces but rather on targets deeper in Iraq?

When would nukes be justified?

Only when the very existance, safety, and life of America is directly threatened. i.e. a massive invasion.

Otherwise, no other country's wars are worth such extremes. Especially not saudi Arabia.

I think if Saddam had used his chemical weapons on US troops successfully, the US would have almost certainly used nukes in retaliation. And I think Saddam knew it.

It wouldn't surprise me if we'd have used them if it was the only way to stop Iraq from taking the Saudi oilfields too.

If the US is hit with wmd, at home or in the field, it has to consider using nukes. Its an escalation of the violence that has to be addressed. The detterence effect of nukes also has to be preserved, it can't be permited for someone to try to wipe out a battalion or unit with mustard gas and not expect to be vapourized in return.

The problem, of course, is how to use them. If the US was hit with chemical weapons during either iraq war, then the iraqi cities would be nuked. But what if it was just a terror attack? If it was, say, based out of afghanistan, even if it still had actual cities, it wouldn't be appropriate to nuke all of them, perhaps just the ones supporting the attack. But if it was, say, out of syria, then it would warrant hitting damascus and the like. We might have to, in such a situation, nuke the iranian cities too, since they have a military pact to come to each other's aid, and are clearly against us anyway.

If it was, say, France, then we can be sure to find out that it was a terror group, not the actions of the french government or done with their knowledge (even if franks carried it out).

I dout it because the governemnt would get so mush crap about killing civilions. But hey after pearl harbor the sure did nuke the hell out of japan and killed a WHOLE LOT of people. To bad pearl harbor was a staged attack if you dont belive me research it. But who knows with how are government is it just seems to get more and more currupt every day.

I thought I heard if chemical weapons had been used by Sadam in Iraq on US forces, then the US was prepared to bomb the dams of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers running through the center of Iraq. I don't remembering hearing about actually planning on using nukes. I don't know if those two rivers have some dams or how much damage that would do if they got destroyed. I thought I heard this information though. I have wondered what kind of damage that would do.

[edit on 19-8-2006 by orionthehunter]

I doubt the US would have targeted population centers in response to attacks on US troops. That would be a ticket to instant global pariah status, and while Bush 2 may be that stupid, his father certainly wasn't. You think people hate us now? Wait until we nuke a city full of people.

More likely tactical nukes would have been used on Iraqi troop concentrations.

no we wouldnt have used it because wuts the point when our Military force is the most powerful military in the world and if you thinking china....F**K China they arent #.....If you use a nuke, atleast be a strong nation which the United States cannot defeat.....Iraq is a 3rd world country, using a nuke would make us look bad and a waste of tax money.....a nuke is very expensive to arm you know....The united states military force can take on any military in the world and is mostly likely to win.....United States is a war nation, we love war so does our government so how can you compete