posted
I find it odd that they got an NCO as a spokesperson... not at all saying that a Master Sergeant isn't a legit source, just find it weird... they have officers whose specific job is to make statements like that...
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
On one hand it would be nice to see the good guys vindicated, on the other hand it would scare the hell out of me to think there were 3 nukes stashed for all this time and just uncovered. Wait and see. I am doubtful, but we shall see....
Posts: 23 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it hard to believe that Saddam had nukes but chose not to use them against our troops.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
well, that was a pretty clear denunciation of the story... but again, just wondering at the fact that they used an NCO to make such an important statement.
That's just unusual.
again, no offense to any Sergeants out there...
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I find it hard to believe that Saddam had nukes but chose not to use them against our troops.
Or why didn't he use them long before our invasion? Saddam has an enemy list a mile long, starting with those nations closest to him. I somehow don't believe it. The more I hear about WMD and Saddam, the more I am starting to believe the idea that Saddam was unable to build back up a significant WMD program under the UN eyes had to pose like he DID have such weapons to keep the wolves off of his back.
That said, if he DID have nukes, why in god's name would you irradiate your own country? To what end?
posted
If he did have them there was no way he'd use them against the coalition when they moved in. It would have rallied the world behind the US again. The damage the US has suffered from the ire of the international community is, I think, much more severe and longer lasting than a nuke against soldiers would have been.
That is, of course, assuming you think he had them to start with.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saddam not rational, yes. Saddam stupid, no. Iraq, though covered with empty space isn't THAT big. A good size nuke will do a lot of damage to his own soil, create a space that can't be used or gone through and send up a cloud that will roll around and possibly do more unpredictable damage to others in his country, including himself and his supporters. Nuke others, yes. Nuke self, no.
If he nuked, he would kill lots of his own people. We weren't stamping out the enemy in empty places, we were in cities and places where people lived. Maybe hit a convoy...on a major road that, because of the giant radioactive hole, can't be used any more. Nope. Can't see it.
posted
Maybe the war crimes tribunal is just trying to make sure Saddam gets off with nothing less than the death penalty.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Saddam had a brain in his head, he'd still be in charge of his country.
The War Crimes tribunal has more than enough to nail him for the massive executions and huge grave pits that an extra nail in the coffin isn't necessary.
I don't know - if Saddam could have backed up his threats with nukes, the US would have been forced to seriously re-evaluate their approach because the Patriot system isn't 100% effective and one nuke would have driven every country's alert status right off the frigging chart.
Of course, it might have been his last rational act to not actively employ the nukes - I honestly couldn't say.
posted
I don't buy the argument that he would have used them if he had them. I think he always thought that he would come out on top. Even after we invaded, I think he thought he would figure out some way to come back to power. Hell...he survived the first gulf war. However, he had to know if he used chemical weapons or nukes the entire world would turn on him. While he has used chem weapons in the past, he stuck to using them on Iraqi's that he wanted to kill...he didn't use them on others for the same reason...the world generally lets genocide slide for quite a while before they get invovled...but using chem weapons or nukes on other countries would piss off a lot of people...something that I doubt he wanted.
Of course fil made another very valid point. You don't drop nukes in your own country...they are not defensive weapons. And at the time, we ruled the sky...flying them somewhere else to drop would not have been possible.
posted
Missiles or bombs wouldn't have been an option - he didn't have any practical air force to speak of.
Smuggling them via car or seized plane has possibilities, but it would have been a tricky maneuver.
But given Saddam's atrocities against his own people, I find it hard to believe he wouldn't use nukes against his own people. If he lived afterwards, he could always blame the CIA-Mossad conspiracy.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
