From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@www.aeiveos.com)
Date: Thu Sep 09 1999 - 12:30:15 MDT
I would like to put this thread *BACK* on track, since it has decayed
away into a confusing SWAMP.
The point of the original discussion was -- what would have happened
if Saddam had used Bio/Chem-weapons *first* on the U.S. or Israel?
Various people pointed out that Iraq had been concerned or was
even warned that the use of B/C WoMD would draw a Nuclear response.
Now, the scenario I proposed [A] was that *if* S. had used B/C on
Israel *and* there were a significant loss of life, they would
have responded, justifiably(?) with nuclear weapons. I base
this on my read of Israels willingness to use preemptive military
force to prevent "crazies" from obtaining such weapons so that
they will be able to play this trump card for a few more years.
[this is my "political" thinking, good or bad.]
Looking at scenario [B], what would have happened if S. had used
B/C on U.S. troops is quite different. The U.S. troops were
quite prepared for this and would have at least to some degree
been able to withstand such assaults. There is a big difference
from using B/C on civilians unable to defend themselves and a
military apparatus this has at least some defenses.
In (B), I suspect that the U.S. would have withstood this for
some time, probably added an aircraft carrier or two and
really stepped up the conventional response. I do not
think we would have "lightly" used the nuclear response.
Only if it were clear that the B/C were causing *extreme*
levels of casualties, would this have been justified.
I think the problem here comes down to a general perception
that the people of Iraq are victims of their leaders.
Harming the people in significant excess of that necessary
to achieve a military victory would have been viewed, as
Marc points out, with some distaste by various people around
the world. It is worth noting, that while War is not
perfect, it may have become "cleaner" in the sense that
most of the casualties were troops and not civilians.
If you look at the history of the Gulf War, a great deal of
attention was paid to both image management and the minimization
of casualties. Only if the casualties had been very high,
and extreme justification (such as the violation of the Geneva
Convention by using B/C weapons) were available, would the
U.S. have risked playing the nuclear card. It is far more
likely that the U.S. would have used N. weapons against
the Iraqi army (military vs. military) as compared with
Israel using them on Baghdad (civilians vs. civilians).
I think the reason for a major reluctance to use the N option
is the reason that the more nuclear is used, the further down
the slippery slope you go of when using it is justified.
If it is used often, it becomes ok for other countries
to use it when they get upset (witness Pakistan & India).
On the two occasions when nuclear was used, I was taught it was
because of the expected loss of life an invasion of Japan would
have required. Iwo Jima had cost 6,800 men; 25,800 casualties.
Okinawa had cost 16,000 men; 68,000 casualties. I believe
the casualty estimates for an invasion of Japan were > 100K.
Now, it is interesting that I was recently told by a Russian
friend, that they are taught that the American's had no need to
use the bomb, since (a) Japan would have been facing the combined
American & Russian armies and (b) Japan was on its last legs
and would have surrendered soon anyway. The Russians generally
believe we used the bomb simply to demonstrate to them that
we had it and weren't afraid to use it.
Whether the American or Russian perspective is the most accurate
is difficult for me to say -- it does however point out the
degree to which opinions regarding the use of weapons of mass
destruction can vary and how history is written by the teachers.
An interesting information source about The Bomb/Cold War is:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/experience/the.bomb/
Now onto some of the comments:
On Thu, 9 Sep 1999 mark@unicorn.com wrote:
> Brian D Williams [talon57@well.com] wrote:
> >Wrong era, this isn't WWII, A 20 megaton H-bomb would vaporize
> >baghdad.
>
> You're seriously suggesting dropping a 20MT bomb on Baghdad? Really? I'm
> not misinterpreting you here? Are you insane?
We would have more likely dropped bomb(s) of the appropriate size
on the armies in or around Kuwait. If that didn't result in a
surrender or coup, I suspect we would then have marched a fairly
large force up to Baghdad (since the opposition would have been
fairly limited).
The Israeli's however could have been justified in a small Nuclear
response against civilian populations *if* they themselves were
suffering high casualties. I think the only reason that this
whole thing did not escalate was because S./I. were afraid of
the N. response as has been discussed.
>
> When they're acting as hired mercenaries, sent out to put Western puppet
> leaders back in place in the name of 'freedom' and 'democracy', why should
> anyone value them higher than the hundreds of thousands or millions of
> Iraqi civilians who you would happily kill with your hydrogen bomb?
I will agree that in the Mideast we were acting in our own selfish
interests (oil) and that we have a sloppy record of choosing where
and how actively to get involved (compare Kuwait with Bosnia).
However, I'm *unclear* about whether "put Western puppet leaders back in
place" is an accdurate statement. My impression is that the Arabs
in power in the various countries, have made their own political
paths to controlling things. If these people were the puppets
that you describe, then I would think that the Arab oil embargos
of the mid-70's should not have happened. I will agree that Kuwait
and certainly Saudi Arabia are not democracies, and seem to recall
some discussion that we would only become involved in Kuwait *if*
they agreed to adopt more democratic system. Whether this was
ever implemented or not I am unsure.
>
> So when Arabs decided to use nukes or bio/chemical weapons on DC and a few
> other US cities in retaliation for the US nuclear strike on Baghdad you'll
> just nod your head and say 'Well, that just serves us right for using
> nuclear weapons'?
I doubt seriously whether anyone believes this would occur. David
didn't take on Goliath without some belief that he would win.
Terrorists might slip a bomb into a U.S. city and detonate it
but you can rest assured that the country from which they originated
would suffer the consequences.
Perhaps the worst thing to fear now-a-days is a distributed stateless
terrorist group that could potentially gain access to nuclear technology.
They could use WoMD with relatively little fear if they were willing
to sacrifice their lives. Irrational people are very dangerous.
>
> I mean, seriously, forget for a moment that you're American. Imagine
> yourself as a foreigner reading this discussion, realising that
> ordinary Americans believe that they should be able to attack
> any other country which annoys them, for any reason, and if that
> other country decides to defend itself with the only effective
> weapons it has, those Americans believe that they are perfectly
> justified in vaporizing foreign cities containing millions of
> civilians in retaliation.
I believe this statement to be an *extreme* distortion and
misinterpretation of the discussion! *AND* the people who
contributed to it by making statements that *might* be
misinterpreted may want to keep this in mind in the future
[myself included!].
We didn't attack Iraq. Iraq attacked Kuwait, Israel and perhaps
Iran (I'm unsure how that conflict got started). We were invited
into Saudi Arabia by the Saudi's (who feared they were next) and
exiled leaders of Kuwait. *I* personally and I believe most,
if not all, of the other members of this group do not believe
we should "attack any other country which annoys them". The
only time when I believe WoMD are justified would be an extreme
utilitarian point of view. It would require the saving of tens
of thousands to millions of lives or the defense against the loss
of such lives. As the Baghdad area has a population of 1.7 million,
the use of a large WoMD against Baghdad could only be justified as
an absolute last resort.
I note that nowhere in the discussion has there been any explanation
for why any of Saddam's actions were justified.
Also, to move back to nanotechnology, the interesting thing
about it (unlike Bio/Chem weapons) is that it is highly probable
that it *does* allow *extremely* surgical strikes. You sprinkle
nanodust all over the city with a program that says:
"Does this man's voice print match 'Saddam Hussein'?"
"If yes, put him to sleep for the next year."
Not too difficult for simple Mednanobots to do.
And even if you get it wrong, they bring the person in and
if you determine it isn't S.H. you provide the code to turn
off the sleep-inducing bot.
The problem becomes would a government (or a dictator like S.)
carefully monitor your actions...
"Is this person planning to flee the country to avoid
paying his share of the national debt..."
"If yes, take over his mind and prevent him from thinking those
thoughts."
Now, I will admit that developing a program that can do *this*
is *VERY* difficult. It would require very sophisticated nanobots
and internal nets to monitor your actions and control your thoughts.
I question whether there would be any point to this in a nanoera
as the scenario assumes many pre-nano perspectives (governments
exist, national debts exist, people exist, etc.).
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:05 MST