From: "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury@www.aeiveos.com>
>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.
Our ability to withstand a NBC atack is in my opinion vastly overrated, and I was NBC trained, I think it propaganda to be frank....
>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).
Iraq has a history of hiding both troops and war machinery in civilian areas including Baghdad, one of ther major communication stations was in the basement of the hotel where foreign journalists were housed.
>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.
The estimated U.S casualties for an invasion of the mainland was 1 million.
>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).
I agree. I don't usually show my cards, but saying Baghdad was largely for shock value. Besides after threating to vaporize Baghdad and being talked out of it by the "good cops" there would be less resistance to wiping out all the so called palaces.
Brian
Member, Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
Life Extension Foundation, www.lef.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
Mars Society, www.marssociety.org
Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W