Posted on 11/14/2002 12:31:11 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
War with Iraq could result in the unleashing of unimaginable horrors such as the use of chemical and biological weapons against Western cities, and a nuclear holocaust killing millions in retaliation for Iraq's use of chemical and biological agents, a pair of new reports warn.
According to Janes, the authoritative British publication, in the event of an attack on Iraq, Saddam Hussein might resort to chemical and germ warfare against cites in the U.S. and other Western nations.
Moreover, Janes foresees "the likelihood" of terrorists getting their hands on Saddam's arsenal of chemical and biological assets.
Writing in Jane's Terrorism & Security Monitor magazine, the report's author, Andrew Oppenheimer recalls "During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam authorized commanders of his missile forces to launch biological and chemical weapons at Israel if US-led coalition forces had marched on Baghdad. Presumably, if the US were to invade Iraq to enforce a change of regime, Saddam could give such apocalyptic orders again."
Oppenheimer raises the frightening possibility that in order to use his arsenal against the West, Saddam could "disseminate these weapons to anti-West terror groups such as Al-Qaeda or alternatively have his own followers deploy them.
"Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting an attack using weapons of mass destruction against the US would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him," Oppenheimer wrote.
An equally alarming report, "Collateral Damage" published Tuesday in 14 countries by Medact, an organization of British health professionals, warns that an Iraq war could kill as many as 500,000 people, and another 3.9 million more if the U.S. used nuclear weapons against Saddam in retaliation for his use of chemical or biological warfare.
According to Britain's NewScientist.com, the report estimates that as many as 260,000 could die in an Iraq attack "and its three-month aftermath," with another 200,000 at risk of dying from famine and disease. In addition, the report warns a civil war in the ravaged nation could add another 20,000 deaths to the toll.
Based on the assumption that an attack on Iraq will begin with sustained air strikes, followed by an invasion of ground troops and winding up with the capture of Baghdad, the report makes the following conclusions:
The resulting death toll of an Iraq war will exceed the 1991 Gulf War, which killed around 200,000 Iraqis, or the war on Afghanistan, which has so far left less than 5000 dead.
Nuclear weapons used against Iraq in response to a chemical and biological attack on Kuwait and Israel, would result in "a massive 3.9 million people dead."
Even the best-case scenario suggests that even a short war would initially kill 10,000 people, "more than three times the number who died on September 11".
Because the 1991 Gulf War severely weakened of the health of the Iraqi people and their health care infrastructure, casualties would be higher in any new war. "Casualties, the cycle of violence and other consequences continue to affect generation after generation," says the report's author, health consultant Jane Salvage.
Medical and military experts hailed the report. "It is really important that people understand the consequences of war," says Vivienne Nathanson, head of science and ethics at the British Medical Association.
"All doctors look at war with a very large degree of horror because they know the meaning of casualties," she told New Scientist. "Even in the cleanest, most limited conflicts, people die and people suffer."
Added General Pete Gration, former Chief of the Australian Defense Forces and an Iraq war opponent: "This is no exaggerated tract by a bunch of zealots. It is a coldly factual report by health professionals who draw on the best evidence available."
Long ago, General William T. Sherman said the same thing the new report states: "War is Hell."
Whereas, if we just leave him alone nothing bad will happen, right?
Until his nuclear weapons are built...
But Saddam told the UN that he doesn't have these weapons, so Janes must be making this up, right?
According to Janes, the authoritative British publication, in the event of an attack on Iraq, Saddam Hussein might resort to chemical and germ warfare against cites in the U.S. and other Western nations.
But Saddam told the UN that he doesn't have these weapons, so Janes must be making this up, right?
I didn't know that. :^(
Bummer.
Oh well....maybe still...one of them will step up to the plate (or person) and care of business. After all-all of them are at risk if a war breaks out.
So, is this guy talking about parity? We can only kill as many of them as they did of us?
Oh well. Life's a bitch, then you die. Better them than us. The only ones I'll weep for are our soldiers.
Not nearly as important as understanding the causes. Which none of the bleaters do at ALL.
"Life's a bitch, then Mecca melts"
The problem is that Saddam (or any other tinpot dictator with delusions of grandeur) feels threatened by people in positions of authority who are braver or smarter than himself. Such people might do just what you suggest, so such people must be struck down before they can act.
If Saddam uses chemical or biological weapons against wester cities, the United States would first use tacitical nuclear weapons against armies in garrison. The United States would NOT (should not) nuke Baghdad, or other population centers.
Do you HONESTLY think Saddam will allow the inspectors to FIND his WOMD? No one, least of all the MILITARY wants a war, however only the left-wing socialists in this country would believe that Saddam would NOT annihilate us if and when he has the chance, or offer assistance in any way possible to the Islamists who are bent on the destruction of western civilization.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.