What if Iraq had been allowed to develop nukes?

[a425couple]

What if Iraq had been allowed to develop nukes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
"Operation Opera (Hebrew: מבצע אופרה‎‎‎),[1] also known as Operation
Babylon,[2] was a surprise Israeli air strike carried out on 7 June
1981, which destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor under construction 17
kilometers (10.5 miles) southeast of Baghdad.[3][4][5] The operation
came after Iran's unsuccessful Operation Scorch Sword operation had
caused minor damage to the same nuclear facility the previous year, the
damage having been subsequently repaired by French technicians.
Operation Opera, and related Israeli government statements following it,
established the Begin Doctrine, which explicitly stated the strike was
not an anomaly, but instead “a precedent for every future government in
Israel.” Israel's counter-proliferation preventive strike added another
dimension to their existing policy of deliberate ambiguity, as it
related to the nuclear capability of other states in the region.[6]
In 1976, Iraq purchased an "Osiris"-class nuclear reactor from France.---
The American private intelligence agency STRATFOR wrote in 2007 that the
uranium-fueled reactor "was believed to be on the verge of producing
plutonium for a weapons program".[35]
In a 2003 speech, Richard Wilson, a professor of physics at Harvard
University (did not think weapons grade was possible)

In an interview in 2005, Bill Clinton expressed support for the
attack: "everybody talks about what the Israelis did at Osiraq, in 1981,
which, I think, in retrospect, was a really good thing. You know, it
kept Saddam from developing nuclear power."[90] Louis René Beres wrote
in 1995 that "[h]ad it not been for the brilliant raid at Osiraq,
Saddam's forces might have been equipped with atomic warheads in 1991."

[SolomonW]

Post by a425couple
What if Iraq had been allowed to develop nukes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
"Operation Opera (Hebrew: מבצע אופרה‎‎‎),[1] also known as Operation
Babylon,[2] was a surprise Israeli air strike carried out on 7 June
1981, which destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor under construction 17
kilometers (10.5 miles) southeast of Baghdad.[3][4][5] The operation
came after Iran's unsuccessful Operation Scorch Sword operation had
caused minor damage to the same nuclear facility the previous year, the
damage having been subsequently repaired by French technicians.
Operation Opera, and related Israeli government statements following it,
established the Begin Doctrine, which explicitly stated the strike was
not an anomaly, but instead “a precedent for every future government in
Israel.” Israel's counter-proliferation preventive strike added another
dimension to their existing policy of deliberate ambiguity, as it
related to the nuclear capability of other states in the region.[6]
In 1976, Iraq purchased an "Osiris"-class nuclear reactor from France.---
The American private intelligence agency STRATFOR wrote in 2007 that the
uranium-fueled reactor "was believed to be on the verge of producing
plutonium for a weapons program".[35]
In a 2003 speech, Richard Wilson, a professor of physics at Harvard
University (did not think weapons grade was possible)
In an interview in 2005, Bill Clinton expressed support for the
attack: "everybody talks about what the Israelis did at Osiraq, in 1981,
which, I think, in retrospect, was a really good thing. You know, it
in 1995 that "[h]ad it not been for the brilliant raid at Osiraq,
Saddam's forces might have been equipped with atomic warheads in 1991."

Here are some thought that spring to mind

Well there is no Gulf War, Saddam keeps Kuwait.

Iran and the Saudis want a bomb ASAP.

[jerry kraus]

Post by a425couple
What if Iraq had been allowed to develop nukes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
"Operation Opera (Hebrew: מבצע אופרה‎‎‎),[1] also known as Operation
Babylon,[2] was a surprise Israeli air strike carried out on 7 June
1981, which destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor under construction 17
kilometers (10.5 miles) southeast of Baghdad.[3][4][5] The operation
came after Iran's unsuccessful Operation Scorch Sword operation had
caused minor damage to the same nuclear facility the previous year, the
damage having been subsequently repaired by French technicians.
Operation Opera, and related Israeli government statements following it,
established the Begin Doctrine, which explicitly stated the strike was
not an anomaly, but instead “a precedent for every future government in
Israel.” Israel's counter-proliferation preventive strike added another
dimension to their existing policy of deliberate ambiguity, as it
related to the nuclear capability of other states in the region.[6]
In 1976, Iraq purchased an "Osiris"-class nuclear reactor from France.---
The American private intelligence agency STRATFOR wrote in 2007 that the
uranium-fueled reactor "was believed to be on the verge of producing
plutonium for a weapons program".[35]
In a 2003 speech, Richard Wilson, a professor of physics at Harvard
University (did not think weapons grade was possible)
In an interview in 2005, Bill Clinton expressed support for the
attack: "everybody talks about what the Israelis did at Osiraq, in 1981,
which, I think, in retrospect, was a really good thing. You know, it
in 1995 that "[h]ad it not been for the brilliant raid at Osiraq,
Saddam's forces might have been equipped with atomic warheads in 1991."

I think, for one thing, it's rather unlikely that Iraq would have used nuclear weapons against Israel. We have some rather compelling evidence on this point. During the first Gulf War, the Iraqis sent SCUD missiles into Israel. The Israelis did not retaliate. However, if he'd wanted to, Saddam could have sent SCUD missiles armed with chemical weapons into Israel. He didn't do that, did he? You know why, don't you? The Israelis had warned the Iraqis that "gassing" the people of Israel, as in the Holocaust, would result in a correspondingly historical retaliation against the Iraqis. The Israelis were going to take out the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates river at high tide, with heavy aerial bombardment, inducing a new "biblical flood" drowning half the people of Iraq. Nice, eh?

So, since Saddam showed restraint in this case, I think he would have showed restraint with nuclear weapons, too? Don't you?

[SolomonW]

Post by jerry kraus

Post by a425couple
What if Iraq had been allowed to develop nukes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
"Operation Opera (Hebrew: מבצע אופרה‎‎‎),[1] also known as Operation
Babylon,[2] was a surprise Israeli air strike carried out on 7 June
1981, which destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor under construction 17
kilometers (10.5 miles) southeast of Baghdad.[3][4][5] The operation
came after Iran's unsuccessful Operation Scorch Sword operation had
caused minor damage to the same nuclear facility the previous year, the
damage having been subsequently repaired by French technicians.
Operation Opera, and related Israeli government statements following it,
established the Begin Doctrine, which explicitly stated the strike was
not an anomaly, but instead “a precedent for every future government in
Israel.” Israel's counter-proliferation preventive strike added another
dimension to their existing policy of deliberate ambiguity, as it
related to the nuclear capability of other states in the region.[6]
In 1976, Iraq purchased an "Osiris"-class nuclear reactor from France.---
The American private intelligence agency STRATFOR wrote in 2007 that the
uranium-fueled reactor "was believed to be on the verge of producing
plutonium for a weapons program".[35]
In a 2003 speech, Richard Wilson, a professor of physics at Harvard
University (did not think weapons grade was possible)
In an interview in 2005, Bill Clinton expressed support for the
attack: "everybody talks about what the Israelis did at Osiraq, in 1981,
which, I think, in retrospect, was a really good thing. You know, it
in 1995 that "[h]ad it not been for the brilliant raid at Osiraq,
Saddam's forces might have been equipped with atomic warheads in 1991."

I think, for one thing, it's rather unlikely that Iraq would have used nuclear weapons against Israel. We have some rather compelling evidence on this point. During the first Gulf War, the Iraqis sent SCUD missiles into Israel. The Israelis did not retaliate. However, if he'd wanted to, Saddam could have sent SCUD missiles armed with chemical weapons into Israel. He didn't do that, did he? You know why, don't you? The Israelis had warned the Iraqis that "gassing" the people of Israel, as in the Holocaust, would result in a correspondingly historical retaliation against the Iraqis. The Israelis were going to take out the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates river at high tide, with heavy aerial bombardment, inducing a new "biblical flood" drowning half the people of Iraq. Nice, eh?
So, since Saddam showed restraint in this case, I think he would have showed restraint with nuclear weapons, too? Don't you?

If you read Khidhir Hamza's book you will find out that Saddam if he did
have nukes would have used them against Israel.

[jerry kraus]

Post by SolomonW

Post by jerry kraus

Post by a425couple
What if Iraq had been allowed to develop nukes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
"Operation Opera (Hebrew: מבצע אופרה‎‎‎),[1] also known as Operation
Babylon,[2] was a surprise Israeli air strike carried out on 7 June
1981, which destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor under construction 17
kilometers (10.5 miles) southeast of Baghdad.[3][4][5] The operation
came after Iran's unsuccessful Operation Scorch Sword operation had
caused minor damage to the same nuclear facility the previous year, the
damage having been subsequently repaired by French technicians.
Operation Opera, and related Israeli government statements following it,
established the Begin Doctrine, which explicitly stated the strike was
not an anomaly, but instead “a precedent for every future government in
Israel.” Israel's counter-proliferation preventive strike added another
dimension to their existing policy of deliberate ambiguity, as it
related to the nuclear capability of other states in the region.[6]
In 1976, Iraq purchased an "Osiris"-class nuclear reactor from France.---
The American private intelligence agency STRATFOR wrote in 2007 that the
uranium-fueled reactor "was believed to be on the verge of producing
plutonium for a weapons program".[35]
In a 2003 speech, Richard Wilson, a professor of physics at Harvard
University (did not think weapons grade was possible)
In an interview in 2005, Bill Clinton expressed support for the
attack: "everybody talks about what the Israelis did at Osiraq, in 1981,
which, I think, in retrospect, was a really good thing. You know, it
in 1995 that "[h]ad it not been for the brilliant raid at Osiraq,
Saddam's forces might have been equipped with atomic warheads in 1991."

I think, for one thing, it's rather unlikely that Iraq would have used nuclear weapons against Israel. We have some rather compelling evidence on this point. During the first Gulf War, the Iraqis sent SCUD missiles into Israel. The Israelis did not retaliate. However, if he'd wanted to, Saddam could have sent SCUD missiles armed with chemical weapons into Israel. He didn't do that, did he? You know why, don't you? The Israelis had warned the Iraqis that "gassing" the people of Israel, as in the Holocaust, would result in a correspondingly historical retaliation against the Iraqis. The Israelis were going to take out the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates river at high tide, with heavy aerial bombardment, inducing a new "biblical flood" drowning half the people of Iraq. Nice, eh?
So, since Saddam showed restraint in this case, I think he would have showed restraint with nuclear weapons, too? Don't you?

If you read Khidhir Hamza's book you will find out that Saddam if he did
have nukes would have used them against Israel.

Well, nuclear weapons probably could largely wipe out Israel, while Chemical Weapons couldn't, so, you could argue that nuclear weapons have more functional utility. However, the testimony of an Iraqi exile is likely to be somewhat tainted -- they'll want to say whatever their new masters want them to say, and they'll want what they say to sound important, too. True, Saddam was regularly willing to court his own destruction. But, he did show restraint in not using chemical weapons against the Israelis. Not really too sure on this particular point.

[SolomonW]

Post by jerry kraus

Post by SolomonW

Post by jerry kraus

Post by a425couple
What if Iraq had been allowed to develop nukes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
"Operation Opera (Hebrew: מבצע אופרה‎‎‎),[1] also known as Operation
Babylon,[2] was a surprise Israeli air strike carried out on 7 June
1981, which destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor under construction 17
kilometers (10.5 miles) southeast of Baghdad.[3][4][5] The operation
came after Iran's unsuccessful Operation Scorch Sword operation had
caused minor damage to the same nuclear facility the previous year, the
damage having been subsequently repaired by French technicians.
Operation Opera, and related Israeli government statements following it,
established the Begin Doctrine, which explicitly stated the strike was
not an anomaly, but instead “a precedent for every future government in
Israel.” Israel's counter-proliferation preventive strike added another
dimension to their existing policy of deliberate ambiguity, as it
related to the nuclear capability of other states in the region.[6]
In 1976, Iraq purchased an "Osiris"-class nuclear reactor from France.---
The American private intelligence agency STRATFOR wrote in 2007 that the
uranium-fueled reactor "was believed to be on the verge of producing
plutonium for a weapons program".[35]
In a 2003 speech, Richard Wilson, a professor of physics at Harvard
University (did not think weapons grade was possible)
In an interview in 2005, Bill Clinton expressed support for the
attack: "everybody talks about what the Israelis did at Osiraq, in 1981,
which, I think, in retrospect, was a really good thing. You know, it
in 1995 that "[h]ad it not been for the brilliant raid at Osiraq,
Saddam's forces might have been equipped with atomic warheads in 1991."

I think, for one thing, it's rather unlikely that Iraq would have used nuclear weapons against Israel. We have some rather compelling evidence on this point. During the first Gulf War, the Iraqis sent SCUD missiles into Israel. The Israelis did not retaliate. However, if he'd wanted to, Saddam could have sent SCUD missiles armed with chemical weapons into Israel. He didn't do that, did he? You know why, don't you? The Israelis had warned the Iraqis that "gassing" the people of Israel, as in the Holocaust, would result in a correspondingly historical retaliation against the Iraqis. The Israelis were going to take out the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates river at high tide, with heavy aerial bombardment, inducing a new "biblical flood" drowning half the people of Iraq. Nice, eh?
So, since Saddam showed restraint in this case, I think he would have showed restraint with nuclear weapons, too? Don't you?

If you read Khidhir Hamza's book you will find out that Saddam if he did
have nukes would have used them against Israel.

Well, nuclear weapons probably could largely wipe out Israel,

You would need a lot.

Post by jerry kraus
while Chemical Weapons couldn't,

Israel is well protected against chemical weapons.

Post by jerry kraus
so, you could argue that nuclear weapons have more functional utility.

I think so too.

Post by jerry kraus
However, the testimony of an Iraqi exile is likely to be somewhat tainted -- they'll want to say whatever their new masters want them to say, and they'll want what they say to sound important, too.

Agreed but that does not rule out his testimony.

Post by jerry kraus
True, Saddam was regularly willing to court his own destruction. But, he did show restraint in not using chemical weapons against the Israelis. Not really too sure on this particular point.

I am not sure what restaint you men.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by SolomonW

Post by jerry kraus

Post by SolomonW
If you read Khidhir Hamza's book you will find out that Saddam if he did
have nukes would have used them against Israel.

Well, nuclear weapons probably could largely wipe out Israel,

You would need a lot.

No you wouldn't - 3 or 4 would destroy Israel's main population
centers and with it their economy rather effectively.

Post by SolomonW

Post by jerry kraus
True, Saddam was regularly willing to court his own destruction. But, he did show restraint in not using chemical weapons against the Israelis. Not really too sure on this particular point.

Saddam was aggressive but not suicidal. That said of all Israel's
enemies in 1967 and 1973 the Iraqis were most hated and had a
reputation amongst the Israelis for savagery.

[SolomonW]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by SolomonW

Post by jerry kraus

Post by SolomonW
If you read Khidhir Hamza's book you will find out that Saddam if he did
have nukes would have used them against Israel.

Well, nuclear weapons probably could largely wipe out Israel,

You would need a lot.

No you wouldn't - 3 or 4 would destroy Israel's main population
centers and with it their economy rather effectively.

Most Israelis do not tend to live in their main population centers, and
you need more than one for each major city to destroy it.

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by SolomonW

Post by jerry kraus
True, Saddam was regularly willing to court his own destruction. But, he did show restraint in not using chemical weapons against the Israelis. Not really too sure on this particular point.

Saddam was aggressive but not suicidal. That said of all Israel's
enemies in 1967 and 1973 the Iraqis were most hated and had a
reputation amongst the Israelis for savagery.

Not just Israelies, Saddam was widely considered the worst Arab ruler.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by SolomonW

Post by The Horny Goat
Saddam was aggressive but not suicidal. That said of all Israel's
enemies in 1967 and 1973 the Iraqis were most hated and had a
reputation amongst the Israelis for savagery.

Not just Israelies, Saddam was widely considered the worst Arab ruler.

By "worst" do you mean "least competent" or "most brutal"? I assume
you mean the latter as I never heard anything in my readings of 1967
or 1973 where the Iraqi armor was considered any worse than the
Egyptian or Syrian forces and in some cases better led.

[SolomonW]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by SolomonW

Post by The Horny Goat
Saddam was aggressive but not suicidal. That said of all Israel's
enemies in 1967 and 1973 the Iraqis were most hated and had a
reputation amongst the Israelis for savagery.

Not just Israelies, Saddam was widely considered the worst Arab ruler.

By "worst" do you mean "least competent" or "most brutal"? I assume
you mean the latter as I never heard anything in my readings of 1967
or 1973 where the Iraqi armor was considered any worse than the
Egyptian or Syrian forces and in some cases better led.

You are correct, I was saying brutal.

Iraq and Israel have fought several times; I am not aware of any Israeli or
for that matter, anyone else that considered them competent. In 1973, the
Iraqi armour drove unprepared into an Israeli trap and suffered heavy
casualties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_Division_(Iraq)

[a425couple]

Post by SolomonW

Post by jerry kraus

Post by a425couple
What if Iraq had been allowed to develop nukes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
"Operation Opera (Hebrew: מבצע אופרה‎‎‎),[1] also known as Operation
Babylon,[2] was a surprise Israeli air strike carried out on 7 June
1981, which destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor under construction 17
kilometers (10.5 miles) southeast of Baghdad.[3][4][5] The operation
came after Iran's unsuccessful Operation Scorch Sword operation had
caused minor damage to the same nuclear facility the previous year, the
damage having been subsequently repaired by French technicians.
Operation Opera, and related Israeli government statements following it,
established the Begin Doctrine, which explicitly stated the strike was
not an anomaly, but instead “a precedent for every future government in
Israel.” Israel's counter-proliferation preventive strike added another
dimension to their existing policy of deliberate ambiguity, as it
related to the nuclear capability of other states in the region.[6]
In 1976, Iraq purchased an "Osiris"-class nuclear reactor from France.---
The American private intelligence agency STRATFOR wrote in 2007 that the
uranium-fueled reactor "was believed to be on the verge of producing
plutonium for a weapons program".[35]
In a 2003 speech, Richard Wilson, a professor of physics at Harvard
University (did not think weapons grade was possible)
In an interview in 2005, Bill Clinton expressed support for the
attack: "everybody talks about what the Israelis did at Osiraq, in 1981,
which, I think, in retrospect, was a really good thing. You know, it
in 1995 that "[h]ad it not been for the brilliant raid at Osiraq,
Saddam's forces might have been equipped with atomic warheads in 1991."

I think, for one thing, it's rather unlikely that Iraq would have used nuclear weapons against Israel. We have some rather compelling evidence on this point. During the first Gulf War, the Iraqis sent SCUD missiles into Israel. The Israelis did not retaliate. However, if he'd wanted to, Saddam could have sent SCUD missiles armed with chemical weapons into Israel. He didn't do that, did he? You know why, don't you? The Israelis had warned the Iraqis that "gassing" the people of Israel, as in the Holocaust, would result in a correspondingly historical retaliation against the Iraqis. The Israelis were going to take out the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates river at high tide, with heavy aerial bombardment, inducing a new "biblical flood" drowning half the people of Iraq. Nice, eh?
So, since Saddam showed restraint in this case, I think he would have showed restraint with nuclear weapons, too? Don't you?

If you read Khidhir Hamza's book you will find out that Saddam if he did
have nukes would have used them against Israel.

as in
Saddam's Bombmaker: The Terrifiying Inside Story of the Iraqi Nuclear
and Biological Weapons Kindle Edition
by Jeff Stein (Author), Khidhir Hamza (Author)
4.1 out of 5 stars 57 customer reviews

Hardcover
$3.50
48 Used from $1.44
11 New from $3.50
4 Collectible from $8.95
Paperback
$6.14
76 Used from $0.10
16 New from $0.99
3 Collectible from $9.95
Audiobook
$0.00
Free with your Audible trial

The Iraqi scientist who designed Baghdad's nuclear bomb tells how he did
it in secret with the cynical help of U.S., French, German, and British
suppliers and experts, and kept it hidden from U.N. inspectors after the
Gulf War. Today, he says, Saddam Hussein is only months away from making
a workable bomb and has every intention of using it.
Don't tell me about the law. The law is anything I write on a scrap of
paper."
Saddam Hussein

In 1994, after twenty years developing Iraq's atomic weapon, Dr. Khidhir
Hamza made a daring escape to warn the CIA of Saddam's nuclear
ambitions...only to be ridiculed and turned away! After a harrowing
journey across three continents with Iraqi agents on his trail, Hamza
finally came in from the cold at the U.S. embassy in Hungary. Now he
tells a frightening story that U.S. officials have finally come to
believe: that Saddam is still feverishly at work on the bomb and, if
pushed to the wall, will use it.
Dr. Hamza also presents a startling, unprecedented portrait of Saddam
himself ­­ his drunken rages, his women, his fear of germs, and his
cold-blooded murder of underlings. A former resident of the presidential
palace, Hamza is the only defector who has lived to write a firsthand,
intimate portrait of the Iraqi inner circle, its spies and hit men, and
their brutal chief.
Saddam's Bombmaker is also a saga of one man's journey through the
circles of hell. Educated at MIT and Florida State University, dedicated
to a life of peaceful teaching in America, Dr. Hamza relates how the
regime ordered him home, seduced him into a pampered life as an atomic
energy official, and forced him to design a bomb. The price of refusal
was torture.
As the father of the Iraqi bomb, Dr. Hamza designed a device from
scratch with the help of World War Two­era blueprints from America's Los
Alamos labs, all the while planning an escape. Privately, he and his
colleagues believed they could procrastinate long enough to outlive
Saddam. But the dictator outmaneuvered them, whipping the scientists
into a crash program to build a crude bomb that could be dropped on
Israel. Had U.S. and Allied forces not quickly mobilized for Desert
Storm, Dr. Hamza relates, Saddam may well have succeeded; except for
sufficient uranium, the device was ready. It still is.
Dr. Hamza's tale of his escape, his first bungled contact with CIA
agents, and his flight abroad will keep readers turning pages toward a
climax worthy of a well-crafted spy thriller.
Along the way, he reveals:

The West's "don't ask, just sell" attitude toward Iraq's nuclear,
chemical, and biological programs as long as it was fighting Iran.
How Iraq tested biological and chemical weapons on human subjects.
How the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) tried to recruit Dr.
Hamza to make a bomb.
Baghdad's secret program to break into U.S. and other foreign computer
systems.

Saddam's Bombmaker is not only a shocking political and scientific
exposé -- it is a riveting adventure tale.

[jerry kraus]

Post by a425couple

Post by SolomonW

Post by jerry kraus

Post by a425couple
What if Iraq had been allowed to develop nukes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
"Operation Opera (Hebrew: מבצע אופרה‎‎‎),[1] also known as Operation
Babylon,[2] was a surprise Israeli air strike carried out on 7 June
1981, which destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor under construction 17
kilometers (10.5 miles) southeast of Baghdad.[3][4][5] The operation
came after Iran's unsuccessful Operation Scorch Sword operation had
caused minor damage to the same nuclear facility the previous year, the
damage having been subsequently repaired by French technicians.
Operation Opera, and related Israeli government statements following it,
established the Begin Doctrine, which explicitly stated the strike was
not an anomaly, but instead “a precedent for every future government in
Israel.” Israel's counter-proliferation preventive strike added another
dimension to their existing policy of deliberate ambiguity, as it
related to the nuclear capability of other states in the region.[6]
In 1976, Iraq purchased an "Osiris"-class nuclear reactor from France.---
The American private intelligence agency STRATFOR wrote in 2007 that the
uranium-fueled reactor "was believed to be on the verge of producing
plutonium for a weapons program".[35]
In a 2003 speech, Richard Wilson, a professor of physics at Harvard
University (did not think weapons grade was possible)
In an interview in 2005, Bill Clinton expressed support for the
attack: "everybody talks about what the Israelis did at Osiraq, in 1981,
which, I think, in retrospect, was a really good thing. You know, it
in 1995 that "[h]ad it not been for the brilliant raid at Osiraq,
Saddam's forces might have been equipped with atomic warheads in 1991."

I think, for one thing, it's rather unlikely that Iraq would have used nuclear weapons against Israel. We have some rather compelling evidence on this point. During the first Gulf War, the Iraqis sent SCUD missiles into Israel. The Israelis did not retaliate. However, if he'd wanted to, Saddam could have sent SCUD missiles armed with chemical weapons into Israel. He didn't do that, did he? You know why, don't you? The Israelis had warned the Iraqis that "gassing" the people of Israel, as in the Holocaust, would result in a correspondingly historical retaliation against the Iraqis. The Israelis were going to take out the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates river at high tide, with heavy aerial bombardment, inducing a new "biblical flood" drowning half the people of Iraq. Nice, eh?
So, since Saddam showed restraint in this case, I think he would have showed restraint with nuclear weapons, too? Don't you?

If you read Khidhir Hamza's book you will find out that Saddam if he did
have nukes would have used them against Israel.

as in
Saddam's Bombmaker: The Terrifiying Inside Story of the Iraqi Nuclear
and Biological Weapons Kindle Edition
by Jeff Stein (Author), Khidhir Hamza (Author)
4.1 out of 5 stars 57 customer reviews
Hardcover
$3.50
48 Used from $1.44
11 New from $3.50
4 Collectible from $8.95
Paperback
$6.14
76 Used from $0.10
16 New from $0.99
3 Collectible from $9.95
Audiobook
$0.00
Free with your Audible trial
The Iraqi scientist who designed Baghdad's nuclear bomb tells how he did
it in secret with the cynical help of U.S., French, German, and British
suppliers and experts, and kept it hidden from U.N. inspectors after the
Gulf War. Today, he says, Saddam Hussein is only months away from making
a workable bomb and has every intention of using it.
Don't tell me about the law. The law is anything I write on a scrap of
paper."
Saddam Hussein
In 1994, after twenty years developing Iraq's atomic weapon, Dr. Khidhir
Hamza made a daring escape to warn the CIA of Saddam's nuclear
ambitions...only to be ridiculed and turned away! After a harrowing
journey across three continents with Iraqi agents on his trail, Hamza
finally came in from the cold at the U.S. embassy in Hungary. Now he
tells a frightening story that U.S. officials have finally come to
believe: that Saddam is still feverishly at work on the bomb and, if
pushed to the wall, will use it.
Dr. Hamza also presents a startling, unprecedented portrait of Saddam
himself ­­ his drunken rages, his women, his fear of germs, and his
cold-blooded murder of underlings. A former resident of the presidential
palace, Hamza is the only defector who has lived to write a firsthand,
intimate portrait of the Iraqi inner circle, its spies and hit men, and
their brutal chief.
Saddam's Bombmaker is also a saga of one man's journey through the
circles of hell. Educated at MIT and Florida State University, dedicated
to a life of peaceful teaching in America, Dr. Hamza relates how the
regime ordered him home, seduced him into a pampered life as an atomic
energy official, and forced him to design a bomb. The price of refusal
was torture.
As the father of the Iraqi bomb, Dr. Hamza designed a device from
scratch with the help of World War Two­era blueprints from America's Los
Alamos labs, all the while planning an escape. Privately, he and his
colleagues believed they could procrastinate long enough to outlive
Saddam. But the dictator outmaneuvered them, whipping the scientists
into a crash program to build a crude bomb that could be dropped on
Israel. Had U.S. and Allied forces not quickly mobilized for Desert
Storm, Dr. Hamza relates, Saddam may well have succeeded; except for
sufficient uranium, the device was ready. It still is.
Dr. Hamza's tale of his escape, his first bungled contact with CIA
agents, and his flight abroad will keep readers turning pages toward a
climax worthy of a well-crafted spy thriller.
The West's "don't ask, just sell" attitude toward Iraq's nuclear,
chemical, and biological programs as long as it was fighting Iran.
How Iraq tested biological and chemical weapons on human subjects.
How the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) tried to recruit Dr.
Hamza to make a bomb.
Baghdad's secret program to break into U.S. and other foreign computer
systems.
Saddam's Bombmaker is not only a shocking political and scientific
exposé -- it is a riveting adventure tale.

Obviously, he's making this all up to sell books and please his new masters.

If Saddam was so out of control, why would he only use chemical weapons if his regime was toppled, in the first Gulf War, as the Israelis themselves make clear?

https://www.timesofisrael.com/saddam-gave-orders-to-fire-chemical-weapons-at-tel-aviv-if-he-was-toppled-in-first-gulf-war/

Basically, the Israelis and the Iraqis were playing from exactly the same playbook. So, in 1973, Golda Meir was going to use nuclear weapons if the U.S. didn't back her up during the Yom kippur War. So, no doubt, if Saddam had nuclear weapons, he would have used them if his regime was directly threatened, but only then.

Saddam was no crazier than any other leader, he just happened to be in the way of the U.S. government, at the time.

[Dean]

Post by jerry kraus

Post by a425couple
What if Iraq had been allowed to develop nukes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
"Operation Opera (Hebrew: מבצע אופרה‎‎‎),[1] also known as Operation
Babylon,[2] was a surprise Israeli air strike carried out on 7 June
1981, which destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor under construction 17
kilometers (10.5 miles) southeast of Baghdad.[3][4][5] The operation
came after Iran's unsuccessful Operation Scorch Sword operation had
caused minor damage to the same nuclear facility the previous year, the
damage having been subsequently repaired by French technicians.
Operation Opera, and related Israeli government statements following it,
established the Begin Doctrine, which explicitly stated the strike was
not an anomaly, but instead “a precedent for every future government in
Israel.” Israel's counter-proliferation preventive strike added another
dimension to their existing policy of deliberate ambiguity, as it
related to the nuclear capability of other states in the region.[6]
In 1976, Iraq purchased an "Osiris"-class nuclear reactor from France.---
The American private intelligence agency STRATFOR wrote in 2007 that the
uranium-fueled reactor "was believed to be on the verge of producing
plutonium for a weapons program".[35]
In a 2003 speech, Richard Wilson, a professor of physics at Harvard
University (did not think weapons grade was possible)
In an interview in 2005, Bill Clinton expressed support for the
attack: "everybody talks about what the Israelis did at Osiraq, in 1981,
which, I think, in retrospect, was a really good thing. You know, it
in 1995 that "[h]ad it not been for the brilliant raid at Osiraq,
Saddam's forces might have been equipped with atomic warheads in 1991."

I think, for one thing, it's rather unlikely that Iraq would have used nuclear weapons against Israel. We have some rather compelling evidence on this point. During the first Gulf War, the Iraqis sent SCUD missiles into Israel. The Israelis did not retaliate. However, if he'd wanted to, Saddam could have sent SCUD missiles armed with chemical weapons into Israel. He didn't do that, did he? You know why, don't you? The Israelis had warned the Iraqis that "gassing" the people of Israel, as in the Holocaust, would result in a correspondingly historical retaliation against the Iraqis. The Israelis were going to take out the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates river at high tide, with heavy aerial bombardment, inducing a new "biblical flood" drowning half the people of Iraq. Nice, eh?
So, since Saddam showed restraint in this case, I think he would have showed restraint with nuclear weapons, too? Don't you?

Saddam did not use CW with Scuds because he did not have practical CW warheads for his Scuds. Most of the Scuds were derivatives of the original Scud and did not function quite as well.

[jerry kraus]

Post by Dean

Post by jerry kraus

Post by a425couple
What if Iraq had been allowed to develop nukes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
"Operation Opera (Hebrew: מבצע אופרה‎‎‎),[1] also known as Operation
Babylon,[2] was a surprise Israeli air strike carried out on 7 June
1981, which destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor under construction 17
kilometers (10.5 miles) southeast of Baghdad.[3][4][5] The operation
came after Iran's unsuccessful Operation Scorch Sword operation had
caused minor damage to the same nuclear facility the previous year, the
damage having been subsequently repaired by French technicians.
Operation Opera, and related Israeli government statements following it,
established the Begin Doctrine, which explicitly stated the strike was
not an anomaly, but instead “a precedent for every future government in
Israel.” Israel's counter-proliferation preventive strike added another
dimension to their existing policy of deliberate ambiguity, as it
related to the nuclear capability of other states in the region.[6]
In 1976, Iraq purchased an "Osiris"-class nuclear reactor from France.---
The American private intelligence agency STRATFOR wrote in 2007 that the
uranium-fueled reactor "was believed to be on the verge of producing
plutonium for a weapons program".[35]
In a 2003 speech, Richard Wilson, a professor of physics at Harvard
University (did not think weapons grade was possible)
In an interview in 2005, Bill Clinton expressed support for the
attack: "everybody talks about what the Israelis did at Osiraq, in 1981,
which, I think, in retrospect, was a really good thing. You know, it
in 1995 that "[h]ad it not been for the brilliant raid at Osiraq,
Saddam's forces might have been equipped with atomic warheads in 1991."

I think, for one thing, it's rather unlikely that Iraq would have used nuclear weapons against Israel. We have some rather compelling evidence on this point. During the first Gulf War, the Iraqis sent SCUD missiles into Israel. The Israelis did not retaliate. However, if he'd wanted to, Saddam could have sent SCUD missiles armed with chemical weapons into Israel. He didn't do that, did he? You know why, don't you? The Israelis had warned the Iraqis that "gassing" the people of Israel, as in the Holocaust, would result in a correspondingly historical retaliation against the Iraqis. The Israelis were going to take out the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates river at high tide, with heavy aerial bombardment, inducing a new "biblical flood" drowning half the people of Iraq. Nice, eh?
So, since Saddam showed restraint in this case, I think he would have showed restraint with nuclear weapons, too? Don't you?

Saddam did not use CW with Scuds because he did not have practical CW warheads for his Scuds. Most of the Scuds were derivatives of the original Scud and did not function quite as well.

Well, he could have tried, Dean, even if they weren't very practical. So, you don't think he was even slightly concerned about the Israeli threat? And, why did the Israelis make the threat if it wasn't a practical possibility?

[Dean]

Post by jerry kraus

Post by Dean

Post by jerry kraus

Post by a425couple
What if Iraq had been allowed to develop nukes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
"Operation Opera (Hebrew: מבצע אופרה‎‎‎),[1] also known as Operation
Babylon,[2] was a surprise Israeli air strike carried out on 7 June
1981, which destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor under construction 17
kilometers (10.5 miles) southeast of Baghdad.[3][4][5] The operation
came after Iran's unsuccessful Operation Scorch Sword operation had
caused minor damage to the same nuclear facility the previous year, the
damage having been subsequently repaired by French technicians.
Operation Opera, and related Israeli government statements following it,
established the Begin Doctrine, which explicitly stated the strike was
not an anomaly, but instead “a precedent for every future government in
Israel.” Israel's counter-proliferation preventive strike added another
dimension to their existing policy of deliberate ambiguity, as it
related to the nuclear capability of other states in the region.[6]
In 1976, Iraq purchased an "Osiris"-class nuclear reactor from France.---
The American private intelligence agency STRATFOR wrote in 2007 that the
uranium-fueled reactor "was believed to be on the verge of producing
plutonium for a weapons program".[35]
In a 2003 speech, Richard Wilson, a professor of physics at Harvard
University (did not think weapons grade was possible)
In an interview in 2005, Bill Clinton expressed support for the
attack: "everybody talks about what the Israelis did at Osiraq, in 1981,
which, I think, in retrospect, was a really good thing. You know, it
in 1995 that "[h]ad it not been for the brilliant raid at Osiraq,
Saddam's forces might have been equipped with atomic warheads in 1991."

I think, for one thing, it's rather unlikely that Iraq would have used nuclear weapons against Israel. We have some rather compelling evidence on this point. During the first Gulf War, the Iraqis sent SCUD missiles into Israel. The Israelis did not retaliate. However, if he'd wanted to, Saddam could have sent SCUD missiles armed with chemical weapons into Israel. He didn't do that, did he? You know why, don't you? The Israelis had warned the Iraqis that "gassing" the people of Israel, as in the Holocaust, would result in a correspondingly historical retaliation against the Iraqis. The Israelis were going to take out the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates river at high tide, with heavy aerial bombardment, inducing a new "biblical flood" drowning half the people of Iraq. Nice, eh?
So, since Saddam showed restraint in this case, I think he would have showed restraint with nuclear weapons, too? Don't you?

Saddam did not use CW with Scuds because he did not have practical CW warheads for his Scuds. Most of the Scuds were derivatives of the original Scud and did not function quite as well.

Well, he could have tried, Dean, even if they weren't very practical. So, you don't think he was even slightly concerned about the Israeli threat? And, why did the Israelis make the threat if it wasn't a practical possibility?

Saddam was trying just by firing regular Scuds at Israel. He saw himself as the "leader" of the Arab world and thought (wrongly) that by trying to get Israel into the war, the coalition would fracture.

[jerry kraus]

Post by Dean

Post by jerry kraus

Post by Dean

Post by jerry kraus

Post by a425couple
What if Iraq had been allowed to develop nukes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
"Operation Opera (Hebrew: מבצע אופרה‎‎‎),[1] also known as Operation
Babylon,[2] was a surprise Israeli air strike carried out on 7 June
1981, which destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor under construction 17
kilometers (10.5 miles) southeast of Baghdad.[3][4][5] The operation
came after Iran's unsuccessful Operation Scorch Sword operation had
caused minor damage to the same nuclear facility the previous year, the
damage having been subsequently repaired by French technicians.
Operation Opera, and related Israeli government statements following it,
established the Begin Doctrine, which explicitly stated the strike was
not an anomaly, but instead “a precedent for every future government in
Israel.” Israel's counter-proliferation preventive strike added another
dimension to their existing policy of deliberate ambiguity, as it
related to the nuclear capability of other states in the region.[6]
In 1976, Iraq purchased an "Osiris"-class nuclear reactor from France.---
The American private intelligence agency STRATFOR wrote in 2007 that the
uranium-fueled reactor "was believed to be on the verge of producing
plutonium for a weapons program".[35]
In a 2003 speech, Richard Wilson, a professor of physics at Harvard
University (did not think weapons grade was possible)
In an interview in 2005, Bill Clinton expressed support for the
attack: "everybody talks about what the Israelis did at Osiraq, in 1981,
which, I think, in retrospect, was a really good thing. You know, it
in 1995 that "[h]ad it not been for the brilliant raid at Osiraq,
Saddam's forces might have been equipped with atomic warheads in 1991."

I think, for one thing, it's rather unlikely that Iraq would have used nuclear weapons against Israel. We have some rather compelling evidence on this point. During the first Gulf War, the Iraqis sent SCUD missiles into Israel. The Israelis did not retaliate. However, if he'd wanted to, Saddam could have sent SCUD missiles armed with chemical weapons into Israel. He didn't do that, did he? You know why, don't you? The Israelis had warned the Iraqis that "gassing" the people of Israel, as in the Holocaust, would result in a correspondingly historical retaliation against the Iraqis. The Israelis were going to take out the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates river at high tide, with heavy aerial bombardment, inducing a new "biblical flood" drowning half the people of Iraq. Nice, eh?
So, since Saddam showed restraint in this case, I think he would have showed restraint with nuclear weapons, too? Don't you?

Saddam did not use CW with Scuds because he did not have practical CW warheads for his Scuds. Most of the Scuds were derivatives of the original Scud and did not function quite as well.

Well, he could have tried, Dean, even if they weren't very practical. So, you don't think he was even slightly concerned about the Israeli threat? And, why did the Israelis make the threat if it wasn't a practical possibility?

Saddam was trying just by firing regular Scuds at Israel. He saw himself as the "leader" of the Arab world and thought (wrongly) that by trying to get Israel into the war, the coalition would fracture.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, I agree that's true Dean. But, that just confirms my point that he was controlled and calculating, just like the Israelis are. He wasn't a raving lunatic bent on universal destruction, or even he destruction of Israel at all cost. Certainly, not his own. He didn't use chemical weapons because he knew that would have resulted in massive retaliation -- he would only have used them if he had nothing whatsoever to lose. Similarly, like the Israelis, he wouldn't have used nuclear weapons unless his regime was essentially about to be destroyed. He had a strong sense of self-preservation, just like the Israelis. George Bush Sr. managed to trick him into invading Kuwait by saying the Americans wouldn't oppose such a move. This gave George Bush Sr. the opportunity to cut him down to size. Then, his son finished the job. Basically, the Bushes had concluded that Saddam was more trouble than he was worth, and disposed of him accordingly. He was no crazier than most leaders in the region, including the Israelis. He probably wasn't as crazy as Donald Trump! Not that that says a great deal, of course.

[jerry kraus]

Post by Dean

Post by jerry kraus

Post by a425couple
What if Iraq had been allowed to develop nukes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
"Operation Opera (Hebrew: מבצע אופרה‎‎‎),[1] also known as Operation
Babylon,[2] was a surprise Israeli air strike carried out on 7 June
1981, which destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor under construction 17
kilometers (10.5 miles) southeast of Baghdad.[3][4][5] The operation
came after Iran's unsuccessful Operation Scorch Sword operation had
caused minor damage to the same nuclear facility the previous year, the
damage having been subsequently repaired by French technicians.
Operation Opera, and related Israeli government statements following it,
established the Begin Doctrine, which explicitly stated the strike was
not an anomaly, but instead “a precedent for every future government in
Israel.” Israel's counter-proliferation preventive strike added another
dimension to their existing policy of deliberate ambiguity, as it
related to the nuclear capability of other states in the region.[6]
In 1976, Iraq purchased an "Osiris"-class nuclear reactor from France.---
The American private intelligence agency STRATFOR wrote in 2007 that the
uranium-fueled reactor "was believed to be on the verge of producing
plutonium for a weapons program".[35]
In a 2003 speech, Richard Wilson, a professor of physics at Harvard
University (did not think weapons grade was possible)
In an interview in 2005, Bill Clinton expressed support for the
attack: "everybody talks about what the Israelis did at Osiraq, in 1981,
which, I think, in retrospect, was a really good thing. You know, it
in 1995 that "[h]ad it not been for the brilliant raid at Osiraq,
Saddam's forces might have been equipped with atomic warheads in 1991."

I think, for one thing, it's rather unlikely that Iraq would have used nuclear weapons against Israel. We have some rather compelling evidence on this point. During the first Gulf War, the Iraqis sent SCUD missiles into Israel. The Israelis did not retaliate. However, if he'd wanted to, Saddam could have sent SCUD missiles armed with chemical weapons into Israel. He didn't do that, did he? You know why, don't you? The Israelis had warned the Iraqis that "gassing" the people of Israel, as in the Holocaust, would result in a correspondingly historical retaliation against the Iraqis. The Israelis were going to take out the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates river at high tide, with heavy aerial bombardment, inducing a new "biblical flood" drowning half the people of Iraq. Nice, eh?
So, since Saddam showed restraint in this case, I think he would have showed restraint with nuclear weapons, too? Don't you?

Saddam did not use CW with Scuds because he did not have practical CW warheads for his Scuds. Most of the Scuds were derivatives of the original Scud and did not function quite as well.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/saddam-gave-orders-to-fire-chemical-weapons-at-tel-aviv-if-he-was-toppled-in-first-gulf-war/


What's your source for your information, Dean?

[SolomonW]

Post by jerry kraus

Post by Dean

Post by jerry kraus

Post by a425couple
What if Iraq had been allowed to develop nukes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
"Operation Opera (Hebrew: מבצע אופרה‎‎‎),[1] also known as Operation
Babylon,[2] was a surprise Israeli air strike carried out on 7 June
1981, which destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor under construction 17
kilometers (10.5 miles) southeast of Baghdad.[3][4][5] The operation
came after Iran's unsuccessful Operation Scorch Sword operation had
caused minor damage to the same nuclear facility the previous year, the
damage having been subsequently repaired by French technicians.
Operation Opera, and related Israeli government statements following it,
established the Begin Doctrine, which explicitly stated the strike was
not an anomaly, but instead “a precedent for every future government in
Israel.” Israel's counter-proliferation preventive strike added another
dimension to their existing policy of deliberate ambiguity, as it
related to the nuclear capability of other states in the region.[6]
In 1976, Iraq purchased an "Osiris"-class nuclear reactor from France.---
The American private intelligence agency STRATFOR wrote in 2007 that the
uranium-fueled reactor "was believed to be on the verge of producing
plutonium for a weapons program".[35]
In a 2003 speech, Richard Wilson, a professor of physics at Harvard
University (did not think weapons grade was possible)
In an interview in 2005, Bill Clinton expressed support for the
attack: "everybody talks about what the Israelis did at Osiraq, in 1981,
which, I think, in retrospect, was a really good thing. You know, it
in 1995 that "[h]ad it not been for the brilliant raid at Osiraq,
Saddam's forces might have been equipped with atomic warheads in 1991."

I think, for one thing, it's rather unlikely that Iraq would have used nuclear weapons against Israel. We have some rather compelling evidence on this point. During the first Gulf War, the Iraqis sent SCUD missiles into Israel. The Israelis did not retaliate. However, if he'd wanted to, Saddam could have sent SCUD missiles armed with chemical weapons into Israel. He didn't do that, did he? You know why, don't you? The Israelis had warned the Iraqis that "gassing" the people of Israel, as in the Holocaust, would result in a correspondingly historical retaliation against the Iraqis. The Israelis were going to take out the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates river at high tide, with heavy aerial bombardment, inducing a new "biblical flood" drowning half the people of Iraq. Nice, eh?
So, since Saddam showed restraint in this case, I think he would have showed restraint with nuclear weapons, too? Don't you?

Saddam did not use CW with Scuds because he did not have practical CW warheads for his Scuds. Most of the Scuds were derivatives of the original Scud and did not function quite as well.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/saddam-gave-orders-to-fire-chemical-weapons-at-tel-aviv-if-he-was-toppled-in-first-gulf-war/
What's your source for your information, Dean?

I tend to agree, Iraq had modified Scud-B and Al-Hussein rockets both that
can handle chemical.


The problems are they are not very accurate, from Iraq to Israel is about
the limit of their range, Israel has both nuclear and chemical weapons and
Israel is not a soft target for chemicals.

[jerry kraus]

Post by SolomonW

Post by jerry kraus

Post by Dean

Post by jerry kraus

Post by a425couple
What if Iraq had been allowed to develop nukes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
"Operation Opera (Hebrew: מבצע אופרה‎‎‎),[1] also known as Operation
Babylon,[2] was a surprise Israeli air strike carried out on 7 June
1981, which destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor under construction 17
kilometers (10.5 miles) southeast of Baghdad.[3][4][5] The operation
came after Iran's unsuccessful Operation Scorch Sword operation had
caused minor damage to the same nuclear facility the previous year, the
damage having been subsequently repaired by French technicians.
Operation Opera, and related Israeli government statements following it,
established the Begin Doctrine, which explicitly stated the strike was
not an anomaly, but instead “a precedent for every future government in
Israel.” Israel's counter-proliferation preventive strike added another
dimension to their existing policy of deliberate ambiguity, as it
related to the nuclear capability of other states in the region.[6]
In 1976, Iraq purchased an "Osiris"-class nuclear reactor from France.---
The American private intelligence agency STRATFOR wrote in 2007 that the
uranium-fueled reactor "was believed to be on the verge of producing
plutonium for a weapons program".[35]
In a 2003 speech, Richard Wilson, a professor of physics at Harvard
University (did not think weapons grade was possible)
In an interview in 2005, Bill Clinton expressed support for the
attack: "everybody talks about what the Israelis did at Osiraq, in 1981,
which, I think, in retrospect, was a really good thing. You know, it
in 1995 that "[h]ad it not been for the brilliant raid at Osiraq,
Saddam's forces might have been equipped with atomic warheads in 1991."

I think, for one thing, it's rather unlikely that Iraq would have used nuclear weapons against Israel. We have some rather compelling evidence on this point. During the first Gulf War, the Iraqis sent SCUD missiles into Israel. The Israelis did not retaliate. However, if he'd wanted to, Saddam could have sent SCUD missiles armed with chemical weapons into Israel. He didn't do that, did he? You know why, don't you? The Israelis had warned the Iraqis that "gassing" the people of Israel, as in the Holocaust, would result in a correspondingly historical retaliation against the Iraqis. The Israelis were going to take out the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates river at high tide, with heavy aerial bombardment, inducing a new "biblical flood" drowning half the people of Iraq. Nice, eh?
So, since Saddam showed restraint in this case, I think he would have showed restraint with nuclear weapons, too? Don't you?

Saddam did not use CW with Scuds because he did not have practical CW warheads for his Scuds. Most of the Scuds were derivatives of the original Scud and did not function quite as well.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/saddam-gave-orders-to-fire-chemical-weapons-at-tel-aviv-if-he-was-toppled-in-first-gulf-war/
What's your source for your information, Dean?

I tend to agree, Iraq had modified Scud-B and Al-Hussein rockets both that
can handle chemical.
The problems are they are not very accurate, from Iraq to Israel is about
the limit of their range, Israel has both nuclear and chemical weapons and
Israel is not a soft target for chemicals.

I think the point I'm trying to make, Solomon, is that Saddam wasn't totally irrational and uncontrolled in his use of military force. He fired SCUD missiles at Israel during the first Gulf War -- as Dean correctly points out -- for a very specific strategic purpose. He wanted to provoke Israel to enter the War, in hopes that this would force the Arabs to break with the Coalition and side with Iraq. Apparently, the Israelis were aware of this possibility, which is why they didn't retaliate. So, it was probably a rather shrewd move on his part. On the other hand, he knew that the historical connections with the Holocaust would make the toleration of a chemical attack quite out of the question for the Israelis, and that they would massively retaliate for such an attack. Hence, he left it as a last resort on the table, possibly to discourage George Bush Sr. from pressing on to Baghdad. So, on the whole, his attitude to weapons of mass destruction seems entirely rational, and entirely consistent with the attitude of most countries, including Israel -- don't use WMD's unless you absolutely have to. That's why I doubt very much that Saddam would have launched a nuclear first strike on Israel the first chance he got. He'd know that this would result in the destruction of his own country, inevitably, by Israel, if not by the U.S.

[The Horny Goat]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 06:26:53 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus

Post by jerry kraus
I think the point I'm trying to make, Solomon, is that Saddam wasn't totally irrational and uncontrolled in his use of military force. He fired SCUD missiles at Israel during the first Gulf War -- as Dean correctly points out -- for a very specific strategic purpose. He wanted to provoke Israel to enter the War, in hopes that this would force the Arabs to break with the Coalition and side with Iraq. Apparently, the Israelis were aware of this possibility, which is why they didn't retaliate. So, it was probably a rather shrewd move on his part. On the other hand, he knew that the historical connections with the Holocaust would make the toleration of a chemical attack quite out of the question for the Israelis, and that they would massively retaliate for such an attack. Hence, he left it as a last resort on the table, possibly to discourage George Bush Sr. from pressing on to Baghdad. So, on the whole, his attitude to weapons of mass destruction seems entirely

rational,

Post by jerry kraus
and entirely consistent with the attitude of most countries, including Israel -- don't use WMD's unless you absolutely have to. That's why I doubt very much that Saddam would have launched a nuclear first strike on Israel the first chance he got. He'd know that this would result in the destruction of his own country, inevitably, by Israel, if not by the U.S.

When the US contacted the Israelis they had already decided not to
attack Iraq but asked for and got Patriot anti-missile batteries.

What Washington most feared (correctly in my view) that if the Iraqis
used chemical warheads, Israel would make a nuclear response. Thus
they were relieved when the Israelis only asked for Patriots.

I would be surprised if the Israelis had to make the nuclear threat
explicit.

Again - within the Israeli army the Iraqis had a reputation for
atrocities based on their performance in 1967 and 1973.

[jerry kraus]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 06:26:53 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus

Post by jerry kraus
I think the point I'm trying to make, Solomon, is that Saddam wasn't totally irrational and uncontrolled in his use of military force. He fired SCUD missiles at Israel during the first Gulf War -- as Dean correctly points out -- for a very specific strategic purpose. He wanted to provoke Israel to enter the War, in hopes that this would force the Arabs to break with the Coalition and side with Iraq. Apparently, the Israelis were aware of this possibility, which is why they didn't retaliate. So, it was probably a rather shrewd move on his part. On the other hand, he knew that the historical connections with the Holocaust would make the toleration of a chemical attack quite out of the question for the Israelis, and that they would massively retaliate for such an attack. Hence, he left it as a last resort on the table, possibly to discourage George Bush Sr. from pressing on to Baghdad. So, on the whole, his attitude to weapons of mass destruction seems entirely

rational,

Post by jerry kraus
and entirely consistent with the attitude of most countries, including Israel -- don't use WMD's unless you absolutely have to. That's why I doubt very much that Saddam would have launched a nuclear first strike on Israel the first chance he got. He'd know that this would result in the destruction of his own country, inevitably, by Israel, if not by the U.S.

When the US contacted the Israelis they had already decided not to
attack Iraq but asked for and got Patriot anti-missile batteries.
What Washington most feared (correctly in my view) that if the Iraqis
used chemical warheads, Israel would make a nuclear response. Thus
they were relieved when the Israelis only asked for Patriots.
I would be surprised if the Israelis had to make the nuclear threat
explicit.
Again - within the Israeli army the Iraqis had a reputation for
atrocities based on their performance in 1967 and 1973.

I've read that the Israelis were actually planning to knock out the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, with massive bombing, at spring flood levels, effectively drowning half the country, and, that this threat WAS made explicit to the Iraqis.

[SolomonW]

Post by jerry kraus

Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 06:26:53 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus

Post by jerry kraus
I think the point I'm trying to make, Solomon, is that Saddam wasn't totally irrational and uncontrolled in his use of military force. He fired SCUD missiles at Israel during the first Gulf War -- as Dean correctly points out -- for a very specific strategic purpose. He wanted to provoke Israel to enter the War, in hopes that this would force the Arabs to break with the Coalition and side with Iraq. Apparently, the Israelis were aware of this possibility, which is why they didn't retaliate. So, it was probably a rather shrewd move on his part. On the other hand, he knew that the historical connections with the Holocaust would make the toleration of a chemical attack quite out of the question for the Israelis, and that they would massively retaliate for such an attack. Hence, he left it as a last resort on the table, possibly to discourage George Bush Sr. from pressing on to Baghdad. So, on the whole, his attitude to weapons of mass destruction seems entirely

rational,

Post by jerry kraus
and entirely consistent with the attitude of most countries, including Israel -- don't use WMD's unless you absolutely have to. That's why I doubt very much that Saddam would have launched a nuclear first strike on Israel the first chance he got. He'd know that this would result in the destruction of his own country, inevitably, by Israel, if not by the U.S.

When the US contacted the Israelis they had already decided not to
attack Iraq but asked for and got Patriot anti-missile batteries.
What Washington most feared (correctly in my view) that if the Iraqis
used chemical warheads, Israel would make a nuclear response. Thus
they were relieved when the Israelis only asked for Patriots.
I would be surprised if the Israelis had to make the nuclear threat
explicit.
Again - within the Israeli army the Iraqis had a reputation for
atrocities based on their performance in 1967 and 1973.

I've read that the Israelis were actually planning to knock out the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, with massive bombing, at spring flood levels, effectively drowning half the country, and, that this threat WAS made explicit to the Iraqis.

Although chemicals are called a poorman's atomic bomb they are no where
near as effective.

And I think we would all agree that for the Iraqis to use chemicals against
Israel would have esocalted the conflict beyond where Saddam wanted to go.

Here are two links on this subject
https://www.timesofisrael.com/saddam-gave-orders-to-fire-chemical-weapons-at-tel-aviv-if-he-was-toppled-in-first-gulf-war/

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/saddam-hussein-seriously-feared-us-nuclear-strike-during-the-19164