Iraq uses chemical weapons against the coalition forces

[Ricardolindo]

What if Iraq had used chemical weapons against the coalition forces during the Gulf War? In threads about the topic at alternatehistory.com, some users have argued that nukes would have been dropped on Baghdad and Basra. According to https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-coalition-forces-during-the-gulf-war.507909/, John Major implied such in his autobiography. Even if nukes would not have not been used, I have no doubt that Saddam Hussein would have been overthrown.

 

[Death's Companion]

To an extent its hard to see it impacting the overall campaign. Chemical weapons have really poor records against prepared enemy forces, the Iraqi command and control had broken down under air attack and the sweep around their flank and Coalition air supremacy makes it hard to see them having time to set up for such a move.
If its an isolated instance or two I can't see the US government nuking a civilian city. Perhaps a demonstration shot against a military base but even then they might just ignore it this time.

If its more prolonged or serious then they could well either push into Iraq to depose Saddam or just crush the Iraqi army instead of allowing it to escape as OTL. Also might be more active in supporting the Kurds.

 

[Ricardolindo]

To an extent its hard to see it impacting the overall campaign. Chemical weapons have really poor records against prepared enemy forces, the Iraqi command and control had broken down under air attack and the sweep around their flank and Coalition air supremacy makes it hard to see them having time to set up for such a move.
If its an isolated instance or two I can't see the US government nuking a civilian city. Perhaps a demonstration shot against a military base but even then they might just ignore it this time.

If its more prolonged or serious then they could well either push into Iraq to depose Saddam or just crush the Iraqi army instead of allowing it to escape as OTL. Also might be more active in supporting the Kurds.

Thanks for the reply. However, as I said, according to https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ring-the-gulf-war.507909/page-2#post-21793853, John Major, himself, implied in his autobiography that a chemical weapons attack would have resulted in Baghdad and Basra not existing within a few hours.

 

[Death's Companion]

Thanks for the reply. However, as I said, according to https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ring-the-gulf-war.507909/page-2#post-21793853, John Major, himself, implied in his autobiography that a chemical weapons attack would have resulted in Baghdad and Basra not existing within a few hours.

It feels weird to say this about a person infinitely more in the loop than I ever will be but I think he's wrong.

I just cannot imagine an American President deciding a few dozen or hundred US casualties would be proportional to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties. It would be an utter disaster and crippling to American prestige and interests in the region.


Ultimately we know from their use in the Iran Iraq war that the Iraqis were pretty bad at actually producing chemical weapons and not great at deploying them against military targets and the Iranians had very limited CBRN capability and far less air power and artillery than the coalition could call down.


I think the Iraqis using chemical weapons pushes up the coalition casualties moderately and probably turns the campaign into a bloodbath as the Iraqis get absolutely smashed rather than allowed to flee.


I mean the short timeframe helps, like the whole ground phase was a 100 hours, by the time the Americans have confirmed that there is in fact some Mustard Gas and Sarin being deployed against them they probably also know the Iraqis are being routed.

 

[Ricardolindo]

It feels weird to say this about a person infinitely more in the loop than I ever will be but I think he's wrong.

I just cannot imagine an American President deciding a few dozen or hundred US casualties would be proportional to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties. It would be an utter disaster and crippling to American prestige and interests in the region.


Ultimately we know from their use in the Iran Iraq war that the Iraqis were pretty bad at actually producing chemical weapons and not great at deploying them against military targets and the Iranians had very limited CBRN capability and far less air power and artillery than the coalition could call down.


I think the Iraqis using chemical weapons pushes up the coalition casualties moderately and probably turns the campaign into a bloodbath as the Iraqis get absolutely smashed rather than allowed to flee.


I mean the short timeframe helps, like the whole ground phase was a 100 hours, by the time the Americans have confirmed that there is in fact some Mustard Gas and Sarin being deployed against them they probably also know the Iraqis are being routed.

Thanks for the reply.
Could you, please, delete the "ago" in the quote like I did in my post?

 

[Elektronaut]

The coalition and the Israeli government (in the case of a WMD attack against Israel, not an unreasonable possibility given Saddam's public statements) both privately and publicly warned Iraq, repeatedly and from multiple different sources, that the use of WMD would trigger a like-for-like response.

So it's not a question of the facts of the threats being issued, we know they were, it's a question of whether you think they were bluffing.

Saddam undoubtedly chose the wisest course in not testing whether they were bluffing or not, and I think it's hard, though not impossible, to imagine him choosing otherwise.

The US/UK may or may not have been bluffing. I don't think they were, but you can debate it. I do not think for one moment that Israel was bluffing.

 

[ChrisNuttall]

It would depend on two factors

First, just how many casualties the chemical attack inflicted on the Allied forces.

Second, just how urgent it would appear to make it clear that WMD would NOT be tolerated and any use would lead straight to massive retaliation.

This is the key problem of deterrence. Do you respond to a war crime with another war crime? If you do, you have slaughtered millions of people – with all the implications for your long-term standing that implies; if you don’t, you have given a green light to every last tin-pot dictator who thinks WMDs will get him out of a jam (instead of straight into a much worse one). It wouldn’t be long – think minutes – before protests started, pointing out that the vast majority of Iraqis were innocent of any crime, while even the more cold-blooded politicians who’d understand the importance of proving the US had the will to retaliate would be uneasy about the decision.

I don’t think nukes would have been used unless the US casualties were strikingly – and unrealistically – high.

What I think will happen is that the ground/air campaign will not be suspended. The Iraqis will have no chance to get much of their army out of Kuwait. The strikes will cripple Saddam’s regime, giving the Shia a chance to rise up against Saddam and if the US provides air support they’d have a reasonable chance to win. In this timeline, Bush might be unable to basically encourage the Shia to rise and then abandon them, so Iraq might either come apart at the seams or get a different Shia government. Lots of changes from that …

Chris