HARPER%ccvax.ucd.ie@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU (09/28/90)
From: HARPER%ccvax.ucd.ie@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU Last weekend Hussein was reported by the Iraqi news agency as having stated that in the event of an attack several oilfields would be destroyed. I argued in a previous posting that use of chemical weapons by the NATO forces was highly probable. A conventional war fought in the oilfields could cause so much damage to plant (and therefore supplies) that Iraq may as well keep Kuwait rather than risk a major world recession. I certainly believe that this is a position being studied by the planners. If so, only two options emerge (a) permit the annexation of Kuwait subject to the policing of a nonaggression pact, or (b) attempt to saturate the major fields with nerve gas and hope that minimum plant damage will occur. I have a number of questions concerning (b). Firstly, how feasible is blanket bombing of chemical agents given the climatic conditions? Secondly, how long would it take for their dispersal? BTW, the last time I posted a query concerning the above I received more than my yearly quota of abusive email. Please, no abusive email as it takes me time to read it (and correct spelling errors). Jerry Harper: Computer Science Department,University College Dublin,Dublin 4,IRELAND harper@ccvax.ucd.ie
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (09/29/90)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> I find it highly unlikely that the US or any other allied nation would employ chemical weaponry. Chemical weapons would be extremely tricky to use in a desert area because of the climate (lots of shifting winds). We wouldn't want to have our own weapons blow back on ourselves. --Allan ----------------------------------------------------------------- MIDN 3/C (PLCJR) Allan Bourdius Carnegie Mellon University NROTC "Retreat hell! We just got here!" ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu Box 4719 5125 Margaret Morrison St. Pittsburgh, PA 15213 (412) 268-4632 The opinons expressed in this letter/posting do not, nor are in any way intended to, represent the official policies and positions of the Department of Defense, the Department of the Navy, the United States Marine Corps or the United States Navy; so there!
FQV@PSUVM.PSU.EDU (jim bowers) (10/01/90)
From: jim bowers <FQV@PSUVM.PSU.EDU> In article <1990Sep28.014351.13736@cbnews.att.com>, HARPER%ccvax.ucd.ie@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU says: >Last weekend Hussein was reported by the Iraqi news agency as having >stated that in the event of an attack several oilfields would be destroyed. You really cannot destroy an oilfield. Crude oil is widely dispersed in an underground reservoir of permeable rock or sand and you have to pump the stuff out. You can't blow it up, even with an underground nuclear explosion (actually this would probably increase the yield of the reservoir) and there is nothing anyone can do to prevent someone from pumping out the full potiential of the reservoir. You can destroy the infrastructure (pumping wells, storage and pipelines) but these are relatively cheap compared to the vast billions underground.
rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie (10/03/90)
From: rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie In article <1990Sep28.014351.13736@cbnews.att.com>, HARPER%ccvax.ucd.ie@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU writes: > From: HARPER%ccvax.ucd.ie@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU > Last weekend Hussein was reported by the Iraqi news agency as having > stated that in the event of an attack several oilfields would be destroyed. > I argued in a previous posting that use of chemical weapons by the NATO > forces was highly probable. A conventional war fought in the oilfields > could cause so much damage to plant (and therefore supplies) that Iraq > may as well keep Kuwait rather than risk a major world recession. Sounds pretty far-fetched to me. For one thing Iraq and Kuwait don't contribute enough of the world's oil supply to cause a major world recession even if supplies from both countries were totally cut off (which they are right now and we haven't seen a major world recession). (Saudi Arabia does, which was why there was such a panic when it looked like Hussein was going to invade it). Second, destruction of plant is irrelevant - given a few months the whole lot could be rebuilt for a fraction of the cost of the military action. Third, nobody is going to start tossing chemical weapons around unless Hussein does it first, at which point you might as well nuke Baghdad rather than mess around in oilfields. -- "To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem" Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie
cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) (10/03/90)
From: cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) > From: HARPER%ccvax.ucd.ie@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU > Last weekend Hussein was reported by the Iraqi news agency as having > stated that in the event of an attack several oilfields would be destroyed. > ... A conventional war fought in the oilfields > could cause so much damage to plant . . . two options emerge > (a) permit the annexation of Kuwait . . . (b) nerve gas There are many other reasonable options, the most likely of which is the use of special operations forces and airborne assault to minimize damage to critical facilities. Destroying oil fields is not all that easy, and would take time for Iraqi forces to do a thorough job (see history of raids on Rumanian oil fields). So if one of your objectives is to preserve the oil fields in Kuwait, a pre-emptive surprise attack with the oil fields as early objectives would limit damage. However, special and airborne ops tend to have high casualty rates. Consider, also, that anti-personnel bombs (CBUs, mines) in an oil field will cause significant damage to personnel, but little damage to plant and equipment (as opposed to iron bombs). CBUs with delay fusing can deny access (partially) to an enemy, and at least slow them down while they clear the area. Troops really hate mines!
cash@uunet.UU.NET (Peter Cash) (10/04/90)
From: convex!cash@uunet.UU.NET (Peter Cash) In article <1990Sep29.155131.7378@cbnews.att.com> ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) writes: >From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> >I find it highly unlikely that the US or any other allied nation would >employ chemical weaponry. Chemical weapons would be extremely tricky to >use in a desert area because of the climate (lots of shifting winds). >We wouldn't want to have our own weapons blow back on ourselves. Despite these considerations, the Iraqis seem to have used chemical weapons to some effect against their enemies. I think the rationale for any use of chemical weapons by the US would be to equalize the handicap imposed on us by the enemy's (first) use of such weapons. If the Iraqis used chemical weapons, our troops would have to move around in protective clothes, and they would be hampered by decontamination measures. It would be only prudent to see that the opposition is slowed down to an equal degree. (We would not, of course, ever use chemical weapons on unprotected civilian population centers.) -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist. | Peter Cash | (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein) |cash@convex.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) (10/08/90)
From: cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) > From: convex!cash@uunet.UU.NET (Peter Cash) > > I think the rationale for any use of chemical weapons by the US would be to > equalize the handicap imposed on us by the enemy's (first) use of such > weapons. ... (We would not, of course, ever use chemical > weapons on unprotected civilian population centers.) Depends on how you want to classify "chemical weapons". The US regularly makes use of napalm and white phosphorus, which could be called "incendiaries" or chemical, depending on how you define a "chemical weapon". We certainly were guilty of "first use" of defoliants (a chemical weapon), and there was much collateral damage to unprotected civilians, as well as our own troops. Even should the Iraqis use chemical weapons, I would argue against their use in reply. (1) Political reasons: we are "bad guys" using immoral, illegal weapons against Arabs. Makes it likely that war would be longer, with more US casualties. (2) Military reasons: we can achieve military objectives much more effectively with other weapons. Keep in mind the reasons that chemicals have not been employed generally by the major powers since 1918: they are difficult to manage on the battlefield (particularly where targets are mobile and dispersed), and are not very effective against protected troops. It has almost nothing to do with morality.
darragh@maths.tcd.ie (Darragh J. Delany) (10/09/90)
From: darragh@maths.tcd.ie (Darragh J. Delany) In article <1990Oct2.234929.23035@cbnews.att.com> rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie writes: >Sounds pretty far-fetched to me. For one thing Iraq and Kuwait don't contribute >enough of the world's oil supply to cause a major world recession even if >supplies from both countries were totally cut off (which they are right now and >we haven't seen a major world recession). (Saudi Arabia does, which was why >there was such a panic when it looked like Hussein was going to invade it). WRONG! The world economy and particularly the local economy are feeling the pinch at the moment and the oil production of Iraq&Kuwait combined is roughly equal to that of Saudi, (about 10% each!). Anyway this is WAAYY outside the scope of this group... >Second, destruction of plant is irrelevant - given a few months the whole lot >could be rebuilt for a fraction of the cost of the military action. I think not missiles are cheaper and faster moving than refineries. Darragh.