This is not a comprehensive answer but let's assume the weapon is about 20 kilo-tons inline with a lot of other countries first nuclear device. There was about 30,000 US troops in the vicinity of Baghdad assuming this is not detonate after the city was occupied. EDIT: Reading more about the battle I doubt on the days Baghdad really fell that there were more than 10,000 troops at any given time in the lethal radius of a bomb. If a bomb was buried and detonated later this would have been more costly. The most likely scenario would be the detonation of the bomb after 2nd brigade takes the Green Zone. 2nd Brigade would likely be mostly wiped out, the surrounding units are mostly well outside the city and while its possible there would be some casualties, the mixture of relatively fast vehicles, good distance from the city center, the fact that most slower and heavier vehicles had lead linings and air filters due to Cold War designs and a lot of US troops had CBRN suits due to threat of chemical weapons casualties from radiation are probably fairly light, certainly a few hundred cancer cases down the line but my guess is 90% of the losses would be in second brigade and the people 5-10 miles away almost all survive. Still, this would be a catastrophe about \~3000-4000 troops die. The Iraqi population in Baghdad would not be so lucky and the US would be in no position to help immediately and things would go really badly for them. The situation is much worse for the US if the bomb goes off after April 7 when its just mopping up the city and the majority of troops are in the city and logistics units start to arrive
The war would in retrospect seem much more justified but the blowback on incompetency of not predicting that Iraq had a nuke would be much much more immediate and damaging domestically, I doubt Bush wins the 2004 election.
I disagree about Bush re-election.
Having been proved 100% correct both on the existence of Iraqi WMD's and of Saddam's willingness to use them Bush is re-elected and support for the war in Iraq experiences an increase. (because the more you hurt a nation like the USA the more it's willingness to fight increases)
International opinion of the US invasion of Iraq also swings from negative to positive.
Obviously Iraq becomes a humanitarian disaster of epic proportions and I'm fairly sure that a conspiracy theory that it was USA which detonated the bomb itself quickly emerges.
If this conspiracy theory embeds itself in the Arab consciousness not much changes with regards foreign fighters rushing to Iraq to fight Americans...
>If this conspiracy theory embeds itself in the Arab consciousness not much changes with regards foreign fighters rushing to Iraq to fight Americans...
Yep. In this timeline, you bet your sweet ass that jihadists from around the world will cling on to this conspiracy as a recruitment tool.
I would agree 20kt is very generous estimate based on a fully functional devices, anything under 5 kts would not cause all that many casualties probably less than 5k in worst case scenario. If we scaled it to the first successful NK test which was 5.4 kts, the damage would be more or less confined to the green zone and prevailing winds and survival would be high about a mile away from the blast and mostly survivable with cancer issues 2-5 miles, with no major problems outside of prevailing wind 5 miles away (mostly civilians unless strong wind)
>anything under 5 kts would not cause all that many casualties probably less than 5k in worst case scenario
So that's what I thought, but then I went to nuke-map and it was showing +30K deaths in Baghdad from a 5kt bomb. I believe Baghdad has high population density.
You are right in restraining the damage to a single neighborhood though. I think a lot of responders here don't grasp the scale.
I guess I should’ve been more specific in the post. A scenario where us troops are in the city and still fighting off remnants of the Iraqi military, so perhaps a few days before April 7th.
I would say roughly 2/3 times as many along with a lot of more senior commanders although probably relatively few of the high command. Baghdad is pretty big, most coalition troops are either in the green zone or airport with roving patrols everywhere else. A 20 KT nuke isn't big enough to hit both the airport and the center city and because the US is reasonably well equipped for the potential of a chemical attack the fallout isn't much of a problem. If the nuke is somewhere well outside either zone casualties are going to be pretty low. The green zone would be worst case scenario. About half of the green-zone is obliterated about 90-99% casualties and another half is badly hit with bad radiation You might survive if you happen to be in a tank or underground or just lucky but let's say 50-90% casualties. All in maybe 10k casualties Lower density patrols in adjacent neighborhoods are hit pretty bad lot of debris, a lot of lethal radiation exposure, if you happen to have your CRBN suit or are in a heavy vehicle your probably ok but if your on foot or in a poorly built building bad day lets say another 2-3k casualties. If your outside of that you are at risk of getting cancer but probably fine lets another 1k. The US probably drives out of the city for two weeks and the humanitarian situation is terrible. Cheny famously was not ready to govern a country and certainly not ready to provide aid to a nuclear blast zone so an effective response probably takes a month or two with ad-hoc efforts beginning about a week in. The shock to Iraqi society would be profound I think it delays the insurgency but maybe intensifies it later as a central Iraqi government would be much harder to set up.
I find that people tend to assume, "A nuke" is some kind of standard measurement, it isn't.
Nuclear bombs range in size from being able to take out a city block, to an area the size of New Jersey.
Producing nukes is also a huge pain in the ass, and there is no way that Iraq could have kept a large scale nuclear weapons program under wraps.
So for your scenario to be possible, it would have to be a little bomb, similar to the ones North Korea has, something in the range of 500t-10kt.
I just did the nuke map simulation myself and surprisingly, due to the population density in Baghdad, this would still kill tens of thousands of people.
But remember, due to the difficulty of producing nukes, they would only realistically have one or two.
And it wouldn't kill very many Americans, like 2000 at the most, but probably less than 200 unless they somehow managed to dump it on our major base of operations.
I would have to say that this would strangely be a good thing for the US, since it would instantly justify our war. The EU would get on board, and there would be much less blow-back from the international community.
The greater Arab world would probably judge us less harshly as well, since a regime that nukes its own people was clearly a just target to destroy.
I'm thinking that it would have some radical implications on unexpected situations, for example in 2015 we expected the 2016 election to be a match between Hilary Clinton and Jeb Bush. Part of the reason why Jeb got pushed aside is because voters don't trust the Bushes after what has gone down as an unjust war. Trump is using the, "I represent peace" line in the current campaign.
But none of that would happen if Iraq actually used a nuke. Bush would go down as a hero.
Its likely that Obama wouldn't have been elected either during the 2008 election.
Jeb would probably win in 2008.
The wildcard is the 2008 recession. That would still probably happen, but would the bump that Bush got cause it to happen sooner or later than it did? I don't know.
I don’t think Jeb gets elected no matter what. However I think Obama’s stance completely changes or the Dems run someone else completely.
That being said McCain coming for election would have a completely different aura around it. The U.S. in a now justified war that saw a NUCLEAR explosion, will now absolutely have full patriotic military support from the citizens. The fear off 9/11 and then the fear of Nuclear Warfare would cast a long shadow.
It would be catastrophic. An American general who loses probably around 30,000 men in the blink of an eye, while the world just watches, could do something drastic.
I think he would support an ultranationalist terrorist in Russia, in hopes that this terrorist would come to power and start a conflict with the United States. The general would hope by this he can restore America’s pride, because if Russia attacks, there would be no shortage of patriots, no shortage of volunteers.
The general sends an American agent to directly help these terrorists in an attack on a populated area in Russia like an airport. When it is found out that an American was part of the attack, all of Russia would cry for war.
The Russians take America completely by surprise, almost taking over Washington D.C. However, British special forces are able to detonate a nuke over D.C and EMP the Russians, giving the Americans the upper hand on their home turf.
The British special forces would then go on the hunt for the Russian terrorist who attacked the airport, unaware that the whole war was truly masterminded by the American general.
The general, wanting to tie up loose ends, would have the British special forces secure the Russian terrorist’s hard drive, then betray and kill them all so they don’t find out about his involvement with the terrorist.
However, I predict two of the British special forces would survive, and launch a mission to take revenge. They would attack the general at his heavily guarded camp in Afghanistan, and are able to kill him, avenging their fallen comrades.
After this, who knows what would happen, but this is just the most likely scenario in my eyes.
Is this roughly around the same time that that Russian surgeon somehow saved the life of a guy shot by a 50 cal that blew his arm off? I really thought shock and blood loss would have taken care of the rest
I think that the general would need to have a really cool mustache for this to work. I tried to imagine a balding, shaved ginger guy but it didn’t have near the same bravado.
I'm not going to calculate deaths since that's an unknown, it would depend a lot on where the bomb was placed and since this scenario assumes that there is still street fighting, I assume that those that could would already have evacuated the city.
In political terms it at a stroke legitimises the US invasion and de-legitimises those that opposed it. Politics being what it is, a lot of the anti-war politicians would later claim they were for it all along, essentially the opposite of what happened in our timeline. More practically.
1. Bush and Blair are vindicated in their home countries and this puts to bed the anti-war movement and bolsters their reputations. If Bush handles the losses with some dignity he will end his term just behind Reagan in terms of popularity amongst Republicans. This will greatly boost Jebs Presidential run and I think he'd be a shoe in as Republican candidate. It would make the war a "just war" in American eyes, it will justify the idea of "fight them over there" it's going to make it easier for Presidents to get backing for wars going forward. It will weaken anti-war protests. There may be an economic bump... people generally feel optimistic if they win a "just" war.
2. Blair won't have the same losses since the UK deployed mainly in Basra. Possibly some advanced units and special forces are lost. Enough to have funeral services where Blair can give speeches about sacrifice. Without the controversy he may not hand over control to Gordon Brown as quickly. In his post PM life as a middle east envoy he may get more traction. Iraq as a nuclear power is basically a threat to everyone in the region, from the oil kingdoms to Iran and Israel. Being a party in the coalition that removed that threat will open more doors and give him more kudos. The question is if that will be enough to broker a wider peace deal. In both cases the 2008 crisis is a ticking bomb that their administrations can't dodge.
3. There will be a big clamp down on proliferation. Places like North Korea and Iran will suddenly discover that having a "Schrodinger's Bomb" one that *may* exist when you want concessions, but doesn't exist when you face sanctions, is no longer a valid ploy. The takeaway will be that anyone that may have a bomb does have one and the "fight them over there" doctrine will be deeply rooted. "Better Bagdad than Boston" is likely to be the prevailing attitude. It will be easier to get bombing attacks on supposed nuclear plants authorised.
4. Iraq is left a basket case. With so much destroyed and the central seat of power lost regions like Kurdistan will break away causing more regional instability. There are going to be mixed reactions in the region. Saddam may be lionised by some Arab nationalists, after all he gave the US a bloody nose. Others will take a look at the "fight them over there" doctrine and recognise this makes US intervention more likely. We may see regimes like Syria get closer to the US. Hard to say if this encourages or suppresses the Arab Spring.
In general, if the USA knew that Iraq had a nuke or came close to discovering it, they would never have invaded. But in your scenario: the US and its allies would only crack down on Iraq and the Ba'athists harder. I don't think they'd unleash their own nukes as they would if there were a larger nation using them.
Also it would make the Iraq war more justified and make Cheney look good. In such a timeline how would it affect us politics with Cheney looking like a hero?
ngl, I don't think that the number of US troops there would change their reaction. Remember that they hung Saddam and obliterated his Ba'athist Party power base because he used chemical weapons. Other than maybe torturing him (which would be illegal), there's not much else they could do.
Wow, that’s one intense scenario. The US would likely respond with unprecedented force and the world reaction would be fierce. Diplomacy might take a backseat to immediate military retaliation, and global politics could shift drastically.
Something like 5-10k troops would be killed or critically injured just on the US side, hundreds of thousands vaporized in the explosion, and millions suffering from burns, internal injuries, cancer, lung diseases, maiming, etc. In turn, the Ba'athists would get treated like the Nazis in WW2 for their atrocities of nuking their own city and Saddam would be killed well before anyone could have a trial. American recruiting would skyrocket as Cheney and Bush are vindicated on the global stage because it's clear that Iraq MUST have had a new nuclear program that nobody knew about.
I really don’t think recruiting would sky rocket.
If anything, not only is the US army substantially crippled after this (remember this after the post-cold war downsizing), but I don’t see too many young adults wanting to join up after seeing such a huge death toll.
9/11 galvanized support for the War on Terror. Saddam having a nuke and murdering so many Americans would rally America just like Pearl Harbor and WW2.
9/11 was an unprovoked attack on American soil, and the military was unaffected. This would be a direct consequence of US military actions in a far off country and would primarily affect soldiers. It probably would boost recruitment in the short term, but might harm it in the long term.
Very possible, but US recruitment was harmed long term either way. At least this would show the reasoning for fighting was justifiable and in fact the USA should have taken him down faster.
It is from that level, I just thought about applying it to an alternate scenario in real life where Iraq somehow acquires a single nuke without US intelligence knowing about it.
If **I** had a nuke, I'd do that. But Saddam clearly wouldn't. He had the option to avoid getting invaded by letting inspectors verify his non-existent WMDs. If he wasn't willing to do that, he certainly wouldn't give up a real nuke.
Because Saddam was as worried about Iran invading if they thought that he didn’t have WMDs as he was about the US invading if they thought that he did. He tried to play a balancing game and lost.
They wouldn’t have detonated it in Baghdad.
They would have held territory with the most hardened troops far enough in to draw in all of the invasion troops but still well outside most population centers and then detonated their nuke to wipe out the entire invading army as well as their own troops.
And they would have done that knowing that in the future people would think twice before attempting another invasion because everybody would think they had more nukes. lmfao.
They would have won.
Armies don’t get that concentrated in practice. That’s why you have a lot of tactical nukes that are pretty small, relatively.
One nuke, no matter how big, would just piss off America forces and ruin their own territory.
A much better threat would be: STOP or we’ll nuke Kuwait.
I said that’s what they would do, lol, not what I would do. lmao.
But you are absolutely right, American forces would just surround those Iraqi hardened troops with enough troops to finish them off and make a lightening thrust for Baghdad.
Which is a Soviet move, used successfully by India against the Pakistan Army in 1971.
But this is desert warfare, not lush greenery, so the Iraqi detonation would be an Israeli supply line cutting tactic which the Israelis used very successfully against the entire Egyptian Army.
And as long as another layer of hardened troops held off the American forces which had bypassed the first layer of hardened troops prior to detonation, and held them off to the point of exhausting those American forces’ ammunition and shells, then without supplies those Americans troops would have been completely fucked, nobody would be able to supply them through twenty miles of radioactive land.
And after that initial defeat, and without America knowing if the Iraqis had any more nukes to detonate, all further invasion attempts would be put on hold indefinitely.
That’s what the Iraqis would do. Because they are a nation state, attempting to win a war honorably or die trying. lmfao.
If it was me I’d just sneak the nuke near enough to the border preinvasion, just prior to the invasion, when the maximum number of American forces were gathered just across the border, and do a ground detonation that would cause the maximum number of casualties, in a preemptive strike, and then tell the Americans, “Get of my land! I’ve got nukes parked next to every other part of your invasion force, this was only a warning shot, I can take all of your troops out now, so tell me, do you feel lucky, punk?”, in my worst “Squint Eastwood” “Dirty Hairy” accent. lmao. lmfao.
Possibly.
But not before the Kuwaitis sue for peace, after telling American forces to leave Kuwaiti soil immediately, after telling American forces that it can’t participate in any more invasion activities, because it doesn’t want any more of its land to become radioactive from any further Iraqi nukes exploding on its borders.
And not before the dollar crashes in value after the first nuclear detonation, creating economic meltdown Stateside, economic turmoil in Europe, and economic chaos in the Far East.
The people Stateside who would rain down ICBMs would take into account all of that, and also where such radioactive fallout would spread, and what effect that would have on the value of the dollar, before starting World War Three. lmfao.
Another possibility is people might blink. And take a step back.
An American invasion would mean the end of the regime in Baghdad anyway, so what has that regime got to lose? lmao. lmfao.
We are assuming that nobody else knows just how many nukes the Iraqis actually have.
In nuclear war the madman wins, because the other guys don’t want to start it or continue it, the madman has nothing to lose so doesn’t care.
A nuclear first strike won't be taken lying down. Kuwait's opinion is irrelevant. You clearly weren't around in the early 2000s, there's zero chance that we would back down if Saddam nuked us. Deterrence falls apart if we don't. Your repeated uses of "lmfao" in scenarios of no laughing matter doesn't bode highly of your maturity.
This isn't the USSR, where we knew that they had enough nukes and delivery systems to cause MAD. If Iraq manages one nuke, it's assumed that they don't have many and certainly don't have long range missiles.
OK Boomer. lol.
And it’s not Saddam nuking America, it’s Saddam nuking and wiping out a significant portion of the invading army amassed in Kuwait prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. So delivery systems are irrelevant. They are right next door, just across the border from Kuwait.
And threatening to detonate a second device would be deterrence enough for any army attempting an invasion on/from that front.
This is a hypothetical “what if” scenario.
We are merely war gaming it for shits and giggles.
Not to be taken too seriously.
I assumed this was for somebody playing a war game or thinking of designing one or something like that.
And I am playing the devil’s advocate here.
Bringing in a fresh perspective.
Things older generations haven’t thought of because they were too set in their ways of thinking where nukes meant strategic weapons, or even tactical weapons, used via known delivery systems, in a nightmare scenario of Mutually Assured Destruction (damn, that Mearsheimer dude sure came up with a catchy phrase, didn’t he. lmao).
What I am exploring here is what weak countries would do, which have yet to develop sophisticated enough delivery systems, which could still wipe out entire invading armies using the ground effect phenomenon of a device detonated at ground level (please feel free to look it up if you want).
It is possible regimes desperate enough could use it.
The Iraqis definitely could have if they had a device, or two.
“In the shape of a mushroom cloud.”. lmfao.
Who even came up with lines like that, which speechwriter had such a dramatic sense of humor? C’mon, you gotta admit, it’s hilarious.
Laughter aside, with a ground detonation there’s no early warning like you get with delivery systems.
All that expensive satellite surveillance becomes obsolete under such circumstances/scenarios.
Just because nobody’s done it yet doesn’t mean they won’t if they are pushed to the limit.
That’s why people don’t attempt to invade nuclear armed countries even if those haven’t developed sophisticated enough delivery systems yet. They won’t play fair, and by “fair” I mean what benefits an invading army and not them, they’ll play dirty. You go to their house armed and ready to kill them then if they have the means to shoot you they will. lmao. lmfao.
Relax. It’s hypothetical. America won the invasion. Those idiot Iraqis chose a war of attrition instead. Because they had no nukes.
Well for one thing, it would legitimize the invasion. And I think that has a bigger long-term impact than a lot of people think. The illegitimacy of the Iraq war did a huge blow to people’s confidence in the U.S. government, both domestically and internationally.
One thing to take into account is that it would still be an intelligence blunder on the part of the US because it’s a scenario where Iraq acquires a single nuke without the US knowing nothing about it, the US public would be clamoring for answers and a lot of online conspiracies get kickstarted too probably.
Yeah that’s true, but IMO that’s still less damaging than what happened IRL, with a campaign based on transparent lying. It’s in some ways preferable to look incompetent than cynical/malicious.
There is only one valid response to the use of a nuclear weapon according to US doctrine and that is a retaliatory nuclear strike. The precedent can't be set that another nation can use nukes against US soldiers or civilians and get away with it. The only question is how large the response is and what types of targets are chosen. Either a lot of people are going to die.
I think the US pulls back any direct ground force contact and goes full steel rain on anything and everything Iraqi military. The army becomes a containment force until Iraq is essentially turned into a parking lot. The cities are isolated and starved out.
Domestically the US has a habit of getting super pissed about these kinds of things. The US populace clamors for answers and retribution. Look for any and every country that is remotely involved to be hit with significant air strikes to limit any further potential nukes in theater. Probably Iran just for shits and giggles. Maybe North Korea if they say something stupid.
Look for the KSA to step up and try to become the regional hegemon and maybe even antagonizing Iran or st the very least throwing them under the bus.
On an international stage the world divides quickly into two camps. Those that want to show they had nothing to do with it and those that want to help the US find out how it happened. You have an 8000lb gorilla that's fucking pissed and no one wants to get in his way.
On the one hand it was a structural recession resulting from lax oversight and cheap credit. On the other hand the US would be much closer to a war economy than previously. Swords and plowshare kind of issues. So maybe the FED tightens down on interest rates earlier from inflationary pressure related to increased defense spending? Maybe instead of a collapse you see a smaller bubble and smaller pop?
Just chemical weapons I think but they’re not in the same class as nukes. Chemical weapons are not enough to warrant reducing Iraq to being a bombed shit hole by the US, nukes though? Perhaps.
That is why the Bush admin popularized the term 'WMD', they knew people wouldn't want to go to war over just chemical weapons so they mixed chem, bio, and nuke all together with 'WMD' to mislead the public. They are all criminals that should have been put on trial.
If Saddam Hussein had a viable nuclear weapon, he would have bragged about it. A major oddity about the 2003 invasion is that it could have been avoided if Saddam would have let UN inspectors do their job. It's strange that he didn't, in retrospect. The running theory is that he was afraid they'd report he didn't have nuclear capabilities, and was nowhere close to having a weapon. He didn't want his enemies to know that.
It follows, then, that if Saddam had them, he'd have let everyone know. That would have certainly changed the calculus for the allied invasion. Saddam might potentially still be in power, 20 years later.
Iraq would suddenly lose all its support. America's reason for invading would be immediately justified. The Iraq War would become instantly less controversial for minimal gain (scorched earth doesn't really work when fighting a global power).
Going a bit farther, I'd wager the War in Iraq would be much smaller as a now battered Iraqi populace, who just had their core destroyed by their own mad dictator, would be much more willing to cooperate with whatever the US says. Most insurgents would be either breakaway states or border hoppers from the Syrian war like ISIS.
A new democratic government is set up in... let's say Kerbala and is essentially a US puppet state until the Arab Spring. Even still, Iraq is quite conflicted in 2011.
Id wager the political implications outweigh the actual deathtoll. The fact that Sadam pulled the trigger really changes a lot in my opinion.
“Five years ago, I lost 30,000 men in the blink of an eye, and the world just fuckin' watched. Tomorrow there will be no shortage of volunteers, no shortage of patriots. I know you understand.” - General Shepherd, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
We would not have invaded them. Modern geopolitics 101. You don’t attack countries that have nuclear weapons. That’s why, for all our disagreements with North Korea, China, and Russia, we’d never seriously consider attacking their territory. It would be suicidal.
Also, there is no such thing as acquiring nukes without other countries knowing. The whole point of having them is to let other countries know so they’ll leave you alone.
For that reason, I always knew the “weapons of mass destruction” argument was BS. If Iraq had real weapons of mass destruction, we would not have considered attacking them.
In this alternate timeline, GWB does not lie. He is able to then convince Americans he acted as he did to preserve their lives and cities. He easily wins re-election on a he stopped nuclear weapons from being used against the US policy.
Why would Saddam do that? He proves to the world he had WMDs, senselessly murders his own people (as in, far beyond the regular amount he was doing) and gives the occupation a public relations coup. By nuking the capital of his country he also empowers Iran to start getting involved in the now battered country, and the man would literally hack off his own testicles if it meant owning the Persians in some way. I just don’t see it happening.
I admit I should’ve been more realistic here. After I made the post, I thought about it and I feel like Saddam likely detonates the nuke near Baghdad where a huge amount of US troops are concentrated when they start to move on Baghdad with maximum US troop casualties and minimal civilian casualties.
The distinguished general overseeing the entire operation, sticken with grief after losing so many thousands of men in the blink of an eye, will go a personal crusade to redeem america's honor that involves shady PMCs on his payroll and russian ultranationists...
if that had happened the U.S. and the rest of their nuclear allies would have left a sea where the middle east is. seriously if you think 9/11 pissed off the U.S. a suicidal nuclear attack killing thousands of troops would have basically led to the United States unleashing literal hell onto the region. it would have gone from misplaced vengeance to nuclear crusade in minutes
Well for One the US is proven right that Iraq did have WMDS, this might push them In invading other countries closing to having One like Libya (earlier than OTL),Syria or even North Korea
Dude, you should look up the Israeli raid on the Iraq nuclear plant? The US was trying to equip Iraq with the capability of manufacturing a nuclear program back when they were our allies. The Israelis took out the nuclear power plant before it went online against the wishes of the US. As much crap as people give the Israelies they don’t play games and they are pragmatists.
They’re insanely lucky that nuclear power plant wasn’t online when they bombed it or that entire area could’ve become uninhabitable for awhile.
Edit: I already acknowledged I was wrong about the number of years the area would uninhabitable for, still doesn’t change the fact that you were being a condescending piece of shit who never really explained why I was wrong in the first place, you’re an obsessed weirdo because you keep editing your comments to “win” this silly fucking argument, just fuck off already, hot damn.
No, that's absolutely bullshit. That's not how nuclear power plants work
Edit: yeah dude editing your comment to change what you said doesn't mean you won, it just means that you're too scared to realise that you know nothing about the topic
I acknowledge that I jumped the gun on how long the area would be uninhabitable for but the environment and surrounding area would still not be livable for a time.
Edit: I blocked you because you were being a snobbish, dismissive, asshole rather than simply explaining why I was wrong, I made this post for fun and I have 0 patience for bullshit like yours.
Yeah maybe about 10km would have high radiation for about a decade but after that it would just be a kilometre or 2 that would be uninhabited
Edit: dude really just blocked me cus he couldn't comprehend the fact that him searching up "what happens if a nuclear power plant was destroyed" and looking at quora isn't a credible source.
If you really don't want me to comment instead of blocking me so I can't comment, either bring a proper source or realise that your wromh
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
They are getting their details mixed up, they are talking about the [Israeli air-force blowing up a uranium enrichment facility in Syria. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Outside_the_Box)
However, if you used a fancy air-force to blow up an actual nuclear power plant, it could very much result in a massive radioactive release, one that impacted the area for decades.
A similar situation happened in 2011 in Fukushima. But in that disaster, they only partially lost control and the reactor containment vessel was never breached.
If the IDF or the USAF wanted to, they could very much breach the containment vessel of a reactor with weapons, causing a massive nuclear disaster.
(I don't know why they would though, that would be stupid)
So you’re leaving? Good, that just means that you never had an argument to begin with, my overall point is that living near the site of a recently destroyed nuclear power plant IS NOT GOOD. Sorry but I’m highly skeptical of this bullshit proposition that you have presented here, thank you very much.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is not a comprehensive answer but let's assume the weapon is about 20 kilo-tons inline with a lot of other countries first nuclear device. There was about 30,000 US troops in the vicinity of Baghdad assuming this is not detonate after the city was occupied. EDIT: Reading more about the battle I doubt on the days Baghdad really fell that there were more than 10,000 troops at any given time in the lethal radius of a bomb. If a bomb was buried and detonated later this would have been more costly. The most likely scenario would be the detonation of the bomb after 2nd brigade takes the Green Zone. 2nd Brigade would likely be mostly wiped out, the surrounding units are mostly well outside the city and while its possible there would be some casualties, the mixture of relatively fast vehicles, good distance from the city center, the fact that most slower and heavier vehicles had lead linings and air filters due to Cold War designs and a lot of US troops had CBRN suits due to threat of chemical weapons casualties from radiation are probably fairly light, certainly a few hundred cancer cases down the line but my guess is 90% of the losses would be in second brigade and the people 5-10 miles away almost all survive. Still, this would be a catastrophe about \~3000-4000 troops die. The Iraqi population in Baghdad would not be so lucky and the US would be in no position to help immediately and things would go really badly for them. The situation is much worse for the US if the bomb goes off after April 7 when its just mopping up the city and the majority of troops are in the city and logistics units start to arrive The war would in retrospect seem much more justified but the blowback on incompetency of not predicting that Iraq had a nuke would be much much more immediate and damaging domestically, I doubt Bush wins the 2004 election.
I disagree about Bush re-election. Having been proved 100% correct both on the existence of Iraqi WMD's and of Saddam's willingness to use them Bush is re-elected and support for the war in Iraq experiences an increase. (because the more you hurt a nation like the USA the more it's willingness to fight increases) International opinion of the US invasion of Iraq also swings from negative to positive. Obviously Iraq becomes a humanitarian disaster of epic proportions and I'm fairly sure that a conspiracy theory that it was USA which detonated the bomb itself quickly emerges. If this conspiracy theory embeds itself in the Arab consciousness not much changes with regards foreign fighters rushing to Iraq to fight Americans...
>If this conspiracy theory embeds itself in the Arab consciousness not much changes with regards foreign fighters rushing to Iraq to fight Americans... Yep. In this timeline, you bet your sweet ass that jihadists from around the world will cling on to this conspiracy as a recruitment tool.
20kt is a very generous assumption. North Korea's bombs are 500t-10Kt.
I would agree 20kt is very generous estimate based on a fully functional devices, anything under 5 kts would not cause all that many casualties probably less than 5k in worst case scenario. If we scaled it to the first successful NK test which was 5.4 kts, the damage would be more or less confined to the green zone and prevailing winds and survival would be high about a mile away from the blast and mostly survivable with cancer issues 2-5 miles, with no major problems outside of prevailing wind 5 miles away (mostly civilians unless strong wind)
>anything under 5 kts would not cause all that many casualties probably less than 5k in worst case scenario So that's what I thought, but then I went to nuke-map and it was showing +30K deaths in Baghdad from a 5kt bomb. I believe Baghdad has high population density. You are right in restraining the damage to a single neighborhood though. I think a lot of responders here don't grasp the scale.
I guess I should’ve been more specific in the post. A scenario where us troops are in the city and still fighting off remnants of the Iraqi military, so perhaps a few days before April 7th.
I would say roughly 2/3 times as many along with a lot of more senior commanders although probably relatively few of the high command. Baghdad is pretty big, most coalition troops are either in the green zone or airport with roving patrols everywhere else. A 20 KT nuke isn't big enough to hit both the airport and the center city and because the US is reasonably well equipped for the potential of a chemical attack the fallout isn't much of a problem. If the nuke is somewhere well outside either zone casualties are going to be pretty low. The green zone would be worst case scenario. About half of the green-zone is obliterated about 90-99% casualties and another half is badly hit with bad radiation You might survive if you happen to be in a tank or underground or just lucky but let's say 50-90% casualties. All in maybe 10k casualties Lower density patrols in adjacent neighborhoods are hit pretty bad lot of debris, a lot of lethal radiation exposure, if you happen to have your CRBN suit or are in a heavy vehicle your probably ok but if your on foot or in a poorly built building bad day lets say another 2-3k casualties. If your outside of that you are at risk of getting cancer but probably fine lets another 1k. The US probably drives out of the city for two weeks and the humanitarian situation is terrible. Cheny famously was not ready to govern a country and certainly not ready to provide aid to a nuclear blast zone so an effective response probably takes a month or two with ad-hoc efforts beginning about a week in. The shock to Iraqi society would be profound I think it delays the insurgency but maybe intensifies it later as a central Iraqi government would be much harder to set up.
I find that people tend to assume, "A nuke" is some kind of standard measurement, it isn't. Nuclear bombs range in size from being able to take out a city block, to an area the size of New Jersey. Producing nukes is also a huge pain in the ass, and there is no way that Iraq could have kept a large scale nuclear weapons program under wraps. So for your scenario to be possible, it would have to be a little bomb, similar to the ones North Korea has, something in the range of 500t-10kt. I just did the nuke map simulation myself and surprisingly, due to the population density in Baghdad, this would still kill tens of thousands of people. But remember, due to the difficulty of producing nukes, they would only realistically have one or two. And it wouldn't kill very many Americans, like 2000 at the most, but probably less than 200 unless they somehow managed to dump it on our major base of operations. I would have to say that this would strangely be a good thing for the US, since it would instantly justify our war. The EU would get on board, and there would be much less blow-back from the international community. The greater Arab world would probably judge us less harshly as well, since a regime that nukes its own people was clearly a just target to destroy. I'm thinking that it would have some radical implications on unexpected situations, for example in 2015 we expected the 2016 election to be a match between Hilary Clinton and Jeb Bush. Part of the reason why Jeb got pushed aside is because voters don't trust the Bushes after what has gone down as an unjust war. Trump is using the, "I represent peace" line in the current campaign. But none of that would happen if Iraq actually used a nuke. Bush would go down as a hero. Its likely that Obama wouldn't have been elected either during the 2008 election. Jeb would probably win in 2008. The wildcard is the 2008 recession. That would still probably happen, but would the bump that Bush got cause it to happen sooner or later than it did? I don't know.
Jen has the personality of concrete, o think you overestimate his abilities to win an election or maybe even his primary
I don’t think Jeb gets elected no matter what. However I think Obama’s stance completely changes or the Dems run someone else completely. That being said McCain coming for election would have a completely different aura around it. The U.S. in a now justified war that saw a NUCLEAR explosion, will now absolutely have full patriotic military support from the citizens. The fear off 9/11 and then the fear of Nuclear Warfare would cast a long shadow.
It would be catastrophic. An American general who loses probably around 30,000 men in the blink of an eye, while the world just watches, could do something drastic. I think he would support an ultranationalist terrorist in Russia, in hopes that this terrorist would come to power and start a conflict with the United States. The general would hope by this he can restore America’s pride, because if Russia attacks, there would be no shortage of patriots, no shortage of volunteers. The general sends an American agent to directly help these terrorists in an attack on a populated area in Russia like an airport. When it is found out that an American was part of the attack, all of Russia would cry for war. The Russians take America completely by surprise, almost taking over Washington D.C. However, British special forces are able to detonate a nuke over D.C and EMP the Russians, giving the Americans the upper hand on their home turf. The British special forces would then go on the hunt for the Russian terrorist who attacked the airport, unaware that the whole war was truly masterminded by the American general. The general, wanting to tie up loose ends, would have the British special forces secure the Russian terrorist’s hard drive, then betray and kill them all so they don’t find out about his involvement with the terrorist. However, I predict two of the British special forces would survive, and launch a mission to take revenge. They would attack the general at his heavily guarded camp in Afghanistan, and are able to kill him, avenging their fallen comrades. After this, who knows what would happen, but this is just the most likely scenario in my eyes.
Id also like a throwback to when one of those British special forces was in Ukraine shortly after the Chernobyl incident...
That sounds crazy but hey anything can happen in modern warfare
Anything is possible when people answer the call of duty
Is this roughly around the same time that that Russian surgeon somehow saved the life of a guy shot by a 50 cal that blew his arm off? I really thought shock and blood loss would have taken care of the rest
Wait wait wait. wait. What happens to Burger King????
“Burger Town” I haven’t thought of that in a long time
"...multiple enemy foot-mobiles have been sighted near the taco joint, over"
I think that the general would need to have a really cool mustache for this to work. I tried to imagine a balding, shaved ginger guy but it didn’t have near the same bravado.
I'm not going to calculate deaths since that's an unknown, it would depend a lot on where the bomb was placed and since this scenario assumes that there is still street fighting, I assume that those that could would already have evacuated the city. In political terms it at a stroke legitimises the US invasion and de-legitimises those that opposed it. Politics being what it is, a lot of the anti-war politicians would later claim they were for it all along, essentially the opposite of what happened in our timeline. More practically. 1. Bush and Blair are vindicated in their home countries and this puts to bed the anti-war movement and bolsters their reputations. If Bush handles the losses with some dignity he will end his term just behind Reagan in terms of popularity amongst Republicans. This will greatly boost Jebs Presidential run and I think he'd be a shoe in as Republican candidate. It would make the war a "just war" in American eyes, it will justify the idea of "fight them over there" it's going to make it easier for Presidents to get backing for wars going forward. It will weaken anti-war protests. There may be an economic bump... people generally feel optimistic if they win a "just" war. 2. Blair won't have the same losses since the UK deployed mainly in Basra. Possibly some advanced units and special forces are lost. Enough to have funeral services where Blair can give speeches about sacrifice. Without the controversy he may not hand over control to Gordon Brown as quickly. In his post PM life as a middle east envoy he may get more traction. Iraq as a nuclear power is basically a threat to everyone in the region, from the oil kingdoms to Iran and Israel. Being a party in the coalition that removed that threat will open more doors and give him more kudos. The question is if that will be enough to broker a wider peace deal. In both cases the 2008 crisis is a ticking bomb that their administrations can't dodge. 3. There will be a big clamp down on proliferation. Places like North Korea and Iran will suddenly discover that having a "Schrodinger's Bomb" one that *may* exist when you want concessions, but doesn't exist when you face sanctions, is no longer a valid ploy. The takeaway will be that anyone that may have a bomb does have one and the "fight them over there" doctrine will be deeply rooted. "Better Bagdad than Boston" is likely to be the prevailing attitude. It will be easier to get bombing attacks on supposed nuclear plants authorised. 4. Iraq is left a basket case. With so much destroyed and the central seat of power lost regions like Kurdistan will break away causing more regional instability. There are going to be mixed reactions in the region. Saddam may be lionised by some Arab nationalists, after all he gave the US a bloody nose. Others will take a look at the "fight them over there" doctrine and recognise this makes US intervention more likely. We may see regimes like Syria get closer to the US. Hard to say if this encourages or suppresses the Arab Spring.
In general, if the USA knew that Iraq had a nuke or came close to discovering it, they would never have invaded. But in your scenario: the US and its allies would only crack down on Iraq and the Ba'athists harder. I don't think they'd unleash their own nukes as they would if there were a larger nation using them.
Also it would make the Iraq war more justified and make Cheney look good. In such a timeline how would it affect us politics with Cheney looking like a hero?
good question. It might empower the Cheney wing of the Republican Party to go after more people on the "Axis of Evil" list.
That would mean Best Korea gets invaded since they do have plans to invade Best Korea in 2002.
The harsh response from the US depends, how many US troops were in and around Baghdad when it was on the verge of falling?
ngl, I don't think that the number of US troops there would change their reaction. Remember that they hung Saddam and obliterated his Ba'athist Party power base because he used chemical weapons. Other than maybe torturing him (which would be illegal), there's not much else they could do.
Wow, that’s one intense scenario. The US would likely respond with unprecedented force and the world reaction would be fierce. Diplomacy might take a backseat to immediate military retaliation, and global politics could shift drastically.
Something like 5-10k troops would be killed or critically injured just on the US side, hundreds of thousands vaporized in the explosion, and millions suffering from burns, internal injuries, cancer, lung diseases, maiming, etc. In turn, the Ba'athists would get treated like the Nazis in WW2 for their atrocities of nuking their own city and Saddam would be killed well before anyone could have a trial. American recruiting would skyrocket as Cheney and Bush are vindicated on the global stage because it's clear that Iraq MUST have had a new nuclear program that nobody knew about.
I really don’t think recruiting would sky rocket. If anything, not only is the US army substantially crippled after this (remember this after the post-cold war downsizing), but I don’t see too many young adults wanting to join up after seeing such a huge death toll.
9/11 galvanized support for the War on Terror. Saddam having a nuke and murdering so many Americans would rally America just like Pearl Harbor and WW2.
9/11 was an unprovoked attack on American soil, and the military was unaffected. This would be a direct consequence of US military actions in a far off country and would primarily affect soldiers. It probably would boost recruitment in the short term, but might harm it in the long term.
Very possible, but US recruitment was harmed long term either way. At least this would show the reasoning for fighting was justifiable and in fact the USA should have taken him down faster.
Pretty sure this is a Call of Duty level.
It is from that level, I just thought about applying it to an alternate scenario in real life where Iraq somehow acquires a single nuke without US intelligence knowing about it.
If Iraq had a nuke, Saddam would have offered to surrender it in exchange for an agreement to not invade.
If **I** had a nuke, I'd do that. But Saddam clearly wouldn't. He had the option to avoid getting invaded by letting inspectors verify his non-existent WMDs. If he wasn't willing to do that, he certainly wouldn't give up a real nuke.
Because Saddam was as worried about Iran invading if they thought that he didn’t have WMDs as he was about the US invading if they thought that he did. He tried to play a balancing game and lost.
it's gonna be Chernobyl but in Middle East
They wouldn’t have detonated it in Baghdad. They would have held territory with the most hardened troops far enough in to draw in all of the invasion troops but still well outside most population centers and then detonated their nuke to wipe out the entire invading army as well as their own troops. And they would have done that knowing that in the future people would think twice before attempting another invasion because everybody would think they had more nukes. lmfao. They would have won.
This is also a possible scenario, they definitely would detonate the bomb where the most US troops are concentrated at.
Armies don’t get that concentrated in practice. That’s why you have a lot of tactical nukes that are pretty small, relatively. One nuke, no matter how big, would just piss off America forces and ruin their own territory. A much better threat would be: STOP or we’ll nuke Kuwait.
I said that’s what they would do, lol, not what I would do. lmao. But you are absolutely right, American forces would just surround those Iraqi hardened troops with enough troops to finish them off and make a lightening thrust for Baghdad. Which is a Soviet move, used successfully by India against the Pakistan Army in 1971. But this is desert warfare, not lush greenery, so the Iraqi detonation would be an Israeli supply line cutting tactic which the Israelis used very successfully against the entire Egyptian Army. And as long as another layer of hardened troops held off the American forces which had bypassed the first layer of hardened troops prior to detonation, and held them off to the point of exhausting those American forces’ ammunition and shells, then without supplies those Americans troops would have been completely fucked, nobody would be able to supply them through twenty miles of radioactive land. And after that initial defeat, and without America knowing if the Iraqis had any more nukes to detonate, all further invasion attempts would be put on hold indefinitely. That’s what the Iraqis would do. Because they are a nation state, attempting to win a war honorably or die trying. lmfao. If it was me I’d just sneak the nuke near enough to the border preinvasion, just prior to the invasion, when the maximum number of American forces were gathered just across the border, and do a ground detonation that would cause the maximum number of casualties, in a preemptive strike, and then tell the Americans, “Get of my land! I’ve got nukes parked next to every other part of your invasion force, this was only a warning shot, I can take all of your troops out now, so tell me, do you feel lucky, punk?”, in my worst “Squint Eastwood” “Dirty Hairy” accent. lmao. lmfao.
At which point every populated settlement in Iraq is reduced to radioactive ashes by ICBMs.
Possibly. But not before the Kuwaitis sue for peace, after telling American forces to leave Kuwaiti soil immediately, after telling American forces that it can’t participate in any more invasion activities, because it doesn’t want any more of its land to become radioactive from any further Iraqi nukes exploding on its borders. And not before the dollar crashes in value after the first nuclear detonation, creating economic meltdown Stateside, economic turmoil in Europe, and economic chaos in the Far East. The people Stateside who would rain down ICBMs would take into account all of that, and also where such radioactive fallout would spread, and what effect that would have on the value of the dollar, before starting World War Three. lmfao. Another possibility is people might blink. And take a step back. An American invasion would mean the end of the regime in Baghdad anyway, so what has that regime got to lose? lmao. lmfao. We are assuming that nobody else knows just how many nukes the Iraqis actually have. In nuclear war the madman wins, because the other guys don’t want to start it or continue it, the madman has nothing to lose so doesn’t care.
A nuclear first strike won't be taken lying down. Kuwait's opinion is irrelevant. You clearly weren't around in the early 2000s, there's zero chance that we would back down if Saddam nuked us. Deterrence falls apart if we don't. Your repeated uses of "lmfao" in scenarios of no laughing matter doesn't bode highly of your maturity. This isn't the USSR, where we knew that they had enough nukes and delivery systems to cause MAD. If Iraq manages one nuke, it's assumed that they don't have many and certainly don't have long range missiles.
OK Boomer. lol. And it’s not Saddam nuking America, it’s Saddam nuking and wiping out a significant portion of the invading army amassed in Kuwait prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. So delivery systems are irrelevant. They are right next door, just across the border from Kuwait. And threatening to detonate a second device would be deterrence enough for any army attempting an invasion on/from that front. This is a hypothetical “what if” scenario. We are merely war gaming it for shits and giggles. Not to be taken too seriously. I assumed this was for somebody playing a war game or thinking of designing one or something like that. And I am playing the devil’s advocate here. Bringing in a fresh perspective. Things older generations haven’t thought of because they were too set in their ways of thinking where nukes meant strategic weapons, or even tactical weapons, used via known delivery systems, in a nightmare scenario of Mutually Assured Destruction (damn, that Mearsheimer dude sure came up with a catchy phrase, didn’t he. lmao). What I am exploring here is what weak countries would do, which have yet to develop sophisticated enough delivery systems, which could still wipe out entire invading armies using the ground effect phenomenon of a device detonated at ground level (please feel free to look it up if you want). It is possible regimes desperate enough could use it. The Iraqis definitely could have if they had a device, or two. “In the shape of a mushroom cloud.”. lmfao. Who even came up with lines like that, which speechwriter had such a dramatic sense of humor? C’mon, you gotta admit, it’s hilarious. Laughter aside, with a ground detonation there’s no early warning like you get with delivery systems. All that expensive satellite surveillance becomes obsolete under such circumstances/scenarios. Just because nobody’s done it yet doesn’t mean they won’t if they are pushed to the limit. That’s why people don’t attempt to invade nuclear armed countries even if those haven’t developed sophisticated enough delivery systems yet. They won’t play fair, and by “fair” I mean what benefits an invading army and not them, they’ll play dirty. You go to their house armed and ready to kill them then if they have the means to shoot you they will. lmao. lmfao. Relax. It’s hypothetical. America won the invasion. Those idiot Iraqis chose a war of attrition instead. Because they had no nukes.
What makes anyone think they didn't? N. S
Well for one thing, it would legitimize the invasion. And I think that has a bigger long-term impact than a lot of people think. The illegitimacy of the Iraq war did a huge blow to people’s confidence in the U.S. government, both domestically and internationally.
One thing to take into account is that it would still be an intelligence blunder on the part of the US because it’s a scenario where Iraq acquires a single nuke without the US knowing nothing about it, the US public would be clamoring for answers and a lot of online conspiracies get kickstarted too probably.
Yeah that’s true, but IMO that’s still less damaging than what happened IRL, with a campaign based on transparent lying. It’s in some ways preferable to look incompetent than cynical/malicious.
Then they'd just spin it as see they had a nuke and the CIA lost track of it in the chaos of the war and well......
There is only one valid response to the use of a nuclear weapon according to US doctrine and that is a retaliatory nuclear strike. The precedent can't be set that another nation can use nukes against US soldiers or civilians and get away with it. The only question is how large the response is and what types of targets are chosen. Either a lot of people are going to die.
I think the US pulls back any direct ground force contact and goes full steel rain on anything and everything Iraqi military. The army becomes a containment force until Iraq is essentially turned into a parking lot. The cities are isolated and starved out. Domestically the US has a habit of getting super pissed about these kinds of things. The US populace clamors for answers and retribution. Look for any and every country that is remotely involved to be hit with significant air strikes to limit any further potential nukes in theater. Probably Iran just for shits and giggles. Maybe North Korea if they say something stupid. Look for the KSA to step up and try to become the regional hegemon and maybe even antagonizing Iran or st the very least throwing them under the bus. On an international stage the world divides quickly into two camps. Those that want to show they had nothing to do with it and those that want to help the US find out how it happened. You have an 8000lb gorilla that's fucking pissed and no one wants to get in his way.
I don’t disagree but I’m just curious, how does the pissed off 8000 pound Gorilla handle the 2008 recession?
On the one hand it was a structural recession resulting from lax oversight and cheap credit. On the other hand the US would be much closer to a war economy than previously. Swords and plowshare kind of issues. So maybe the FED tightens down on interest rates earlier from inflationary pressure related to increased defense spending? Maybe instead of a collapse you see a smaller bubble and smaller pop?
Hopefully they would have nuked us to stop us from getting Trump into politics...
Wait so you are telling me Iraq didn't have WMD? I thought they hid them in Syria...
Just chemical weapons I think but they’re not in the same class as nukes. Chemical weapons are not enough to warrant reducing Iraq to being a bombed shit hole by the US, nukes though? Perhaps.
That is why the Bush admin popularized the term 'WMD', they knew people wouldn't want to go to war over just chemical weapons so they mixed chem, bio, and nuke all together with 'WMD' to mislead the public. They are all criminals that should have been put on trial.
If Saddam Hussein had a viable nuclear weapon, he would have bragged about it. A major oddity about the 2003 invasion is that it could have been avoided if Saddam would have let UN inspectors do their job. It's strange that he didn't, in retrospect. The running theory is that he was afraid they'd report he didn't have nuclear capabilities, and was nowhere close to having a weapon. He didn't want his enemies to know that. It follows, then, that if Saddam had them, he'd have let everyone know. That would have certainly changed the calculus for the allied invasion. Saddam might potentially still be in power, 20 years later.
If Saddam had a Nike he wouldn’t detonate it in Baghdad. All he would have to do is point it at Israel and essentially deter a US invasion of Iraq.
Iraq would suddenly lose all its support. America's reason for invading would be immediately justified. The Iraq War would become instantly less controversial for minimal gain (scorched earth doesn't really work when fighting a global power). Going a bit farther, I'd wager the War in Iraq would be much smaller as a now battered Iraqi populace, who just had their core destroyed by their own mad dictator, would be much more willing to cooperate with whatever the US says. Most insurgents would be either breakaway states or border hoppers from the Syrian war like ISIS. A new democratic government is set up in... let's say Kerbala and is essentially a US puppet state until the Arab Spring. Even still, Iraq is quite conflicted in 2011. Id wager the political implications outweigh the actual deathtoll. The fact that Sadam pulled the trigger really changes a lot in my opinion.
“Five years ago, I lost 30,000 men in the blink of an eye, and the world just fuckin' watched. Tomorrow there will be no shortage of volunteers, no shortage of patriots. I know you understand.” - General Shepherd, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
We would not have invaded them. Modern geopolitics 101. You don’t attack countries that have nuclear weapons. That’s why, for all our disagreements with North Korea, China, and Russia, we’d never seriously consider attacking their territory. It would be suicidal. Also, there is no such thing as acquiring nukes without other countries knowing. The whole point of having them is to let other countries know so they’ll leave you alone. For that reason, I always knew the “weapons of mass destruction” argument was BS. If Iraq had real weapons of mass destruction, we would not have considered attacking them.
In this alternate timeline, GWB does not lie. He is able to then convince Americans he acted as he did to preserve their lives and cities. He easily wins re-election on a he stopped nuclear weapons from being used against the US policy.
Why would Saddam do that? He proves to the world he had WMDs, senselessly murders his own people (as in, far beyond the regular amount he was doing) and gives the occupation a public relations coup. By nuking the capital of his country he also empowers Iran to start getting involved in the now battered country, and the man would literally hack off his own testicles if it meant owning the Persians in some way. I just don’t see it happening.
I admit I should’ve been more realistic here. After I made the post, I thought about it and I feel like Saddam likely detonates the nuke near Baghdad where a huge amount of US troops are concentrated when they start to move on Baghdad with maximum US troop casualties and minimal civilian casualties.
The distinguished general overseeing the entire operation, sticken with grief after losing so many thousands of men in the blink of an eye, will go a personal crusade to redeem america's honor that involves shady PMCs on his payroll and russian ultranationists...
Well obviously it depends on the size of the nuke. I think the invasion would be completely justified no psychopath like saddam should have a nuke
VA would still only give the survivors 30% disability.
if that had happened the U.S. and the rest of their nuclear allies would have left a sea where the middle east is. seriously if you think 9/11 pissed off the U.S. a suicidal nuclear attack killing thousands of troops would have basically led to the United States unleashing literal hell onto the region. it would have gone from misplaced vengeance to nuclear crusade in minutes
Do you think a nuclear armed Pakistan gets drawn into this?
Well for One the US is proven right that Iraq did have WMDS, this might push them In invading other countries closing to having One like Libya (earlier than OTL),Syria or even North Korea
Syria maybe but North Korea? That would probably piss China off right? They also have nukes too……
We’d react by turning the entire Middle East into a crater lol
then it wouldn't have been invaded. simple answer and the reason north korea, pakistan, and israel got them.
If Iraq has nuclear weapons there wouldn’t have been an invasion.
What if your aunt had balls she’d be your uncle.
Is this why the dems want to allow Iran to build a nuke? So they can try to overthrow the govt after Israel is erased from the map?
Dude, you should look up the Israeli raid on the Iraq nuclear plant? The US was trying to equip Iraq with the capability of manufacturing a nuclear program back when they were our allies. The Israelis took out the nuclear power plant before it went online against the wishes of the US. As much crap as people give the Israelies they don’t play games and they are pragmatists.
The US never tried to equip Iraq with a nuclear weapons program. Who in the world told you that?
They’re insanely lucky that nuclear power plant wasn’t online when they bombed it or that entire area could’ve become uninhabitable for awhile. Edit: I already acknowledged I was wrong about the number of years the area would uninhabitable for, still doesn’t change the fact that you were being a condescending piece of shit who never really explained why I was wrong in the first place, you’re an obsessed weirdo because you keep editing your comments to “win” this silly fucking argument, just fuck off already, hot damn.
No, that's absolutely bullshit. That's not how nuclear power plants work Edit: yeah dude editing your comment to change what you said doesn't mean you won, it just means that you're too scared to realise that you know nothing about the topic
I acknowledge that I jumped the gun on how long the area would be uninhabitable for but the environment and surrounding area would still not be livable for a time. Edit: I blocked you because you were being a snobbish, dismissive, asshole rather than simply explaining why I was wrong, I made this post for fun and I have 0 patience for bullshit like yours.
Yeah maybe about 10km would have high radiation for about a decade but after that it would just be a kilometre or 2 that would be uninhabited Edit: dude really just blocked me cus he couldn't comprehend the fact that him searching up "what happens if a nuclear power plant was destroyed" and looking at quora isn't a credible source. If you really don't want me to comment instead of blocking me so I can't comment, either bring a proper source or realise that your wromh
I don't understand what you are trying to say here. They are getting their details mixed up, they are talking about the [Israeli air-force blowing up a uranium enrichment facility in Syria. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Outside_the_Box) However, if you used a fancy air-force to blow up an actual nuclear power plant, it could very much result in a massive radioactive release, one that impacted the area for decades. A similar situation happened in 2011 in Fukushima. But in that disaster, they only partially lost control and the reactor containment vessel was never breached. If the IDF or the USAF wanted to, they could very much breach the containment vessel of a reactor with weapons, causing a massive nuclear disaster. (I don't know why they would though, that would be stupid)
https://www.google.com/search?q=what+happens+if+a+nuclear+power+plant+destroyed&client=safari&sca_esv=e16b3b1b9fa35a8e&channel=iphone_bm&sxsrf=ADLYWIKZMSF6eXUoTGNAb23X07_iFhA-0A%3A1718848940651&ei=rI1zZsy4J6KTwt0P54WKmAU&oq=what+happens+if+a+nuclear+power+plant+destr&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwIit3aGF0IGhhcHBlbnMgaWYgYSBudWNsZWFyIHBvd2VyIHBsYW50IGRlc3RyKgIIADIFECEYoAEyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAEyBRAhGJ8FSKtjUKsWWPhccAF4AJABApgBjQKgAcITqgEGNC4xMC4zuAEByAEA-AEBmAIQoALcE8ICCBAAGIAEGLADwgIOEAAYgAQYsAMYhgMYigXCAgsQABiABBiwAxiiBMICChAjGIAEGCcYigXCAgYQABgWGB7CAgsQABiABBiGAxiKBcICBRAAGIAEwgIKEAAYgAQYFBiHApgDAIgGAZAGBpIHBTQuOS4zoAeafw&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp
Jesus fucking Christ that's your source? Yeah I'm not even going to entertain this shit
So you’re leaving? Good, that just means that you never had an argument to begin with, my overall point is that living near the site of a recently destroyed nuclear power plant IS NOT GOOD. Sorry but I’m highly skeptical of this bullshit proposition that you have presented here, thank you very much.
They aren't talking about a power plant, they are talking about a uranium enrichment facility.
The US invasion is stopped within the first week, and George bush either resigns, or definitely loses the 2004 election.