Gulf War 1 "What ifs"

[Awang se]

This is my list of "what if" that may change the outcome of the Gulf War.

what if :-

1. Iraqi army made a surprise attack on US airbases and US rear

2. Iraqi army launched a surprised attack during several months of allied logistic preparation and special training.

3. Iraqi army launch harassing attack on allied flanks during their advance.

4. Iraq possesed a Nuclear Deterence.

 

[merocaine]

One of the noteworthy aspects of the Gulf War, was the ability of the coalition to build up its troops and logistical base in a neighbouring country with no interdiction by Iraqi forces apart from a negligable scud threat.
The Iraqis sat there and waited as a mass of assets were built up by the coalition.
Once the Americans were committed, there was little possiblity of victory in a military sense. But if the Iraqis were agressive, attacking into Saudi, running anti shipping operations, ect, they might have had a chance of forcing the Americans to undertake operations before they had the ablity to consentrate there forces.

The duration of the war might have been different, but the outcome would most lighty have been the same.

 

[Grand Danois]

4. Iraq possesed a Nuclear Deterence.

The path would have been different, outcome would have been the same.

Credible deterrence is the operational term, which is relative to the OPFORs deterrence, i.e. the US's arsenal & delivery capability.

An inventory of e.g. 50-60 nukes is not credible deterrence to the US.

 

[merocaine]

An inventory of e.g. 50-60 nukes is not credible deterrence to the US.

To be fair, it might have given them pause!

 

[Grand Danois]

To be fair, it might have given them pause!

Treshold for intervention would have been increased and the possibility would have been taken into account, just as Iraqi WMDs were. As Saudi is vital to the US, Desert Shield would have commenced regardless and Desert Storm followed.

Nuclear weapons are not a show stopper.

 

[radiosilence]

James Baker told Tariq Aziz prior to Operation Desert Storm any use of WMD against coalition forces would be met with an overwhelming response. Saddam might have considered using his WMD(chemical and biological agents) if his regime was threaten. Iraq's WMD was a strategic asset that was vital to Saddam's personal survival.

 

[Grand Danois]

James Baker told Tariq Aziz prior to Operation Desert Storm any use of WMD against coalition forces would be met with an overwhelming response. Saddam might have considered using his WMD(chemical and biological agents) if his regime was threaten. Iraq WMDs was strategic asset that was vital to Saddam's personal survival.

That was what I was thinking of. A nuclear response is the only option he can refer to, as chiobems wasn't deployed by the US.

 

[merocaine]

James Baker told Tariq Aziz prior to Operation Desert Storm any use of WMD against coalition forces would be met with an overwhelming response. Saddam might have considered using his WMD(chemical and biological agents) if his regime was threaten. Iraq's WMD was a strategic asset that was vital to Saddam's personal survival.

Nuclear weapons are of an order of magnatude greater than chem/bio. Chemical weapons are difficult to control, there effect on well prepared troops may not be catastophic.
If Iraq had threatened nuclear retaliation against coalition troops/Saudi oil installations if the Coalition committed to a military solution, I believe this may have give the Iraqis room for negotiation.

Facing a potental nuclear holocast Saudi may have been unwilling to place themselves in the firing line. I could be wrong though, perhaps they would have willingly scarificed themselves for Kuwaiti freedom...

 

[Grand Danois]

Nuclear weapons are of an order of magnatude greater than chem/bio. Chemical weapons are difficult to control, there effect on well prepared troops may not be catastophic.

That's right. Nuclear weapons would have been a more PC response. It is the only deployed WMD i US inventory anyway.

If Iraq had threatened nuclear retaliation against coalition troops/Saudi oil installations if the Coalition committed to a military solution, I believe this may have give the Iraqis room for negotiation.

Facing a potental nuclear holocast Saudi may have been unwilling to place themselves in the firing line. I could be wrong though, perhaps they would have willingly scarificed themselves for Kuwaiti freedom...

So much more reason to defang Saddam for the Saudis. He would certainly not have used nukes when the US is involved. So much more need for the US to protect and neuter Saddam. Otherwise they would have been an instant Iraqi vassal.

Saddams "deterrent" would have been neutralised by the US. Thus they're not in the firing line.

 

[merocaine]

So much more reason to defang Saddam for the Saudis. He would certainly not have used nukes when the US is involved. So much more need for the US to protect and neuter Saddam. Otherwise they would have been an instant Iraqi vassal.

Saddams "deterrent" would have been neutralised by the US. Thus they're not in the firing line.

If I was a Saudi I believe I would accuse you of blue skys thinking.

50 to 60 deliverable nuclear warheads is a sizible deterrent. We know now that saddam was a pragmatist, of course he would'ent have risked everthing he had gained by deploying nuclear weapons. But during the Gulf War nothing was that clear. Could Saddam have forced Saudi out of the conflict by threating nuclear war? I believe so. Would the US have been able to launch a ground attack on Kuwait without the Saudi's, maybe. Would the US have accepted a negatiated withdrawal from Kuwait with no Saudi base, I believe so.

There is now reason to believe that they would become an instant Iraqi vassel.
That would only happen if the Americans decided to renounce interest in Saudi oil!

 

[Grand Danois]

If I was a Saudi I believe I would accuse you of blue skys thinking.

Uhm, no. Nuclear weapons have a logic of their own. Call the bluff.

Btw, can you imagine Saddam threatening SA with nuclear attack? Even with no US troops deployed, I think he would have run a serious risk of a first strike.

50 to 60 deliverable nuclear warheads is a sizible deterrent.

Translates into 20-30 deliverable at best, but not important.

We know now that saddam was a pragmatist, of course he would'ent have risked everthing he had gained by deploying nuclear weapons. But during the Gulf War nothing was that clear. Could Saddam have forced Saudi out of the conflict by threating nuclear war? I believe so. Would the US have been able to launch a ground attack on Kuwait without the Saudi's, maybe. Would the US have accepted a negatiated withdrawal from Kuwait with no Saudi base, I believe so.

There were two stages D Shield & D Storm. Which leaves room for deployment prior to actual hostilities. So deployment is perfectly credible in this counterfactual scenario.

Saddam did not take the negotiated option even without nukes off his own and with 500k coalition troops at the border.

So if the US and SA wants Saddam out of Kuwait?

There is now reason to believe that they would become an instant Iraqi vassel.

With a 600k Iraqi army at the border, armed with nukes, lead by a dictator believing he is destined to create an empire?

And SA having just refused the aid of its principal ally to counter Saddam?

Instant!

That would only happen if the Americans decided to renounce interest in Saudi oil!

SA offsetting other regional powers (Iran) with the help of a distant superpower doesn't make them a vassal.

 

[radiosilence]

Nuclear weapons are of an order of magnatude greater than chem/bio. Chemical weapons are difficult to control, there effect on well prepared troops may not be catastophic.
If Iraq had threatened nuclear retaliation against coalition troops/Saudi oil installations if the Coalition committed to a military solution, I believe this may have give the Iraqis room for negotiation.

Facing a potental nuclear holocast Saudi may have been unwilling to place themselves in the firing line. I could be wrong though, perhaps they would have willingly scarificed themselves for Kuwaiti freedom...

IMO, the Saudis would have supported coalition forces regardless if Iraq had Nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia was under a US nuclear Umbrella. Would Saddam risk his existance by attacking Saudi Arabia? Other countries in the region might have been more cautious in supporting coalition forces.

 

[merocaine]

IMO, the Saudis would have been more incline to support coalition forces regardless if Iraq had Nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia was under a US nuclear Umbrella. Would Saddam risk his existance by attacking Saudi Arabia? Other countries in the region might have been more cautious in supporting coalition forces.

Assumptions about what saddam would and would'ent down are easier to make now then then. We know now that Saddam was more concerned with his own skin than the greater glory of Iraq.

@ GD

I was under the impression that the Coalition demanded unconditional withdrawal?

There would be no instant vassalage unless the Saudis renounced the US, rather than just tell them that negotiations are the way forward, and they would perfer not to play nuclear chicken.

There are many possiblities in this senario, no doubt the US Mil has war gamed it...but my belief is that nuclear states negotiate

Quote: Originally Posted by merocaine
That would only happen if the Americans decided to renounce interest in Saudi oil!

SA offsetting other regional powers (Iran) with the help of a distant superpower doesn't make them a vassal.

I dont understand what you mean? what has this to do with Iran?

 

[Grand Danois]

Assumptions about what saddam would and would'ent down are easier to make now then then. We know now that Saddam was more concerned with his own skin than the greater glory of Iraq.

@ GD

I was under the impression that the Coalition demanded unconditional withdrawal?

But of course. What could have been yielded? An oil field or two, to save face for Saddam? I don't think he would have been allowed upsetting the balance even so much, especially if he had had nukes.

There would be no instant vassalage unless the Saudis renounced the US, rather than just tell them that negotiations are the way forward, and they would perfer not to play nuclear chicken.

There are many possiblities in this senario, no doubt the US Mil has war gamed it...but my belief is that nuclear states negotiate

But if SA hadn't allowed the US to intervene militarily, it would in effect have been a renounciation...

And ceding anything substantial would also have been intolerable, strength would have to be demonstrated.

How much would Saddam have yielded? Iraq was falling apart at that point in time and annexing Kuwait was seen as the thing that would save his a$$, as he would gain added oil revenue plus the ability to manipulate markets. And threaten SA on top of that.

Intolerable to the US and SA. Something that neither SA nor the US would allow.

I dont understand what you mean? what has this to do with Iran?

I thought you implied that SA was a US vassal. I may have misunderstood you. Iran was an example of how to offset a regional power.

 

[funtz]

the nuclear question adds other dimensions to the whole situation, with well hidden 40-50 nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver them in the immediate vicinity, there can be a restriction on lightening strikes that cut off all command and control and give all the individual units a free hand of practicing the nuclear option.
The allies would have made sure that Saddam and/or the military leadership had a firm control over these weapons, unless they were able to locate all the nuclear warheads-launch platforms before hand, after all every one used to like the US dollar back then, even Saddam was hiding with some boxes full of them.
All possible situations lead to a longer drawn out battle with a very limited chance for Saddam, his military, and the Party to achieve any set goals.

 

[SaudiArabian]

one of the senior Iraqi Nuclear scientists had a long interview with Riyadh newspaper time ago

he said Iraq was few months away from building its 1st nuclear weapon when Saddam suddenly went into Kuwait. he also stated that the Coalition air forces made sure to bomb and destroy all the nuclear facilities leaving no chance for these scientists to build the bomb.

i believe that some of the intelligence agencies of the coalition states knew that Saddam didn't build it already

anyway , there are many "what ifs" about this war (which i prefer to call it 2nd Gulf war not the 1st one) ..

the Prince of Kuwait was warned by the USA ,before the invasion, through satellite photographs that the Iraqi armed forces are massing on his borders in a way that made them believe he might invade Kuwait but he didn't believe that such thing would happen .. he commit a mistake by not telling KSA about this , the thing which King Fahad argued with Shaikh Jabir later after the invasion occured

what if Prince Jabir told KSA about the Iraqi massing forces on his boarders and KSA responded by setting up defense lines in Kuwait and issue hard warning for Saddam ? that would deter Iraq from rushing into invading Kuwait and taking it over in a day



anyway , what happened is far more complicated , and there are other Arab regimes that had hostile anti-Saudi activities during that crisis (like Sudan which hosted Iraqi SCUD's on its soil , Hashemite Jordan which stabbed Saudi Arabia in the back by rejecting to support military strikes on Iraq , Yemen which had always dreamed of invading Jizan and Najran in the south of Saudi Arabia , and the Palestinian authority that didn't condemn the invasion of Kuwait)

 

[Sgt.Banes]

This is my list of "what if" that may change the outcome of the Gulf War.

what if :-

1. Iraqi army made a surprise attack on US airbases and US rear

2. Iraqi army launched a surprised attack during several months of allied logistic preparation and special training.

3. Iraqi army launch harassing attack on allied flanks during their advance.

4. Iraq possesed a Nuclear Deterence.

1. It would be very doubtful that the Iraqis could even get close enough to commit a "surprise attack".

2. Then it would have just meant that Desert Storm would have kicked into effect much earlier. Though if you could give me a specific time frame of when that attack were to have taken place and at what location, I could give you another theory.

3. "Harassing attack"?

4. Even with nuclear warheads or a bomb, we would have taken out any such facility way before conducting a ground operation. That's what the Coalition did with his Chemical weapons before hand to avoid them all together.

 

[Chrom]

1. It would be very doubtful that the Iraqis could even get close enough to commit a "surprise attack".

2. Then it would have just meant that Desert Storm would have kicked into effect much earlier. Though if you could give me a specific time frame of when that attack were to have taken place and at what location, I could give you another theory.

3. "Harassing attack"?

4. Even with nuclear warheads or a bomb, we would have taken out any such facility way before conducting a ground operation. That's what the Coalition did with his Chemical weapons before hand to avoid them all together.

Ya, basically Iraq army couldnt launch any succesfull and even surprise attack. Iraq army couldnt provide air cover for own troops, that alone makes successfull attack almost impossible. Iraq army lacked vital technical level to defeat USA armor (too old APFSDS rounds, no (or very old) night vision equipment, overall weak training and support). Iraq infantry and artillery lacked just about everything ...
As such, pre-emitive Iraq attack on USA forces wouldnt do any good and would certainly lead to quick disaster with minimal losses on USA side.
Basically, Iraq (and recently Iran) army cant do much against USA ARMY. Only feasible retallation could be attacking USA-connected non-military objects - oil fields, USA industrial installations, terrorists-like attacks on USA territory.

 

[swerve]

This is confusing. Why is everyone talking about the second Gulf war? I thought this was a thread about the first one - y'know, the really big one, that lasted 8 years . . .

 

[Chrom]

This is confusing. Why is everyone talking about the second Gulf war? I thought this was a thread about the first one - y'know, the really big one, that lasted 8 years . . .

My reply is valid for both wars.