SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: JohnM who wrote (59440)12/2/2002 2:24:54 AM
From: KLP  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
No wonder it appears bleak...You've read Pollack's book....and I just finished the review you posted by Brian Urquhart (Thanks, BTW!)....But it is depressing, indeed.

Pollack provides frightening examples of how Saddam Hussein might challenge nuclear deterrence if he had nuclear weapons.

One well-placed nuclear explosion, and the attendant radiation, could halt indefinitely 90 percent of Saudi oil production—15 percent of the global oil supply.

Because the world economy depends on cheap oil, a global depression would result even if the Iraqi regime were destroyed by a retaliatory strike.

The cities within Iraqi missile range could also become convenient hostages against United States action.

---

Pollack feels that only a full-scale invasion provides a realistic approach to dealing with Saddam Hussein.

He is confident that a full-scale invasion of Iraq, requiring in all some 300,000 troops and up to 1,000 aircraft, would be successful.

---

He estimates that at worst the operation might take three to six months and 10,000 US combat deaths, and at best four to eight weeks with between 500 and 1,000 US dead.

[3] The agreement and cooperation of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States will be especially necessary.

---

He believes that if the world passes up the opportunity to take action, it will not get another chance, and that the policies of containment and deterrence are dangerous traps, particularly after Saddam gets nuclear weapons.

Invasion, with all its risks, is, he writes, the only way to ensure that Saddam Hussein will never again threaten the region or cause an international nuclear crisis.

The risks of not invading—nuclear war or the destruction of the oil production of the Persian Gulf—are infinitely greater than even the worst projection of the costs of invasion.

Pollack writes that with a leader so weird, ruthless, and even messianic, no scenario can be ruled out, and he concludes that if Saddam had nuclear weapons, deterrence would be the most dangerous of all options because there is no knowing whether in extremity Saddam would be willing to risk total destruction.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext