Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: HARPER%ccvax.ucd.ie@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: No options in the oilfields but chemical warfare?
Message-ID: <1990Sep28.014351.13736@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 28 Sep 90 01:43:51 GMT
Sender: military-request@att.att.com
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 24
Approved: military@att.att.com



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