Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: No options in the oilfields but chemical warfare?
Message-ID: <1990Oct2.234929.23035@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 2 Oct 90 23:49:29 GMT
References: <1990Sep28.014351.13736@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military-request@att.att.com
Organization: Computer Laboratory, Trinity College Dublin
Lines: 26
Approved: military@att.att.com



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