WASHINGTON, Dec. 18 (UPI) -- A public opinion poll released Wednesday shows Americans support nuclear retaliation for Iraqi biological or chemical weapons use, but analysts said the far-reaching consequences likely would lead to a conventional response.
The Washington Post said its nationwide poll of 1,200 adults, conducted in partnership with ABC News, revealed 60 percent of the respondents favor using nukes if American troops come under unconventional attack. Thirty-seven percent opposed such a response, and 3 percent had no opinion.
The deterrent value of a nuclear counterstrike, however, is less than certain, said Stephen Schwartz, publisher of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist. While the United States made fairly clear statements about retaliation during the Persian Gulf War, Iraq's Saddam Hussein reportedly still was ready to use chemical weapons, Schwartz told United Press International.
Revenge would seem to be the only motivation for using nukes to respond to a weapon of mass destruction, Schwartz said.
"If you're interested in achieving a certain military objective, we've got more than enough conventional weapons to do that," Schwartz said. "People might feel better (using a nuke) but step back for a second and think about what that really means."
The actual physical after-effects of a nuclear detonation would depend on the bomb's size, whether it was detonated at ground level or in the air, weather conditions and other factors, said Edwin Lyman, president of the Nuclear Control Institute, an anti-proliferation think tank in Washington.
"It's hard to imagine a lack of effects on other nations," Lyman told UPI. "A nuclear response would not be manageable in any sense of the word."
Prevailing wind patterns create a very high probability Iran would receive fallout from a nuke used in Iraq, Lyman said. Other Persian Gulf countries, almost all being major oil producers, could also see radioactive contamination, he said.
Areas even further downwind, including Russia and China, might not escape the fallout cloud, Schwartz said.
The prevalence of oil fields in the area also must be taken into account, Schwartz said. Some scientists in the 1960s thought an underground nuke could help free oil and natural gas reserves from marginal deposits and, he said, while the concept basically was correct, the resulting gas was radioactive. Similar results in the Gulf could seriously impair oil production.
Despite the training U.S. troops receive in dealing with a nuclear battlefield, their very presence in the area certainly would make commanders think twice about an extreme response, Lyman said. Training against chemical or biological attacks is more effective, he said, perhaps to the point where casualties would fall short of warranting an atomic warhead.
Some military planners envision a nuclear "bunker buster" bomb to eliminate deep underground facilities, Schwartz said, but even this kind of precision attack would lead to fallout. Even drawing-board weapons of this type are not guaranteed to get far enough underground to keep the blast from reaching open air, meaning mass civilian casualties are quite likely. Such a toll easily could turn the Iraqi people against what would otherwise have been a welcome change, he said.
The repercussions of a nuclear attack certainly would go beyond devastation on the ground, at the very least ending any chance of U.S.-led coalitions, Schwartz said.
Crossing the nuclear threshold, even after a chemical or biological provocation, would show the United States is no longer content with its overwhelming conventional advantage. The rest of the world would once again scramble to obtain such weapons as a hedge against U.S. attack, he said.
