Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction in the 1980 is it positive or normative economics?
1 person found this useful
In all fairness, Hussein really wasn't the threat; it was the vast store of WMD's in Iraq that the US needed to contend with. Saddam Hussein was definitely a threat, but no…t necessarily for the major publicized reasons. . He was openly hostile to the US after the first US-Iraq War. . He had invaded Kuwait. . He torched the oil wells in Kuwait. . He was committed to arousing anti-US sentiment globally. . He was willing to commit mass murders on some of his people and the Kuwaiti people, sometimes using WMD's. . Iraq was a strong enough country to interfere in other plans the US might have in the area. . Iraq converted their oil sales to use Euros as opposed to the US dollar, and encouraged other countries to do the same. . He had fought a war with the US and still ruled the country. . He could be a rallying symbol for anti-US imperialism. . Their country traded with other countries, reducing overall dependence on Western nations. . He was anti-Israel, and used Kuwait as a bargaining chip with Israel. . He could not be fully controlled.
Bacillus anthracis spores are easily produced in mass quantities ina lab. They are tiny, easily spread, can be passed from plant toanimal to human, and cause easily be fatal t…o an unvaccinatedpopulation. The application of the spores is undetectable withoutspecial testing, and can survive for very long periods of time evenin harsh conditions. The most notorious means of using anthrax as abioterrorism weapon was contamination of cattle feed cakes in 1944and the American scare of spores being mailed to individuals in themedia and Senate.
He was hung on December 30, 2006, but he was hung by an IraqiTribunal, not the United States.
The US put him into power.
They found him with help from the Kurds who Saddam has committed his most crimes against.
yes, along with Bush.
When did Saddam Hussein commit genocide against the kurds and what type of weapon did he use against them?
Basically, he gassed them all! (gas was supplied by US for use inprevious wars). This was done in the 1980s and 1990s.
The US first stockpiled chemical weapons during the 1930s.
There are three main arms of WMD's: Nuclear, Chemical and Biological. While other possible variants exist, they can easily be categorized in one of these three forms. The US… and all the largest industrialized nations have and employ a nuclear weapons capacity. Thermonuclear weapons, in the most simplistic sense, have three attack modalities: Electromagnetic (Heat through light in the spectrum), kinetic, and ionizing radiation. The the three, ionizing radiation or radioactivity is the least effective and least desirable, for reasons I'll discuss more under Chemical Attack. Chemical attack is the oldest category of WMD. While arguably introduced ages ago, it didn't hit it's peak until WW-I with simplistic gas attacks using mostly corrosive toxins. While the grisly aspects of gas attacks are well publicized, the truth is that gas attacks have never been very effective against a military adversary. And from WW-II on, gas countermeasures became more and more effective, so that, against a military adversary, results were always dubious. The reason for this is that gas attacks are extremely unpredictable. Humidity can effect the chemical weapon, sometimes disabling it entirely. Winds may be an even worse problem: In WW-I some reports have winds reversing gas attacks so that the were deployed over friendlies more often than the enemy. In modern warfare, chemical agents have, unsurprisingly, been improved. Particulates have been developed that are -- sometimes -- weather-resistant. Persistent weapons have been devised, that don't wash off in the rain -- and these have the same missions as minefields: denying territory to the enemy. But most of the problems remain the same, e.g. the vast unpredictability induce by natural conditions. And the same applies to nuclear fallout, where it's stunningly hard to control (especially is this era when nuclear devices can create their own micro-weather systems). In short, chemical weapons are truly WMD's, but have not found a major place in modern, general warfare. The US does not confirm the existence of chemical weapons programs. And while the US has the capability to deploy chemical weapons, the usefulness of this attack modality is questionable, and very situational. Biological weapons have been reported as early as the crusades, but have not been deployed effectively in a military context in recorded history, although perhaps apocryphal instances of deployment of biological weapons in every specific circumstances have circulated. Biological weapons have many missions, ranging from the battlefield to the local to world economy. Discussing the strategic or economic application of biological weapons exceeds the scope of this discussion. Tactically deployed biological weapons can be used for a wide variety of missions, including "mission kills" (disabling not only the infected individual but their rescue team and recovery support staff), disallowing access of territory to the enemy (same as chemical), and localized attacks on non-mobile adversaries (this last applied somewhat to static elements of battle, such as trench-deployed groups in WW-I, but more to non-military population that lacks tactical mobility). Against a modern, highly mobile military force, bio-warfare is of limited effectiveness. The US denies the current development of biological WMD's. However, it is generally accepted that the US does indeed develop these agents. The Amerithrax attacks in 2001 may have been rumored to originate from a military base involved in bio-weapons development.
Was the gulf war to a. liberate Kuwait b. force Saddam Hussein from power c. search Iraq for weapons of mass destruction d. defend israel from iraq's aggression?
In Gulf War
Saddam Hussein may at one time have had ambitions to have nuclear weapons, but he never had them. By the time he was ousted he had no significant chemical weapons. He did have… a supergun designed by Gerald Bull.
There are several reasons why Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980, including: . Oil-rich regions along the border and access to the PersianGulf. . Religion: Saddam Hussein …was a Secular Sunni and RuhollahKhomeini was a Fundamental (Usuli) Shiite . Government: Ba'athist State vs. Islamic Republic . Nationalism / Power . The two countries had a long history of border disputes, goingright back to when the countries were the kingdoms of Mesopotamia(modern Iraq) and Persia (Iran). . Iraq wanted the new and unstable Iranian government tofall. . Saddam Hussein sought domination of the Middle East. . Radical Islam threatened to spread into Iraq from Iran. . Iraq was aiming to replace Iran as the dominant Persian Gulfstate . Saddam Hussein wanted to annex the Ahwaz Arabs (who were underPersian Occupation in Iran)
He had had a variety of chemical weapons including nerve gases,mustard gas, and phosgene.