April 3rd, 2003
About A Possible Use of Unconventional Weapons in the Conflict
Between Iraq and the Anglo-American Coalition
Today a feeling of concern wouldn't leave since the morning.
1. The war's been planned, especially, as an elimination of
2. Routinely since the beginning of the conflict, the
coalition's asserting that Saddam's going to use UW, although
the only place where he could succeed in doing so, is his own
3. In recent reports the coalition speaks of a 95% probability
of its (UW's) use (a precise probability! not clear how
exactly counted), and about a certain red line around the
city, although it's obvious that the use of chemical weapons
in one's own capital is a suicide of the regime, and something
Saddam shall never do.
4. The coalition's forces weren't enough even to capture a
single town, excluding the scarcely populated regional seaport
5. The ground forces' insufficiency has been revealed as early
as after a week of fighting, in the beginning of the battle
for Nasiriya, when the coalition's troops had to retreat for a
day to regroup. However, in spite of the necessity of
reinforcement with reserves, troops were sent round the town,
without capturing it, and such a tactic has been observed
during the entire course of the operation.
6. The impossibility of seizing any specific town is being
ignored, and a movement towards a next town up north happens,
up-stream the Euphrates.
7. In spite of the insufficiency of the ground forces and
reserves present in the combat area that could enter combat
immediately, the troops are shoving towards Baghdad.
8. To capture a city such as Baghdad, at least an equality in
the numbers of the attacking and defending, is needed,
something that really isn't there.
9. Despite an amassing superiority in the air, use of aviation
and armoured vehicles inside a city is difficult, without
carpet bombings and a complete destruction of the defending
10. The only possible choice for attackers to win - is to use
weapons of mass destruction. Having claimed the enemy's used
11. It's obvious that Iraq's inability to use nuclear weapons
leads to a simple conclusion - Iraq's application of chemical
or bacteriological weapons on a large scale.
12. Because it'd be impossible to find out the producer of
chemical weapons used on the battlefield, there's absolutely
no doubt that its use is going to be written off to the insane
malicious tyrant, who's already used it in the past. And who
won't forgo losing lives of the town's civilians.
13. This assertion (about a possible use of UW by the
a) why the military campaign's been so poorly prepared;
b) why there aren't enough ground forces for its realisation;
c) why reserves are far from the battleground and,
correspondingly, won't be able to approach it in the moment
when unconventional weapons are used, something that'll spare
unnecessary coalition victims;
d) why a force that's not enough to capture the city, is
longing towards Baghdad, in spite of an impossibility of
taking over the town with such forces;
e) why exactly in the final stage of the attack an
outrageously false information of victories in the operation,
has started to be fed - exactly so as to present the use of UW
as a desperate gesture on behalf of the defenders.
14. It's obvious that a very narrow circle of people is
initiated into the plan of use of chemical weapons - that
explains the appearance of conflicts between the military and
political command of the entire operation. The military
haven't been cleared on the true reason of their movements
15. This explains an absolute confidence in victory after two
weeks of protracted battles without capturing cities, without
much-needed reserves and without a sufficient number of troops
to storm the city.
16. A quick ending to the operation and its justifying in the
eyes of the world community shall make up for the losses that
the coalition suffered and shall suffer as a result of using
UW on its own troops.
17. Furthermore, it shall allow to hide any previous combat
losses of the coalition before the moment of use of
This explains too much - and this does disturb. Especially,
this explains the mass hysterics about as of yet not found
Baghdad's chemical or bacteriological arms, that's being
forced on everyone.
About the type of weapons to be used. Chemical weapons,
possessing a practically instantaneous action, however have a
serious disadvantage as compared with biological ones -
chemical weapons are local. Biological armament, having a
certain latent period to allow inhalation of a vaccine or
antidote, however, is much more effective in a densely
populated city, due to mutual infection inside the population.
The question about unconventional weapons type can't be
answered with certainty. There's a possibility for the
virulent cultures to spread to other areas, yet the desert
that surrounds the city makes it easier to establish a
quarantine needed in such a case.
The probability of use of nuclear weapons by America is low,
as then questions from the entire world will follow, about why
it was used in an area where there's a lot of civilian
population. Any other kind of unconventional weapons can be
attributed to Iraq with a real ease. Which is why those
statements are made about revealing either warehouses with
chemical protective suits, or certain mythical
"objects" producing unconventional weapons. Which is
why coalition's troops are dressing up in protective suits as
they approach the city.
I ask not to consider this message a statement, just a likely
assumption based on the analysis of the above-listed facts.