5 ms·

To give some sense of the scale of the disaster that would follow a failure, the US considered bombing that dam and releasing all that water in response to a po

To give some sense of the scale of the disaster that would follow a failure, the US considered bombing that dam and releasing all that water in response to a potential chemical attack on US troops during Gulf War I, according to Colin Powell (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/script_b.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/script_b.html - search for dams).

TallGuyShort 11y ago
They considered an attack that would have killed ~1M people, presumably mainly civilians? sigh smh
- knowaveragejoe 11y ago
  To play devil's advocate here, any competent military would consider possibilities like this. "War is hell" is said so often these days as to be blasé, but it really is true.
  - akiselev 11y ago
    Are you saying that any competent military would consider racking up a civilian death toll on the order of the Auschwitz death camp in the matter of days? Thank god the US military isn't competent then.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      Yes. They should consider a given plan and look at the costs and the benefits. Kinda like when they drop bombs. Be it normal bombing, the fire bombing of Kyoto, or using nuclear bombs.
    - flubert 11y ago
      Well we can look at it in one of two ways. You can look at a situation, and ask for all of the options, and their costs and benefits. So that when someone asks "why didn't you do this" or "what if we did such-and-such", you can say that we looked into it and the costs were too high, see report #JF0032-7. Or you can always look for the most evil intent in everything, which may say more about you than the world.
    - arethuza 11y ago
      Most major militaries have considered options that are orders of magnitude worse.
      - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
        Not most, all. Again, the concept that "war is hell" doesn't seem to hit home for some people.
        TallGuyShort 11y ago
        It's hell because of stuff like this. What doesn't seem to hit home for some people is that maybe your country isn't always "the good guys", and seriously considering a plan like this (beyond investigating what would happen so you can make the right decision when things start happening quickly) is precisely what makes you the bad guy.
        knowaveragejoe 11y ago
        The crux of your argument seems to rest on what "seriously considered" means. Not saying the US is the "good guys" here, but they're doing their due diligence, not trying to inflict the most damage purely out of rage or spite.
        akiselev 11y ago
        In my opinion, that's the point. Acknowledging that there is a dam whose collapse is capable of killing a million people is very different from actively assigning military personnel to study how to compromise the dam and flood the population for strategic gain. As the GP said, the statement "war is hell" is only made true by our own behavior during wartime, not by any universal law of the universe. This is very murky territory no matter how you swing it
        alphapapa 11y ago
        ...What? That dam generates a lot of electricity. In war, power plants are strategic targets. It would be an obvious potential target to weaken the Iraqi military and war machine. So, the U.S. military studies the potential effects of destroying the dam. In the end, it does not destroy the dam. Fast forward a few years, and people like you are condemning the U.S. military for...what? Figuring out that doing so would have resulted in many deaths, and not doing so? You're saying that they shouldn't have even studied the issue? What if the enemy starts using it as a base of operations because they don't think it will be attacked? Like people have said, war is hell, it's unpredictable. Something unexpected could happen, something undesirable could become necessary. Without having information like this already available, sound strategic decisions can't be made. Then people like you would be complaining that they acted rashly without studying the issue first. If you're saying that the very act of studying the issue is wrong, that's simply thoughtcrime, as well as incredibly naive.
  - orblivion 11y ago
    How is "War is hell" always used an excuse for everything? It only makes sense if the alternative is a worse hell. Otherwise it seems like a great reason not to do something like this. People seem to act as if it means that you can call something "war" and suspend all ethics. Maybe if I feel like punching someone in the face, I could say "Hey man, getting punched in the face is hell. What are you gonna do?" Maybe that's the blasé part of it that you were referring to.
- zanny 11y ago
  It isn't just about loss of life, the dam constitutes a good chunk of Iraq's power generation. It is still a strategic military target.
  - TallGuyShort 11y ago
    I'll concede the point that the military correctly considers everything to understand tradeoffs in advance of the time when a fast decision needs to be made. But to quote Pvt. Ruiz in Tour of Duty, "People are strategic".
- krschultz 11y ago
  Considered means had a study done to see what the effects would be. It doesn't mean that was the preferred strategy. There are people in the Pentagon considering all kinds of crazy scenarios all the time, so that when crazy actually happens the leaders can make a quick decision based on a briefing book that took a while to put together. It sounds ominous in the press, but it's really innocuous.
- mason240 11y ago
  They consider everything.
  - cnvogel 11y ago
    This revolting plan sounds almost like "Dr. Strangelove"... https://www.google.de/search?q=world+targets+in+megadeaths&tbm=isch https://www.google.de/search?q=world+targets+in+megadeaths&t... (read the title on the spine of the book)
    - mason240 11y ago
      There is nothing wrong considering something.
      - astrodust 11y ago
        Just cover all the bases: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg
- piyushpr134 11y ago
  Americans lives are worth much more than some stupid Iraqi civilians.
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
    To Americans? Yes, they are. We are all hypocrites at some level.
- parados 11y ago
  Customary International Humanitarian Law has something to say about this[0]. The US military has its interpretation of rule 42[1]. [0] https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cha_chapter13_rule42 https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cha_chapter13... [1] https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cou_us_rule42 https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cou_us_rule42
- seang 11y ago
  They also have contingencies for several variants of zombie incursions and the arrival of a hostile sentient AI. The military considers a lot of things.
- mikeash 11y ago
  The next paragraph mentions nuclear weapons. The context is widespread use of chemical weapons (i.e. WMDs) by the Iraqis, and potential retaliation for that.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

TallGuyShort 11y ago

They considered an attack that would have killed ~1M people, presumably mainly civilians? sigh smh

knowaveragejoe 11y ago
To play devil's advocate here, any competent military would consider possibilities like this. "War is hell" is said so often these days as to be blasé, but it really is true.
- akiselev 11y ago
  Are you saying that any competent military would consider racking up a civilian death toll on the order of the Auschwitz death camp in the matter of days? Thank god the US military isn't competent then.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    Yes. They should consider a given plan and look at the costs and the benefits. Kinda like when they drop bombs. Be it normal bombing, the fire bombing of Kyoto, or using nuclear bombs.
  - flubert 11y ago
    Well we can look at it in one of two ways. You can look at a situation, and ask for all of the options, and their costs and benefits. So that when someone asks "why didn't you do this" or "what if we did such-and-such", you can say that we looked into it and the costs were too high, see report #JF0032-7. Or you can always look for the most evil intent in everything, which may say more about you than the world.
  - arethuza 11y ago
    Most major militaries have considered options that are orders of magnitude worse.
    - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
      Not most, all. Again, the concept that "war is hell" doesn't seem to hit home for some people.
      - TallGuyShort 11y ago
        It's hell because of stuff like this. What doesn't seem to hit home for some people is that maybe your country isn't always "the good guys", and seriously considering a plan like this (beyond investigating what would happen so you can make the right decision when things start happening quickly) is precisely what makes you the bad guy.
        knowaveragejoe 11y ago
        The crux of your argument seems to rest on what "seriously considered" means. Not saying the US is the "good guys" here, but they're doing their due diligence, not trying to inflict the most damage purely out of rage or spite.
        akiselev 11y ago
        In my opinion, that's the point. Acknowledging that there is a dam whose collapse is capable of killing a million people is very different from actively assigning military personnel to study how to compromise the dam and flood the population for strategic gain. As the GP said, the statement "war is hell" is only made true by our own behavior during wartime, not by any universal law of the universe. This is very murky territory no matter how you swing it
        alphapapa 11y ago
        ...What? That dam generates a lot of electricity. In war, power plants are strategic targets. It would be an obvious potential target to weaken the Iraqi military and war machine. So, the U.S. military studies the potential effects of destroying the dam. In the end, it does not destroy the dam. Fast forward a few years, and people like you are condemning the U.S. military for...what? Figuring out that doing so would have resulted in many deaths, and not doing so? You're saying that they shouldn't have even studied the issue? What if the enemy starts using it as a base of operations because they don't think it will be attacked? Like people have said, war is hell, it's unpredictable. Something unexpected could happen, something undesirable could become necessary. Without having information like this already available, sound strategic decisions can't be made. Then people like you would be complaining that they acted rashly without studying the issue first. If you're saying that the very act of studying the issue is wrong, that's simply thoughtcrime, as well as incredibly naive.
- orblivion 11y ago
  How is "War is hell" always used an excuse for everything? It only makes sense if the alternative is a worse hell. Otherwise it seems like a great reason not to do something like this. People seem to act as if it means that you can call something "war" and suspend all ethics. Maybe if I feel like punching someone in the face, I could say "Hey man, getting punched in the face is hell. What are you gonna do?" Maybe that's the blasé part of it that you were referring to.
zanny 11y ago
It isn't just about loss of life, the dam constitutes a good chunk of Iraq's power generation. It is still a strategic military target.
- TallGuyShort 11y ago
  I'll concede the point that the military correctly considers everything to understand tradeoffs in advance of the time when a fast decision needs to be made. But to quote Pvt. Ruiz in Tour of Duty, "People are strategic".
krschultz 11y ago
Considered means had a study done to see what the effects would be. It doesn't mean that was the preferred strategy. There are people in the Pentagon considering all kinds of crazy scenarios all the time, so that when crazy actually happens the leaders can make a quick decision based on a briefing book that took a while to put together. It sounds ominous in the press, but it's really innocuous.
mason240 11y ago
They consider everything.
- cnvogel 11y ago
  This revolting plan sounds almost like "Dr. Strangelove"... https://www.google.de/search?q=world+targets+in+megadeaths&tbm=isch https://www.google.de/search?q=world+targets+in+megadeaths&t... (read the title on the spine of the book)
  - mason240 11y ago
    There is nothing wrong considering something.
    - astrodust 11y ago
      Just cover all the bases: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg
piyushpr134 11y ago
Americans lives are worth much more than some stupid Iraqi civilians.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  To Americans? Yes, they are. We are all hypocrites at some level.
parados 11y ago
Customary International Humanitarian Law has something to say about this[0]. The US military has its interpretation of rule 42[1]. [0] https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cha_chapter13_rule42 https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cha_chapter13... [1] https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cou_us_rule42 https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cou_us_rule42
seang 11y ago
They also have contingencies for several variants of zombie incursions and the arrival of a hostile sentient AI. The military considers a lot of things.
mikeash 11y ago
The next paragraph mentions nuclear weapons. The context is widespread use of chemical weapons (i.e. WMDs) by the Iraqis, and potential retaliation for that.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]