futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837 
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Aug 3, 2016 7:07:14 GMT
What if Saddam Hussein would have been allowed to keep Kuwait after he invaded and annexed it in 1990?
Any thoughts on this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2016 13:13:33 GMT
One UN member does not invade and swallow up the entirety of another UN member without there being negative consequences for the invader.
At best Iraq would become a pariah state.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,372
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 3, 2016 14:01:45 GMT
One UN member does not invade and swallow up the entirety of another UN member without there being negative consequences for the invader. At best Iraq would become a pariah state. It was already a broke, war bather country when it invaded Kuwait, a pariah state would not be good for Iraq. |
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Aug 3, 2016 17:23:26 GMT
One UN member does not invade and swallow up the entirety of another UN member without there being negative consequences for the invader. Um ... Indonesia and East Timor? |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,372
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 3, 2016 17:34:46 GMT
One UN member does not invade and swallow up the entirety of another UN member without there being negative consequences for the invader. Um ... Indonesia and East Timor? And the where codemend for it and many years later they where forced to give East Timor its independence |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2016 18:26:27 GMT
Um ... Indonesia and East Timor? In 1975, when it was invaded, East Timor was NOT a member of the UN, not until 2002. East Timor had no oil fields, Royal family, nor was a major arms customer of the West. The USSR invading fellow UN member Afghanistan might be a better parallel. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,834
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Aug 3, 2016 18:53:15 GMT
Also Iraq would prompt huge instability. The Saudis would fear that the Iraqis might hit their oilfields next. The Iranians might suspect that using Kuwait's revenue Sadam would prepare for Gulf War II with them. Also Israel might be less than happy that a UN member state has been attacked and annexed and the west, most especially the US has done little or nothing about it.
|
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Aug 3, 2016 18:54:41 GMT
Also Iraq would prompt huge instability. The Saudis would fear that the Iraqis might hit their oilfields next. The Iranians might suspect that using Kuwait's revenue Sadam would prepare for Gulf War II with them. Also Israel might be less than happy that a UN member state has been attacked and annexed and the west, most especially the US has done little or nothing about it. Completely agreed with all of this.  Also, as far as I know, since Saddam Hussein was only 1-2 years away from successfully building a nuclear weapon in 1991, chances are that Saddam Hussein successfully builds nuclear weapons by the mid-1990s in this scenario. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,372
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 3, 2016 18:56:00 GMT
Also Iraq would prompt huge instability. The Saudis would fear that the Iraqis might hit their oilfields next. The Iranians might suspect that using Kuwait's revenue Sadam would prepare for Gulf War II with them. Also Israel might be less than happy that a UN member state has been attacked and annexed and the west, most especially the US has done little or nothing about it. I will see both the Saudis and Iranians rearming more than in OTL thinking the might be the next target for Iraq. |
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Aug 3, 2016 19:08:06 GMT
Also Iraq would prompt huge instability. The Saudis would fear that the Iraqis might hit their oilfields next. The Iranians might suspect that using Kuwait's revenue Sadam would prepare for Gulf War II with them. Also Israel might be less than happy that a UN member state has been attacked and annexed and the west, most especially the US has done little or nothing about it. I will see both the Saudis and Iranians rearming more than in OTL thinking the might be the next target for Iraq. Completely agreed. Also, though, I think that you meant "they" rather than "the" here.  |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,834
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Aug 3, 2016 20:49:08 GMT
I will see both the Saudis and Iranians rearming more than in OTL thinking the might be the next target for Iraq. Completely agreed. Also, though, I think that you meant "they" rather than "the" here. The problem for the Saudis is I doubt they would have the strength to try and defend their eastern region themselves, no matter how much money they throw at it. Do you risk importing mercanaries for the role, try making a deal with the US [upsetting their own extremists] or what? You might even see a really unholy 'alliance' between them and the Iranians, at least after Khomeini diesm although such an alignment would be extremely unstable. Especially with the Shia majority in the eastern part of Saudi where most of the oil is. As I said on the other side I think if Sadam is that close to nukes I wouldn't like to guess the Israeli reaction!  |
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Aug 3, 2016 21:45:56 GMT
Completely agreed. Also, though, I think that you meant "they" rather than "the" here. 1. The problem for the Saudis is I doubt they would have the strength to try and defend their eastern region themselves, no matter how much money they throw at it. Do you risk importing mercanaries for the role, try making a deal with the US [upsetting their own extremists] or what? You might even see a really unholy 'alliance' between them and the Iranians, at least after Khomeini diesm although such an alignment would be extremely unstable. Especially with the Shia majority in the eastern part of Saudi where most of the oil is. 2. As I said on the other side I think if Sadam is that close to nukes I wouldn't like to guess the Israeli reaction! 1. Completely agreed. Also, though, I think that Israel might very well (eventually) become the third member is this intricate and delicate dance. Indeed, just imagine--Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran all on one side against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. 2. The thing is, though, that I don't think that Israel was aware of just how close Saddam Hussein was to building nuclear weapons in 1990-1991. Thus, by the time that Israel discovers and realizes the level of this threat, it might unfortunately already be too late for Israel to launch and implement a repeat of its previous 1981 Osirak operation. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,834
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Aug 4, 2016 19:44:30 GMT
1. The problem for the Saudis is I doubt they would have the strength to try and defend their eastern region themselves, no matter how much money they throw at it. Do you risk importing mercanaries for the role, try making a deal with the US [upsetting their own extremists] or what? You might even see a really unholy 'alliance' between them and the Iranians, at least after Khomeini diesm although such an alignment would be extremely unstable. Especially with the Shia majority in the eastern part of Saudi where most of the oil is. 2. As I said on the other side I think if Sadam is that close to nukes I wouldn't like to guess the Israeli reaction! 1. Completely agreed. Also, though, I think that Israel might very well (eventually) become the third member is this intricate and delicate dance. Indeed, just imagine--Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran all on one side against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. 2. The thing is, though, that I don't think that Israel was aware of just how close Saddam Hussein was to building nuclear weapons in 1990-1991. Thus, by the time that Israel discovers and realizes the level of this threat, it might unfortunately already be too late for Israel to launch and implement a repeat of its previous 1981 Osirak operation. In that case I suspect one of two options: a) That the Israelis decide to rely on deterrent and suspect, possibly correctly, that if Iraq uses nuclear weapons anywhere its most likely to be against Iran. b) That before Iraq gets a reliable deterrent, including a delivery system and miniturised warheads, to remove them with extreme force. [That would really upset a lot of apple-carts, especially as this could involve the use of some of Israel's own nukes]. |
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Aug 9, 2016 23:32:09 GMT
1. Completely agreed. Also, though, I think that Israel might very well (eventually) become the third member is this intricate and delicate dance. Indeed, just imagine--Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran all on one side against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. 2. The thing is, though, that I don't think that Israel was aware of just how close Saddam Hussein was to building nuclear weapons in 1990-1991. Thus, by the time that Israel discovers and realizes the level of this threat, it might unfortunately already be too late for Israel to launch and implement a repeat of its previous 1981 Osirak operation. In that case I suspect one of two options: a) That the Israelis decide to rely on deterrent and suspect, possibly correctly, that if Iraq uses nuclear weapons anywhere its most likely to be against Iran. b) That before Iraq gets a reliable deterrent, including a delivery system and miniturised warheads, to remove them with extreme force. [That would really upset a lot of apple-carts, especially as this could involve the use of some of Israel's own nukes]. Wouldn't nuking Iraq have resulted in tens of millions of Muslims becoming extremely pissed off at Israel, though? |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,834
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Aug 10, 2016 13:58:59 GMT
In that case I suspect one of two options: a) That the Israelis decide to rely on deterrent and suspect, possibly correctly, that if Iraq uses nuclear weapons anywhere its most likely to be against Iran. b) That before Iraq gets a reliable deterrent, including a delivery system and miniturised warheads, to remove them with extreme force. [That would really upset a lot of apple-carts, especially as this could involve the use of some of Israel's own nukes]. Wouldn't nuking Iraq have resulted in tens of millions of Muslims becoming extremely pissed off at Israel, though? If those Mulsims don't have a nuclear capacity to attack Israel would the Israeli government, espeically a right wing one, be that bothered? As long as their able to continue to get US support, which might be the deal breaker in such a move. |
|
