|
Well of course America has nothing to fear from these missiles. Iraq has nothing in their arsenal that can remotely harm us ... with the exception of chemical weapons. And even with regards to chemical weapons, history has shown them to be, for the most part, ineffective and actually more harmful to those that use them then to those they are trying to hurt. However, these weapons were banned from Iraqi use not for what they can do to the United States but for what they can do to their neighbors. Sure a 180km weapon isn't gonna do much good against the US, but put a chemical warhead on it, truck it to 160km away from Israel, Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia and it's gonna hurt plenty.
You said that they would be a threat to US troops invading Iraq? I really doubt that since a) Any war is going to be an extremely mobile war dominated by air power. b) The guidance packages on these missiles are notoriously second rate. c) The US will have patriot counterbatteries operating in key areas. So first of all, these missiles have to find a target to shoot at. With tanks and troops continually moving at 30-50mph nothing's going to be standing still for them to shoot at, then they have to continually hide and dodge the warplanes on Combat Air Patrol. Lastly their effective damage against a key target is miniscule since that the target will be highly protected. Therefore the reason for a demand to disable the missiles is more strategic than tactical.
|