I tend to agree with you that there are a lot more negatives than positives for the Iraqis to use chemical weapons. The type of situation where I could envision they MIGHT would be one or more of the following:
a) in the event that we have already started overrunning areas where clear evidence of their WMD programs comes to light.
b) we enter into a long siege of Baghdad were the coalition lines are relatively static and predictable
c)the Baathists retreat north from Baghdad and Tikrit into Kurdistan (and use them on the Kurds AGAIN).

Chemical weapons are hard to use against soldiers and not all that effective. They are a terror weapon against civilians, but the only civilians in Iraq are not ours.

Notwithstanding all the above, expect the Iraqis to keep us in fear that they MIGHT use chemicals. If they can keep the Americans in chemical protection gear through increasingly hot weather, they gain more than from actually using the weapons.

who knows what insane decisions may be made in the dying days of this brutal regime. given their track record for using WMD and using the suffering of their people as propaganda anything is possible. for example, releasing biochem weapons inside Baghdad would create enormous numbers of civilian casualties, they would then strive to blame this somehow on the coalition.

My current theory is that Saddam is dead and what's left of the leadership knows the regime is doomed - and they are trying to maintain the illusion just long enough to get themselves out with as much loot as possible. So, a) they are too busy with this to bother with organizing defenses (which would explain a lot), and b) they have nothing to gain by using WMDs and becoming the world most wanted war criminals.

If they have them and can use them they will. I am in no doubt about that. If no-WMDs are used it is because the Allies got to them before they could be used.

Remember: "there is nothing more dangerous than a man with nothing to lose."

"Weekend at Saddam's" Maybe SH et fils are dead, and, as indicated above, the various surviving leaders are just trying to see if they can hold out, and if not they'll flee with their loot. But, if they're rational enough to be willing to flee, why haven't they done so before now?

In any case, I think they're very close to getting desperate. No more al Jazeera, their ambassador was asked to leave Egypt, S.A. calling for SH to step down, etc. etc. They're very close to being cut off from support from anyone outside other than hard-core mullahs.

There is no benefit whatsoever for the Ba'athists using WMD except revenge.

Delivery of any aerosolized bioweapon, such as anthrax or ricin, would have to be done by rocket or missile over a distance--and time. Unless Iraqi's germ guru is far advanced, both inhaled anthrax and ricin would take about 8 hours--if not longer--to affect the troops. (Remember how dispersed it would be in the open air--not like being released in an enclosed space such as a post office or subway train.) Even then it would probably only affect a very few since all our people are on alert for just such an attack and would be in their protective gear immediately.

The same problem applies to any mustard or sarin gas attack, except for the time lag, of course. Since the tactical intent of using WMD would presumably be to release and immediately follow up with an attack, detonating such weapons in close combat would expose Iraqi troops equally. (As I recall, there was some talk Saddam intended to use gas in GWI, but the wind changed and he had to abandon the idea.)

What I can see the Iraqis doing is 1) firing on Israel from an area very close to the Syrian border in an attempt to bring Israel into the war or 2) delivering the WMD of choice via a homicide bomber. The first could be a danger, but with the amount of lead time, the Israelis would be well-warned and such a missile could be shot down. The second option is much more likely, considering how desperate the Iraqi regime is by now.

Bottom line, there is really no WMD the Iraqi regime could use (including a dirty bomb) that would give them any battlefield advantage without the risk of harming their own troops and turning the whole world against them.

One reason I think we have not seen the use of Chemical weapons to date is that Coalition forces haven't stood still long enough or bunched up enough for the Iraqi to draw a bead on them. The only "pause" came during a sandstorm with gale force winds. Not exactly, optimal conditions for using gas weapons.

The Iraqi most likely believe that the Coalition will have to lay siege to Baghdad and therefore to adopt static positions. They believe they can then target large numbers of soldiers with artillery insinuated into the civilian areas of the city.

I don't think we will give them the opportunity.

A further thought:

I think it more likely that die-hard elements will use chemical weapons AFTER the war ends. They will make terroristic attacks against the occupying forces using weapons hidden during the war. Mortaring a Coalition base with chemical shells in the middle of the night will have a greater political impact than a large scale bombardment during actual war and it could be carried out by a much smaller and radical group of individuals.

I hope we most of the chemical ordnance quickly under control when the formal war ends.