Should there be nuclear retaliation?

[Old_Scratch]

When does it become acceptable for a nation to use nuclear weapons in retaliation, if it's acceptable at all? Lets say N. Korea tried to nuke San Diego, California, but the ICBM was shot down and nobody got hurt. Or, what if a small 10 kiloton bomb actually hit and destroyed the San Diego naval base, but civilian casualties were minimal? I understand there would be air strikes and probably an invasion of N. Korea, but would either situation warrant a nuclear retaliation from the United States?

Would it take San Diego itself to be nuked to warrant mass nuclear retaliation or do you think that option is never acceptable.

[Joker85]

Any attack such as that must be met with overwhelming retaliation. Anything short defeats the purpose of deterrent and actually makes it more likely something will happen.

[Oldgamer]

Any attack such as that must be met with overwhelming retaliation. Anything short defeats the purpose of deterrent and actually makes it more likely something will happen.

Exactly.

[Surgeon]

A nuclear attack, even if it is intercepted, warrants a nuclear counterattack. A threat like that needs to be eliminated immediately before any more attacks follow.

[Tiwaz]

Some symbolic nuclear retaliation is likely, but "mass nuclear retaliation" for something as pitiful as you describe would be act of an idiot.

Then again, US government has never suffered from lack of those...

Nuking NK with loads of nukes would cause severe fallout, depending on current weather, in South Korea, China, Russia and Japan. Only totally imbecile US government would invite wrath of those four. Even if some are not affected by fallout directly, indirect effects and realisation thta they could have been downwind will have same result.

Same is true for practically every scenario. There can be no more than symbolic response due to results large scale nuclear attack would have. USA would effectively commit economical suicide if it started to chuck out nukes here and there.

Not to mention how ridiculous whole scenario is. No nation will use nuke unless practically forced to do so. For someone to nuke USA would mean USA poking it's nose into places where it does not belong.

Sadly, that is all too common occurrance in US policies as well.

[danzig]

Not to mention how ridiculous whole scenario is. No nation will use nuke unless practically forced to do so. For someone to nuke USA would mean USA poking it's nose into places where it does not belong.

So basically if a nuke ever went off in the US it would be because it deserved it?

Anyway atleast in the case of the US it can unleash destruction impressively without going nuclear by simply conventionally bombing the crap out of a country. So if struck by a nuclear missile that didnt do much real damage in terms of civilian deaths or was shot down that might be a better answer. You still get the point across but in a controlled manner and without nuclear fallout. Now if something struck and caused massive civilian deaths then well of course turning the country into an wasteland is no doubt going to happen.

[Tiwaz]

So basically if a nuke ever went off in the US it would be because it deserved it?

If one wants to get really, really theoretical. There is slim chance of someone sneaking nuke into USA and then detonating it.

For anyone to use traditional missile or similar delivery method, USA has to be basically invading them. Because once you shoot the missile, everyone knows you did it and you are dead.

Nobody uses nukes for and giggles. There has to be motivation. That is also problem with sneak nuke. What would country doing it gain from it? Even if it managed to prevent being revealed as culprit?

[Cluny the Scourge]

It's best to be sure when dealing with foreign traitors. If there is a nuclear attack, total retaliation - annihilate their entire nation, demolish every building, render their fields infertile with radioactivity and then erase them from the history books.

The Romans understood the principle behind this: Look at what they did to Carthage. And the fear implicit in every nation's dealings with them afterward is part of what made Rome great for so long - until their resolve was weakened from within by foreign religions (i.e. Christianity).

[John I Tzimisces]

The Romans understood the principle behind this: Look at what they did to Carthage. And the fear implicit in every nation's dealings with them afterward is part of what made Rome great for so long - until their resolve was weakened from within by foreign religions (i.e. Christianity).

What's it like living in the 18th century?

That theory's pretty old and pretty unreliable. A lot of proponents that the Roman empire somehow lost it's balls because of christianity seem to miss the fact that even after Constantine made Christianity the de facto state religion, he had carthage sacked. (again.)

[Ahiga]

Maybe they fell because they kept sacking Carthage instead of fighting the Barbarians.

[Caelius]

The amount of ignorance shown in this thread regarding nuclear weapons by some posters is simply astounding.

[Oldgamer]

The amount of ignorance shown in this thread regarding nuclear weapons by some posters is simply astounding.

In what way?

[Каие]

What he meant danzig is that no one would dare nuke the US.

[gaius valerius]

Ah c'mon you all saw 24

Nuclear retaliation = lame for so many reasons. Nuclear warfare is btw not lucrative as what is the good of eradictating a country, burning it down, destroying the soil for the first generations to come??? I don't know. I suppose if the USA had massively nuked Japan in WW II, destroying every living thing, we'd miss out on a lot of stuff today, and I'm not talking about hot Japanese chicks only. When N-Korea nukes me, I'd say that's a perfect reason to wage conventional warfare and conquer that faggy country. A nuked and destroyed country cannot be integrated in my capitalist world system.

[Thanatos]

It doesn't have to be a massive nuclear retaliation. A massive conventional regular missile bombardment is just as good, and there's no fallout.

[gaius valerius]

But the question was nuclear retaliation. I think it is unacceptable no matter what. Not just morally, but also economically and politically. Yeah sure, mass conventional bomb them to the ground all you want.

[Old_Scratch]

I would personally be against nuclear retaliation for two reasons. One, it would only punish the civilian population and do little to stop the regime that built and launched the nukes. Two, it would probably drive off all international support for the US in the aftermath. If a nation just decides to nuke another there would be a huge global backlash. In the case of North Korea, who knows, maybe even China would help us militarily dismantle NK. If we counter nuke, then we would be seen as no better than they are, maybe even worse.

But for those who, like me, would be against a nuclear retaliation, let me add some gasoline to the scenario. What if not one city, but several west coast US cities were destroyed by ICBM's from N. Korea, and the Koreans actually celebrated the catastrophe? What if while Seattle, Los Angeles, and San Diego were still choked in clouds of radioactive dust, the North Koreans held mass celebrations, flag burnings, parades, and general contempt for those who died? Would a counterstrike be justified? Would the international community forgive retaliation if this was the case?

Note: I'm only using North Korea as a place holder state. I am in no way implying that they have anywhere close to this capability or that the people of N. Korea would react in this manner. You can imagine any two countries involved in this scenario if you like.

[Surgeon]

This really depends which country nukes the US.
- Was it China? It's getting nuked to hell and back. The counterstrike would probably get launched before the ICBMs even reach their targets.
- Was it Russia? Same as above.
- India? Hm, dunno for sure but probably nuked too.
- Pakistan? This one can possibly be dealt with without nukes, but you never know.
- Iran (supposing it gets a nuke)? Tough one, but possibly conventional bombing will suffice.
- Israel? Uh... well it's kind of small to nuke without killing the Palestinians as well, so possibly without nukes too.
- France or the UK? Probably nuked.
- North Korea? Probably use China's help to bomb them into oblivion without nukes.

[Exarch]

pls general Ripper
no nukes
for the love of Odin, no mass murders

plus there's alreayd a lot of WMDs that doint give off side effects like radiation
tsara bomb anyone?

[Surgeon]

If we're thinking of the same Tsar Bomba then I'm pretty sure it had massive fallout.