Are nuclear weapons justified in defending against conventional attack?

[Lord Golog]

Pretty much the title. If a nation were invaded by another nation using a conventional army, would the defending nation be justified in using nuclear weapons against the invading army? Are there specific circumstances where it would be justified, and where it would not?

For example, if Russia were to be invaded by China over resources, and Russia was losing, would it be morally and ethically justifiable if Russia were to nuke the Chinese army? Perhaps even staging areas/bases in China itself?

----------------------------------------------------

EDIT: I obviously need to clarify what I initially was asking.

Under what circumstances should nukes be used defensively? Like...
A. Immediately upon being attacked deliberately?
B. When conventional warfare is too costly for the defender?
C. Last resort to fend off invasion?
D. Only to deter nuclear action by the aggressor? (I.E. To ward off Doomsday scenarios.)

As for using them in retaliation, should they only be used on the actual soldiers and armies that have entered the defender's sovereign territory, or is attacking the aggressor's infrastructure and civilian population okay as well, if the aggressor has not engaged a nuclear campaign against the defender first?

Finally, if a defending nation uses the nuclear option, does that have any effect on the aggressor's right to use it as well? If the defender nukes the aggressor's capital, is the aggressor justified in nuking the defender's capitol in retaliation?

As for morality in war, it's already in practice among the civilized nations. POW's theoretically should not be treated too poorly, and have to be fed, etc. Shooting civilians and non-combatants is severely frowned upon. Even if the rules are not enforced sufficiently or at all, they're still there.

[Condottiere 40K]

No, but rational thinking in crisis situations is an artform, and when you feel existentially threatened, going for the nuke option isn't just a metaphor.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Morality doesn't really apply to State actions, but more along the lines of individual actions and is there anything ethic about systematically killing individuals in the first place?.

Now you example is kinda msing the point since in Russia's and China's particular case they can both mobilize large conventional forces. A better example would be the UK facing an invansion by the Soviet Union or France getting in the way of a possible Soviet offensive along the western front.

In those particular cases you know you are getting hammered anyways so... bombing the out of the invader ain't that irrational.

[Menelik_I]

Morality doesn't really apply to State actions, but more along the lines of individual actions and is there anything ethic about systematically killing individuals in the first place?.

Now you example is kinda msing the point since in Russia's and China's particular case they can both mobilize large conventional forces. A better example would be the UK facing an invansion by the Soviet Union or France getting in the way of a possible Soviet offensive along the western front.

In those particular cases you know you are getting hammered anyways so... bombing the out of the invader ain't that irrational.

Mostly this^.

There is just irrational fear about nukes, they are just a dirty form of dying, but dying you much be.

What point that the OP misses is that most countries military doctrine include nukes as an insurance policy in case conventional defeat is certain. Asking for the morality of something everyone have accepted as standard military doctrine is kind of funny.

[Éorl]

You don't have to use nukes. There are already conventional bombs able to annihilate several blocks with one device - you could use the same against ground troops.

[General Brittanicus]

If a large nation such as the US or China attacked the UK - nuclear weapons would be my first course of retaliation not the last considering we would be unable to win a conventional war. Then again if any country was stupid enough to attack a nation who they knew had nuclear weapons then i would be ok with the defending side using all their nuclear weapons from the start as well.

[Maidel]

If a large nation such as the US or China attacked the UK - nuclear weapons would be my first course of retaliation not the last considering we would be unable to win a conventional war. Then again if any country was stupid enough to attack a nation who they knew had nuclear weapons then i would be ok with the defending side using all their nuclear weapons from the start as well.

What would have happened if the UK had used nuclear weapons on argentina during the falkland war?

Some of the destroyers who were sent to the area couldnt actually use depth charges because the ships had been fitted for a training mission and were carrying nuclear depth charges that they had been testing.

You could say that 'Argentina was stupid to attack a country with nuclear weapons' but can you imagine the fallout (political) that would have happened had we have even threatened to nuke buenos Aires? Half the countries in the world would have disowned us!

[justicar5]

Mostly this^.

There is just irrational fear about nukes, they are just a dirty form of dying, but dying you much be.

What point that the OP misses is that most countries military doctrine include nukes as an insurance policy in case conventional defeat is certain. Asking for the morality of something everyone have accepted as standard military doctrine is kind of funny.

I'd actually have to agree, in the face of a conventional war that you are loosing, and in the face of conquest as a result, hell yes go nuclear.

[Condottiere 40K]

An EMP burst near Buenos Aires should have been sufficient.

[Ludicus]

For example, if Russia were to be invaded by China over resources, and Russia was losing, would it be morally and ethically justifiable if Russia were to nuke the Chinese army?

Why not?...
Japan already had been defeated militarily by June 1945, and they were nuked...

Morality

Nuclear War and Morality

[Prosaic Visitant]

@OP: If it's a conventional war and Faction A is losing to and being invaded by Faction B while Faction A has nuclear weapons, then sure; the targets would depend though, is the bombings supposed to invoke terror? revenge for possible atrocities? harm enemy industrial production? or damage the enemy military?

Why not?...
Japan already had been defeated militarily by June 1945, and they were nuked...


Nuclear War and Morality

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...=490555&page=5
This thread is where your derailment belongs.

[Ludicus]

This thread is where your derailment belongs.

You are confused, we should not mix the apples (September 11, a terrorist attack) and tomatoes (a world war)
In fact, it´s a clear answer to the OP. According to the hegemonic power (US), the only country to have used them in warfare, nukes are used to save lifes. (President Truman, fearing the costs of a U.S. eventual invasion of Japan, ordered the first use of nukes in 1945. At least that´s the official excuse)
Just to clarify, asking if nuclear weapons are "justified" in "defending" against conventional attack is pure ingenuity or a strange case of amnesia.
The crucial question is-do morality and war mix?

[Lord Golog]

I obviously need to clarify what I initially was asking.

Under what circumstances should nukes be used defensively? Like...
A. Immediately upon being attacked deliberately?
B. When conventional warfare is too costly for the defender?
C. Last resort to fend off invasion?
D. Only to deter nuclear action by the aggressor? (I.E. To ward off Doomsday scenarios.)

As for using them in retaliation, should they only be used on the actual soldiers and armies that have entered the defender's sovereign territory, or is attacking the aggressor's infrastructure and civilian population okay as well, if the aggressor has not engaged a nuclear campaign against the defender first?

Finally, if a defending nation uses the nuclear option, does that have any effect on the aggressor's right to use it as well? If the defender nukes the aggressor's capital, is the aggressor justified in nuking the defender's capitol in retaliation?

As for morality in war, it's already in practice among the civilized nations. POW's theoretically should not be treated too poorly, and have to be fed, etc. Shooting civilians and non-combatants is severely frowned upon. Even if the rules are not enforced sufficiently or at all, they're still there.

[Cat-astrophic]

I obviously need to clarify what I initially was asking.

Under what circumstances should nukes be used defensively? Like...
A. Immediately upon being attacked deliberately?
B. When conventional warfare is too costly for the defender?
C. Last resort to fend off invasion?
D. Only to deter nuclear action by the aggressor? (I.E. To ward off Doomsday scenarios.)

As for using them in retaliation, should they only be used on the actual soldiers and armies that have entered the defender's sovereign territory, or is attacking the aggressor's infrastructure and civilian population okay as well, if the aggressor has not engaged a nuclear campaign against the defender first?

Finally, if a defending nation uses the nuclear option, does that have any effect on the aggressor's right to use it as well? If the defender nukes the aggressor's capital, is the aggressor justified in nuking the defender's capitol in retaliation?

As for morality in war, it's already in practice among the civilized nations. POW's theoretically should not be treated too poorly, and have to be fed, etc. Shooting civilians and non-combatants is severely frowned upon. Even if the rules are not enforced sufficiently or at all, they're still there.

You can't answer this one easily really. Here is how I view it:

There are at least 3 dimensions to this. The first one is personal morality, the second one is local, national morality and the third one is the common set of principles that permeates international law.

From personal morality standpoint it depends on your beliefs. You can believe all life is precious or not, so you disprove killing and so forth. From a societal, national pov a society could bear a reasonable justification and enough legitimation to defend it's perpetuation as such via the use of nuclear artifacts and, third, the international pov: it is going to depend on the enviroment that society is inserted upon. Today we have at least two principles against the use of nuclear weapons that are defended by the UN and it's legal aparatus: humanitarian and proportional use of force. So there are many factors that are going to have to be taken into account to justify the use of a nuclear weapon.

However, regardless of what we think or not, there is not going to be a nuclear war, at least not one started by rational agents. That's simply because once you start it's difficult to stop it and a state having nuclear weapons is enough to stop others from attacking it.

[SLN445]

As for using them in retaliation, should they only be used on the actual soldiers and armies that have entered the defender's sovereign territory, or is attacking the aggressor's infrastructure and civilian population okay as well, if the aggressor has not engaged a nuclear campaign against the defender first?

In the case of the first part, isnt nuking your own territory, causing massive environmental damage and killing enmasse any of your own Civilians whome happen to still be in that occuped territory, worse then just admitting defeat?

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

Only acceptable when the invaders would cause more pain than the nuke. For instance, if North Korea invaded South Korea, I would be all for nuking NK. But not nuking the UK if it invaded the US.

[Maidel]

But not nuking the UK if it invaded the US.

Frankly if the UK invaded the USA we might win, solely because the US military would spend so long laughing, we might have reach the white house before they realised it wasnt an april fools joke!

And frankly, if we invaded the USA, we would get whatever was comming to us for stupidity.

[Menelik_I]

Frankly if the UK invaded the USA we might win, solely because the US military would spend so long laughing, we might have reach the white house before they realised it wasnt an april fools joke!

Made my day

[Col. Tartleton]

Frankly if the UK invaded the USA we might win, solely because the US military would spend so long laughing, we might have reach the white house before they realised it wasnt an april fools joke!

And frankly, if we invaded the USA, we would get whatever was comming to us for stupidity.

Believe it or not it's happened before. The only thing that cleared our heads was a failed invasion of Canada. Then we were like "Wait we just got beaten by Canada how the... Wait didn't Britain also invade America? Oh Jeez they're burning the White House."

1812 was a great war. Nothing went our way except probably New Orleans and we still won. Although Andrew Jackson was leading an army of French Pirates, so I'm not sure it counts as a real American victory. Still awesome.

[Maidel]

Believe it or not it's happened before. The only thing that cleared our heads was a failed invasion of Canada. Then we were like "Wait we just got beaten by Canada how the... Wait didn't Britain also invade America? Oh Jeez."

1812 was a great war.

Just a shame our best batalions and best general was in portugal...