# An eye for an eye, a nuke for a nuke? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 26, 2006, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-a-nuke-for-a-nuke/370304 "2006-08-26T07:19:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2006, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-a-nuke-for-a-nuke/370304/21 "2006-08-26T23:11:57Z")
Well, Jesus said to “turn the other cheek”. And I know the current president long ago came down with a pretty good bout of Christianity, and the majority of our Congress and our population seem to be suffering from a bit of the ol’ Christ, as well. So… without a doubt I am **sure** the USA would react to such horrible Trespass by forgiving the sins of the Swedes. We would clearly not attempt to harm even _one_ of their wayward, yet precious, Children of God. Unless American Christians are all hypocrites and don’t practice what they preach-- but what are the chances of that? ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2006, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-a-nuke-for-a-nuke/370304/22 "2006-08-26T23:29:37Z")
[QUOTE=I Love Me, Vol. I] Unless American Christians are all hypocrites and don’t practice what they preach-- but what are the chances of that? [/QUOTE] 😃 _Oh, we’ll all go together when we go All suffused with an incandescent glow When the air becomes uraneous we’ll all go simultaneous Yes, we’ll all go together when we go._ –Tom Lehrer ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2006, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-a-nuke-for-a-nuke/370304/23 "2006-08-26T23:34:54Z")
[QUOTE=ITR champion] As I understand it, Israel can now use a missile to take out very precise targets with minimal collateral damage; I assume the American military has such toys somewhere. [/QUOTE] Sure. Very precisely reduce Stockholm to a crater, on the assumption that the leadership will conceal themselves in underground bunkers. It sucks that Sven Sixpack gets toasted along the way, but that’s war for you. Anyway, what’s your point? Create a hypothetical, ask for opinions, but you’ve already decided the only correct answer? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2006, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-a-nuke-for-a-nuke/370304/24 "2006-08-26T23:36:21Z")
Oops, got you confused the the OP for a sec, there. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2006, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-a-nuke-for-a-nuke/370304/25 "2006-08-27T02:05:19Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] I don’t think that’s how nuculear deterence was supposed to work. [/quote] You make a valid point but it’s no longer 1955 and we maintain our nuclear arsenal for reasons that aren’t directly related to the cold war. Ones the cold war was in full swing the deterrence shifted to mutally assured destruction (MAD) and now that the cold war is over the focus of deterrence has changed again. > [@](#): > > We don’t need nukes to threaten to destroy their homeland. Our regular military is more than sufficient for the task. Further, in a situation like the one described in the OP, the entire world community would back an invasion of Sweden. Nuclear weapons have a psychological affect on others that conventional weapons do not. For whatever reason the prospect of a nuclear strike scares the hell out of people in a way that thousands of bombs do not even though practically there may be little difference between the two. A retalitory nuclear strike against Sweden would be made to show people that we weren’t afraid of using our nuclear arsenal. These weapons have no value at all if we’re not willing to use them. > [@](#): > > It’d be Sweden against the combined militaries of virtually every nation on the planet. Nuking Sweden would not only be unnecessary, it’d be stupid. It would render thousands and thousands of acres of perfectly good land unihabitable for centuries. Hiroshima and Nagisaki are both currently inhabited so you might be wrong about those thousands of acres for many centuries. Besides, they’re Swedish land, why do I care? > [@](#): > > Much smarter, to say nothing of humane, to use our overwhelming military force to flatten the country’s military and industrial infrastructure, then rebuild like we did in Germany and Japan. I see no reason why we can’t do both. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2006, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-a-nuke-for-a-nuke/370304/26 "2006-08-27T02:12:52Z")
Boy, you people are all so behind the times. Don’t you keep up with strategic theory? Heard nothing of ‘pre-emptive defense’? To wit: Does the US possess WMD? - yes Has it used WMD? - yes Could the ruler of Sweden believe there is a risk of the US taking military action againt it? - Sure diddly. There you have it: A perfect rationale for a pre-emptive defensive strike against continental USA. Mail it to the US Congress (registered mail) from the EU and doubtless after a moment’s reflection they would have to agree and declare: “Well I suppose that’s all right then.” ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2006, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-a-nuke-for-a-nuke/370304/27 "2006-08-27T18:21:16Z")
If recent history is any indication, a terrorist attack on the United States by Sweden will be met with a retaliatory invasion of Mexico, where we will be “greeted as liberators” for giving the peace-loving Mexicans a lifetime of indentured servitude. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2006, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-a-nuke-for-a-nuke/370304/28 "2006-08-27T19:26:45Z")
So how much certainty will we require before we “pave Sweden”? Suppose we are only 90% sure the nuke came from there? 75% sure? ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2006, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-a-nuke-for-a-nuke/370304/29 "2006-08-27T23:27:40Z")
[QUOTE=rjung] If recent history is any indication, a terrorist attack on the United States by Sweden will be met with a retaliatory invasion of Mexico, where we will be “greeted as liberators” for giving the peace-loving Mexicans a lifetime of indentured servitude. 😉 [/QUOTE] Nah, if recent history is an indication we’d go ahead and invade Sweden and follow that up with an invasion of Spain. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2006, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-a-nuke-for-a-nuke/370304/30 "2006-08-27T23:28:49Z")
[QUOTE=spoke-] So how much certainty will we require before we “pave Sweden”? Suppose we are only 90% sure the nuke came from there? 75% sure? [/QUOTE] Is there any serious way to answer that question? How do you measure the precentage of sureness? Marc ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2006, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-a-nuke-for-a-nuke/370304/31 "2006-08-27T23:29:50Z")
[QUOTE=MGibson] Nah, if recent history is an indication we’d go ahead and invade Sweden and follow that up with an invasion of Spain. [/QUOTE] Pffft. There’s no oil in Spain. We would invade Venezuela. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2006, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-a-nuke-for-a-nuke/370304/32 "2006-08-27T23:35:23Z")
[QUOTE=MGibson] Is there any serious way to answer that question? How do you measure the precentage of sureness? [/QUOTE] You can’t, obviously. I am simply calling into question the premise of the OP. I cannot imagine that we would be able to say, with 100% certainty, where a nuke originated. (Though I invite correction on that point.) So let’s say we merely _suspect_ that the nuke came from Sweden. Or _strongly suspect_ that the nuke came from Sweden. Would that be enough? Or suppose the White House simply tells us, “We know the nuke came from Sweden, but we can’t show you the proof.” Would _that_ be enough? Should we trust the White House that far after Iraq? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2006, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-a-nuke-for-a-nuke/370304/33 "2006-08-27T23:50:18Z")
[QUOTE=MGibson] Nuclear weapons have a psychological affect on others that conventional weapons do not. For whatever reason the prospect of a nuclear strike scares the hell out of people in a way that thousands of bombs do not even though practically there may be little difference between the two. A retalitory nuclear strike against Sweden would be made to show people that we weren’t afraid of using our nuclear arsenal. These weapons have no value at all if we’re not willing to use them. [/quote] I think the concept of a nuclear strike scares people because of the danger of escalating retaliation ending in the destruction of human life on this planet. The idea of a single nuclear strike was especially terrifying because there were historically very, very few scenarios in which there would only be _one_ nuclear strike. When it comes to asymetrical war against terrorist organizations, the deterrence value of a nuclear aresenal is no greater than that of the regular military. If a country (or government thereof) genuinely does not care if it gets destroyed, I don’t see that the precise nature of the explosive device used to remove them will make any sort of a difference. I mean, if Sweden nukes us, and we bomb them back into the stone age using good old-fashioned TNT, I don’t see Denmark thinking, “Well, hey, they’re all dead over there, but they didn’t use a nuke! Let’s go blow up New York!” You’re right that a nuclear weapon is useless if we won’t use it under any circumstance, but that does not mean it becomes necessary to use one under every circumstance. If Sweden could be brought to its knees using our regular military forces, there’s no point in using the nuclear option. > [@](#): > > Hiroshima and Nagisaki are both currently inhabited so you might be wrong about those thousands of acres for many centuries. Besides, they’re Swedish land, why do I care? True, but I assume we’re not sending the Enola Gay over to Stockholm loaded with another Fat Man. How long stuff glow after a strike from a contemporary warhead? I’m under the impression that it’s quite a bit longer, but I could very easily be mistaken. And we want that land to stay valuable and usable, even if it is in Sweden. How else do we expect the Swedes to pay us back for the expense of blowing them up? ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2006, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-a-nuke-for-a-nuke/370304/34 "2006-08-28T00:29:47Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] True, but I assume we’re not sending the Enola Gay over to Stockholm loaded with another Fat Man. How long stuff glow after a strike from a contemporary warhead? I’m under the impression that it’s quite a bit longer, but I could very easily be mistaken. [/QUOTE] Ground Zero - about 50 years 60 miles downwind - 10 years Finland would be very pissed at us if we nuked Sweden. So would the Russians. Easier to take them out with FAEs. ---
**Author:** ![ParentalAdvisory](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/53a042/32.png) [@ParentalAdvisory](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ParentalAdvisory)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2006, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-a-nuke-for-a-nuke/370304/35 "2006-08-28T03:08:31Z")
[QUOTE=MGibson] Is there any serious way to answer that question? How do you measure the precentage of sureness? Marc [/QUOTE] Well in elections, 51% is good enough to win. So over 50%? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2006, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-a-nuke-for-a-nuke/370304/36 "2006-08-28T05:10:35Z")
[QUOTE=alphaboi867] Within days the government (through a combination of intelligence and forensics) is able to determine that the terrorists were sponsored by Sweden. [/QUOTE] Herein lies the problem: in real world the kind of terrorists who are going to set off a nuke in LA are not really state sponsorred entities. If the nuke has fingerprints of another state, its most likely coming from factions within the stablishment of ally (e.g. Pakistan, sorry “Denmark”) than the support some rogue state. Even in the situation you describe there is, another consideration, they are unlikely to give their only nuclear weapon to terrorists. While they are unlikely to have the capabilty to reach the US I’m sure the could nuke their neighbours (which I’m sure they would when the nukes started falling). ---
**Author:** ![AFAIKnow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a6a055/32.png) [@AFAIKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AFAIKnow)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2006, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-a-nuke-for-a-nuke/370304/37 "2006-08-28T07:42:30Z")
[QUOTE=spoke-] You can’t, obviously. I am simply calling into question the premise of the OP. I cannot imagine that we would be able to say, with 100% certainty, where a nuke originated. (Though I invite correction on that point.) So let’s say we merely _suspect_ that the nuke came from Sweden. Or _strongly suspect_ that the nuke came from Sweden. Would that be enough? Or suppose the White House simply tells us, “We know the nuke came from Sweden, but we can’t show you the proof.” Would _that_ be enough? Should we trust the White House that far after Iraq? [/QUOTE] Kinda moot. The National Command Authority consists of 2 people, POTUS and the Sec of Defense. As long as they trust themselves there is nothing we could do to stop them. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2006, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-a-nuke-for-a-nuke/370304/38 "2006-08-28T10:25:39Z")
[QUOTE=MGibson] Nah, if recent history is an indication we’d go ahead and invade Sweden and follow that up with an invasion of Spain. Marc [/QUOTE] Oh, uhm… Spain is somewhere over by Colombia, I’m told. Or maybe Columbia. _halo_ ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2006, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-a-nuke-for-a-nuke/370304/39 "2006-08-28T12:48:12Z")
[QUOTE=spoke-] So how much certainty will we require before we “pave Sweden”? Suppose we are only 90% sure the nuke came from there? 75% sure? [/QUOTE] Then we “pave Sweden”, and everyone who remotely supports “Sweden”. In fact we should publicize this fact now, to make sure that “Sweden” loses its friends in a hurry. Why stay friends with someone who’ll get you killed? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2006, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-a-nuke-for-a-nuke/370304/40 "2006-08-28T13:26:19Z")
[QUOTE=griffin1977] Herein lies the problem: in real world the kind of terrorists who are going to set off a nuke in LA are not really state sponsorred entities. If the nuke has fingerprints of another state, its most likely coming from factions within the stablishment of ally (e.g. Pakistan, sorry “Denmark”) than the support some rogue state. [/QUOTE] But in the _real_ world, this has never occured at all, so we don’t really have a basis for saying what is “most likely” or less likely. There could be quite a lot of official “Swedish” support for the action, or none. We have a sample size of zero to draw on. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-a-nuke-for-a-nuke/370304.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-eye-for-an-eye-a-nuke-for-a-nuke/370304.md?page=3)