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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.”
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.
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?
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.
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?
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).
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.
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?
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.
