An eye for an eye, a nuke for a nuke?

[Spoke]

@AFAIKnow

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.

From the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have the power…to declare war…

Theoretically, at least.

It’s nice to remind ourselves of that once in a while.

[Spoke]

@BwanaBob

Then we “pave Sweden”, and everyone who remotely supports “Sweden”.

So, what? We nuke all of “Europe”? Is that your answer? Seriously?

[Paul_in_Qatar]

Under the current circumstance, the Swedish population is a hostage taken by the US allowed to live as long as their government behaves. As long as everyone understands that, and believes it, the system works.

If the actors on the international stage come to doubt the validity of the deal, it falls apart.

The US (and Russia, China, the UK and France) should all jointly nuke Sweden to ensure no other fool ever pulls such a stunt. In the long run, it might very well saves lives.

Anyone got another option?

[XT]

Sure. DOn’t use nukes, but systematically destroy Sweden via conventional means…take the gloves off. Destroy Swedens infrastructure, military C&C and government buildings…systematically. Call for the unconditional surrender of Sweden and bomb the fuck out of them until they do so. When they do, put those responsible on trial and execute the guilty. If an insurgency attempts to rear its ugly head, put it down…brutally.

Even doing all this, the death toll would be far less than ‘paving’ sweden with multiple nuclear strikes…but the message would be just a crystal clear. AND in the shadows would STILL be the nuclear threat the US COULD have unleashed…a terror waiting in check. To me, this would be a better psychological tool to a would be terrorist state not to use nukes against the US (or any other nuclear nation the US is allied too)…the message would be ‘We can completely destroy you without nukes. Don’t FUCK with us!’.

-XT

[Spoke]

@Paul in Saudi

The US (and Russia, China, the UK and France) should all jointly nuke Sweden to ensure no other fool ever pulls such a stunt. In the long run, it might very well saves lives.

But again you’re assuming that we know with certainty that “Sweden” is responsible. (Which, to be fair, is what the OP asked you to assume.)

Can we really expect to know that?

[XT]

@spoke-

But again you’re assuming that we know with certainty that “Sweden” is responsible. (Which, to be fair, is what the OP asked you to assume.)

Of course…we all are. It was part of the OP after all.

Within days the government (through a combination of intelligence and forensics) is able to determine that the terrorists were sponsored by Sweden.

@spoke-

Can we really expect to know that?

Hard to say. I can’t imagine it would be THAT difficult to eventually figure out who got the nuke and from where…and who helped. There aren’t all that many working nukes just floating around after all. I doubt we’d ever be 100% sure unless someone was REALLY stupid, but we could probably narrow things down to the most probable nation.

Another good reason not to use nukes in retaliation IMHO. Besides the fact that frankly the US doesn’t NEED to use nukes to completely destroy another nations infrastructure, C&C and government…

-XT

[Ethilrist]

@LiveOnAPlane

But once you go nuclear, I think all bets are off and you have to destroy, completely destroy the enemy’s ability to do this again.

The problem with that is that glassing Sweden doesn’t take care of their ability to have planted nukes in every city in the US. You’d need a time machine for that, or an intelligence agency sophisticated enough to have prevented the nuking of LA in this fashion in the first place.

I agree with miller–our nuclear arsenal is there to be used well after the bombs start falling. I can’t imagine how bad things would get if the US responded to a single nuke with ten nukes on civilian targets. Pretty bad.

[AFAIKnow]

@spoke-

From the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8:Theoretically, at least.

It’s nice to remind ourselves of that once in a while.

FWIU, Congress controls the purse string. The CinC can deploy forces wherever he sees fit, but Congress can refuse to proved money to support it. I don’t think a quick nuke strike requires any money for a protracted campaign. Nor do I think a “declaration of war” would be required to launch nukes…

[constanze]

France, England, Russia, and China have nuclear weapons and I have little doubt that they would use it against Sweden if they were the ones attacked.

I really, really doubt that France and England would follow the “might is right” doctrine of the USA and start nuking other countries. Look at how the Brits reacted at the (conventional) bombings of London, or the failed (through good police and intellingence work, not by deterring or bombing) explosion of air planes. The UK didn’t attack the countries the terrorists came from. Some countries don’t follow the doctrine that for every of their nationals killed, 10/100/1000 foreigners need to die in retalation.

As for rebuilding Sweden after bombing it: please explain how you would do that, since nobody can explain how it worked in Germany and Japan? And who would finance that - the US voters and congress, who loose interest in other countries when the war is over?

Russia and China are different, of course. Russia already is enganged in an unethical war in Tschetschenia, so Putin wouldn’t hesitate to bomb Sweden. Unless he was concerned about the fallout drifting his way.

[Odesio]

[QUOTE=constanze]
I really, really doubt that France and England would follow the “might is right” doctrine of the USA and start nuking other countries. Look at how the Brits reacted at the (conventional) bombings of London, or the failed (through good police and intellingence work, not by deterring or bombing) explosion of air planes.

The UK didn’t attack the countries the terrorists came from. Some countries don’t follow the doctrine that for every of their nationals killed, 10/100/1000 foreigners need to die in retalation.

As was stated in the OP in this hypothetical situation Sweden actively sponsored the terrorist who nuked L.A. For all we know the terrorist might have been from Canada but it was Swedish government who helped them out. It isn’t a matter of might makes right it’s a matter of national security. If another state nuked Dunkirk or Greenwich you can bet your last dollar that France and the UK are going to respond in kind.

As for rebuilding Sweden after bombing it: please explain how you would do that, since nobody can explain how it worked in Germany and Japan? And who would finance that - the US voters and congress, who loose interest in other countries when the war is over?

You don’t understand how the rebuilding of Japan and Germany progressed after the end of WWII? I mean, it’s pretty complicated, but do you at least accept that both economies were propped up after the war? I imagine the United States would try to build a coalition of European states to help with the invasion, occupation, and rebuilding of Sweden. No need to go it alone when we’ve got allies.
Marc

[Odesio]

The UK didn’t attack the countries the terrorists came from. Some countries don’t follow the doctrine that for every of their nationals killed, 10/100/1000 foreigners need to die in retalation.

As was stated in the OP in this hypothetical situation Sweden actively sponsored the terrorist who nuked L.A. For all we know the terrorist might have been from Canada but it was Swedish government who helped them out. It isn’t a matter of might makes right it’s a matter of national security. If another state nuked Dunkirk or Greenwich you can bet your last dollar that France and the UK are going to respond in kind.

As for rebuilding Sweden after bombing it: please explain how you would do that, since nobody can explain how it worked in Germany and Japan? And who would finance that - the US voters and congress, who loose interest in other countries when the war is over?

You don’t understand how the rebuilding of Japan and Germany progressed after the end of WWII? I mean, it’s pretty complicated, but do you at least accept that both economies were propped up after the war? I imagine the United States would try to build a coalition of European states to help with the invasion, occupation, and rebuilding of Sweden. No need to go it alone when we’ve got allies.
Marc

[XT]

@constanze

I really, really doubt that France and England would follow the “might is right” doctrine of the USA and start nuking other countries. Look at how the Brits reacted at the (conventional) bombings of London, or the failed (through good police and intellingence work, not by deterring or bombing) explosion of air planes. The UK didn’t attack the countries the terrorists came from. Some countries don’t follow the doctrine that for every of their nationals killed, 10/100/1000 foreigners need to die in retalation.

Right…'cause we all know that England or France never did such things in their past, right? Besides…did you not read the OP? We are talking about nuking other countries for the hell of it…we are talking about a direct attack proven by another nation state against a NATO ally. What? You don’t think England would honor its NATO committment? Or do you not realize that NATO is a mutual DEFENSE treaty…that if any member state is attacked the other states MUST come to their aid??

Or were you too busy patting yourself on the back over how civilized the Euro’s are compared to us barbarians in the US to actually read the OP or think through the implications before spouting off??

@constanze

As for rebuilding Sweden after bombing it: please explain how you would do that, since nobody can explain how it worked in Germany and Japan? And who would finance that - the US voters and congress, who loose interest in other countries when the war is over?

Nobody can explain how it worked in Germany and Japan?? Maybe you have some blank spots in your understanding of history then…because a lot of people could explain to you how both Germany (as well as a large percentage of Europe as a whole, including England) AND Japan were rebuilt following WWII.

-XT

[XT]

@A Bonehead

We are talking about nuking other countries for the hell of it…we are talking about a direct attack proven by another nation state against a NATO ally.

:smack: That should be ‘We aren’t talking about nuking other countries for the hell of it…’

Ah well…

-XT