Imagine you are the Prsident of the USA/President of Russia. After years of carrying around a brief case with the button to launch your nuclear arsenal suddenly the unthinkable happens. You’re told that the worlds other superpower has launched nuclear weapons at your country. Thousands of them are being tracked travelling towards your country and your nation is pretty much screwed. Would you demand a retaliatory strike?
In the case of all out war your nation is guaranteed oblivion. Your cities destroyed and countryside wasted. This will definatly happen. You have the power to do the same to the other country. Would you do it?
It always seemed to me at first that taking such an action would be pointless and spiteful. Your nation would be wiped out so you demand the same for the opposing country. This would acheive nothing to me. Just that a greater chunk of the world would be rendered uninhabitable. If nothing was left of your nation what would be the point of doing the same to the other nation? It would be revenge certainly but for what reason would that be acceptable? The powers that decided to launch the missiles couldn’t be representative of their whole nation. It would just be punishing millions of innocents for the crimes of a few guys in some fortified bunkers. A nuclear deterent is a fine idea -Mutually Assured Destruction. And if all the right noises are made, eg weapons testing, continued funding for the military, then it would seem that MAD was assured. But if it came to the crunch I don’t know if I could. Any other takes?
Hmm, that’s an interesting question.
On a strictly personal level, I wouldn’t launch a retaliatory strike. There’s really no sense in causing twice as much damage to the Earth and to the human race out of revenge.
However, being a political leader, I shouldn’t act on a strictly personal level. Despite the situation (even if the massive damage was irreversible), the leader has a responsibility to defend his own people and their interests – not personal philosophical interests. Not fighting back when attacked is not in the interests of the nation.
Plus, let’s not kid ourselves – no nuclear assault is going to kill every last citizen (even those not in bunkers). If another nation sends a massive nuclear assault, I imagine it’s not just for kicks – they, or someone else, will inevitably invade.
I don’t know if I could honestly do it, but I don’t think it would be an immoral choice to retaliate (only to initially attack).
Hmmm…
Good point.
Really good point.
I grew up during the height of the Cold War, when we all talked of nothing but,
and I can’t believe I never heard that argument before.
You’re right, such a retaliation would be pointless, unjust and vastly cruel, so…
no, I couldn’t do it.
What a depressing thought.
I think I’ll go down to my bomb shelter and sleep it off.
If anyone in a third country survived, you would be doing them a tremendous favor by utterly destroying the gene pool of the evil bastards who thought they could get their way by launching a first strike. If you don’t launch, you will essentially surrender the rest of the world to their domination.
From the point of pure self interest you are screwed no matter what you do, so there’s no reason not to end your days with an altruistic gesture.
If one, just one, nuke was launched at the USA how much damage are we talking about? Realistically? Will 2/3 or so people survive that?
If so, then I say get that President/Dictator/King… on the phone and launch one. You tell them this is a retaliatory nuke to save face with the American people. Tell him we’d like to keep all other fighting to less destructive means. Trying to save our people even more hardships if we leave anything after this tomfoolery. Cross our fingers and hope they comply. Ready the military if they do.
If they retaliate with another nuke, we destroy what’s left of them… And they destroy us.
Wanting to destroy us entirely is just malicious. Wiping them out will at least keep them from being a burden on the rest of the world. In the aftermath, other countries would need all resources for recovering, not having to worry about whatever crazy person thought it would be a great idea to launch a nuke.
You gotta toast 'em. For several reasons.
First, there is the possibility, however small, that your country might survive the encounter in some form. The missiles coming your way might have a large failure rate; they might be wildly inaccurate, allowing large swaths fo people to go unharmed.
That bad guy is still out there, and if you allow him to survive, he’s going to come after you again.
Second, you still have a duty to your allies. In the case of a Soviet attack on America, I’d still feel compelled to paste the Russkies because if I didn’t, my NATO (and other) allies might be overrun.
The third reason is a little less obvious, but it makes sense to my historical sensibilities. If anyone is going to survive that war, the story of what happened will be remembered for a long, long time. Not shooting back sets a very dangerous precedent, because it shows that MAD doesn’t work. Instead, the advantage goes to whomever is aggressive enough to push the button first. That’s not the kind of lesson you want to teach future generations, if there are any. (You could always hope that the lesson would be “don’t play with nukes,” but I personally have my doubts about human nature.)
In the 1964 movie Fail-Safe, a US bomber given an incorrect order cannot be recalled and destroys Moscow. In order to prevent a full-scale war, the US president is forced to accept the destruction of New York in exchange.
For me? I think I’d be able to give the order for a retaliatory strike in the event of a massive attack. If it were a single missile, deliberately fired, I doubt I would restrain the retaliation to a single missile, but rather would order a powerful, overwhelming response. As Sean Connery said in The Untouchables, “He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That’s the Chicago way!”
The morality is admittedly a grey area, but fluiddruid’s point about how the leader is responsible to the interests of the nation as a whole would, in my opinion, trump my personal feelings on the issue.
And Tabeitha? A single nuke launched at the USA wouldn’t kill 1/3 of the population. Using a webpage that will map a nuclear explosion we can see that, well, there wouldn’t be a lot of New York City left. Approximately 98% of everyone within 130 square miles of ground zero would be dead – about 6 million people. It’s nothing to sneeze at, but the other 275 million Americans would be alive and very, very angry.
Oops. Forgot to add this - the total casualty count would probably be 10-15 million. Even more sobering of a number.
I couldn’t. But, y’know, that’s why I’m not considering “Commander-in-Chief” as a future occupation. ;).
Honestly, though, I don’t see the point. Launching nukes at another country would be pretty pointless if we were already beaten. I mean, yeah, the “evil” regime would surivive. . .but I don’t know if destroying the world is better than a dictatorship.
A single strike, however, would be considered a declaration of war. I would advocate a retaliatory strike–equal to the intial strike–and an immediate engagement along more conventional fronts. But that’s just me.
I always thought that the point of having nukes was to make everyone think you would use them, not to actually use them.
In a detached sense (non-moralistic), I agree with this. The point to MAD is that there is no such thing as one nuke. You launch one at me, I unload on you, pretty much forcing you to unload on me in return. Were the philosophy otherwise, the temptation to use a single nuke would be much higher, I am sure. That’s the theory, anyway. In practice, if one side backs down, then it shows that nuclear mugging/terrorism/blackmail/whatever is a viable strategy. So, each side pretty much has to be determined to wipe the other out, no matter whether the initial volley was a single 5-megaton or half the arsenal. As Sofa King points out, any survivors would then see that even that single bomb is a Very Bad Thing[sup]TM[/sup].
Mutually Assured Destruction is the ability to destroy the other side after suffering a surprise first strike. It is not, and has never been, an actual strategy in the event of war breaking out.
Indeed the whole point of nuclear strategic thinking since 1960 has been to attempt to devise some rational way of using them in the event of war (its success is another matter though)
My decision - either:
- do nothing
- launch a “limited” strike at the government and military of the attacker.
Launch. For the simple reason that the “end of all life as we know it” scenario is overexaggerated. People WOULD suvive the nuke attacks, on both sides. The nuke attack is just the first step in a long, grisly war, and if someone decides to flatten your major population centers, it’s your duty as President to retaliate and try to nullify any further threat.
No real military commander ever thought that nukes would preclude conventional fighting. They’re just an opening salvo, and a way to threaten more damage than the enemy might be willing to accept (not total annihilation, which wouldn’t happen, but lots and lots and lots of damage).
Thanks for the responses (even when I mucked up the thread title “Could you really drop the bomb?”) It makes me think about how heavily it must rest on the shoulders of whoever does get to push the button ion the event of a nuclear strike.
The points made about nuclear blackmail are interesting. I never really considered if anyone would try making political demands with a subtle reminder of how much their launch silos contain. I also made the assumption that nuclear war would be the end of both nations, period. I never thought about a fight for what was left afterwards.
I would do it in hopes that a new human race would rise from the ashes where everyone knew how to spell the word ‘definitely’.
[sub]Italics added for emphasis[/sub]
If you’re talking about thousands of nukes, I would think it would already be the end of the world as we know it. The initial effect would be instantaneous deaths near ground-zeroes due to-radiation, concusion wave, and heat. This is not a world-ending event. Then, deaths surrounding the targets due to radiation poisoning and secondary disasters-fires, destruction of supplies and infrastructure etc. This could be world ending if America’s Bread Basket is hit. Last I checked the majority of the world’s grain is grown there. Large scale famine would result. If the Bread Basket survives largely intact, this stage is not world-ending. Then we move on to fallout and nuclear winter. I can’t think of a scenario in which the fallout from thousands of nukes does not end the world. The stuff would spread through the atmosphere, the Pacific, the Atlantic etc. At this point, “He dies. She dies. Everybody dies.”. The whole world get radiation poisoning and cockroaches inherit the Earth.
Launching our nukes would just speed up the process. Killing millions of people would be merciful at this point. WarGames-"We'll be spared the horror of survival." If the entire human race will be gone in a month or so, I'd have no trouble shortening their pain. I'd order strikes on the most populous areas in order to bring a painless death to the most people. The remaining survivors would now only have to suffer half as long before they all die.Thanks for the link, I knew I was guessing high with that number. Well, it seems if one hits DC, I live just far enough away to see this kind of damage, (provided I was at home, not work):
"Any single-family residences that are not completely destroyed are heavily damaged. The windows of office buildings have been blown away, as have some of their walls. The contents of these buildings’ upper floors, including the people who were working there, are scattered on the street. A substantial amount of debris clutters the entire area. Five percent of the population between the 5 and 2 psi rings are dead. Forty-five percent are injured. "
if nuclear missiles were launched at every major city, including new york, chicago, seattle, boston, l.a., san fran, atlanta, et al…would there be any safe place in the country to be? (taking into consideration the info from the link ino pointed us to)
and does anyone know the fallout from a “dirty” bomb detonated in new york city? what damage would that do?
Hey Rupert, I live in Knoxville. They might hit Oak Ridge (30mi. away), but I’d live to run off into the Smokies with many guns and ammos like Mad Max! There’s nothing worth hitting here.
I disagree heartily, here. If somebody fatally stabs you to get your wallet, and you’re already going to die, do you really think there’s no point in still trying to fight? There are so many good reasons to retaliate listed above (mainly by Sofa King) that I’m not going to bother restating them. But most importantly, you owe it to the rest of the world not to leave them in the hands of an aggressor who is willing to destroy an entire people just because they oppose him.
To quote General John Stark (and the New Hampshire state motto), “Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils.”
[sub]that’s the problem with this damn country. Nobody thinks anything is worth fighting or dying for anymore…all that matters is convenience and having the trash picked up from your curb. as long as you don’t have to be bothered and your electricity stays on, nobody gives a shit about anything. grumble grumble grumble…[/sub]
There are too many variables in your question to give an answer.
What is used in the dirty bomb (plutonium, uranium, etc.)?
How much stuff is used?
How big is the explosive that detonates the bomb?
Is the bomb detonated at ground level? Higher-up (i.e. on top of a building)?
What is the weather like? Raining? Windy? Which way is the wind blowing?
Do you have a cite for that? This link provides a fallout map of the US following a full-scale nuclear attack from Russia. Elsewhere on that site’s links it mentions 100 million dead althoug I don’t know how far out that number is predicted from the initial attack. Note that the eastern half of the US is pretty much gone. You can also find spots where you are most likely to survive (obviously places in the middle of nowhere out west).
What I don’t know is at what point does radioactive fallout persist long enough to circle the globe. Would a Russian only attack achieve this or would the US need to add its weight to sufficiently poison the atmosphere?
To me the decision to launch would be predictaed on the notion of how likely worldwide catastrophe is from that decision.
[ul]
[li]Russia attack alone sufficient to wipe out the world? Doesn’t matter if you launch or not…they’ll die sooner or later anyway and if you don’t launch they’ll suffer. So, kill then quick or let them rot?[/li][li]Russia attack not sufficient to wipe out the world but US full retaliation will. Don’t launch. Even though your enemy remains to carry out their nefarious deeds I don’t see how wiping out the human race improves things.[/li][li]Russian full attack plus US full attack won’t wipe out human life. Launch since, as mentioned above, you don’t want to leave the pricks who did this around in any way, shape or fashion for the survivors to deal with.[/li][/ul]