Peace on Earth…
Purity of Essence…
“You know much about fluoridation, Mandrake?”
A flawed strategy can still work (and I’m certainly glad it did). Its flaw leaves it vulnerable, however, and makes it unsuitable as a long-term strategy.
One must, I think, transcend ordinary human morality to contemplate the actual use of weapons, not only of mass destruction, but that have the potential to destroy all life on earth. Someone who could actually hold that thought in his head is not someone I believe I could relate to socially; if he would actually destroy humanity to deny victory to a competing belief system, I would be nervous that he might believe a single death, my own, would be a trivial response to a personal disagreement.
Yes, and I would kill every person in this room for a drop of sweet beer. 
Let’s not forget that if nukes were launched today by Russia, there’d be a half-dozen other countries that would also join in (India, Pakistan, China)… so, basically, if a single nuke is launched, EVERYONE’s screwed. The US’s nuclear arsenal wouldn’t make much difference… instead of rendering the planet uninhabitable for 10,000 years, it’d be uninhabitable for 11,000 years.
Bush Sr. would have said “Read my lips… no push button,” and then pushed the button.
Clinton would say, “I did not have nuclear relations with that button…” and then push the button.
The real question is… what would Jesus do?
What would Jesus do? Simple. “Woo hoo! Battle of Armageddon!”
Why MAD worked was because it was a valid threat. I don’t think it’s the kind of thing that could have been bluffed. If your enemy knows that attacking you will result in his own death, he’s not going to attack you.
In some situations, if you show weakness, you make yourself a target and virtually assure that you will be attacked.
THe principles of a Mexican standoff are well understood.
In hostage situations the Police are very quick to let the hostage takers know that good-faith negotiations will only continue so long as hostages are not harmed. At the first sign of violence, the will storm the building shooting.
This deadly earnest threat of immediate and brutal violence is SOP.
IT keeps people alive.
I think we had to use MAD or we and our allies would have been attacked, and perhaps the world would have been destroyed by just the use of our enemies missiles.
The horror and the error is in allowing a situation to escalate to that kind of level in the first place.
If the bombs were in the air and heading towards us, I don’t think I could push the button to send more though. It seems that little enough would be left of the world as it was. Why destroy what remains?
Bombs away, baby…
MAD may have been a good thing in its time, and as a 28-year old, I know that I’m still here because of it, but if they’re feeling froggy, we may as well jump.
BTW, anyone see that Dubya wants to sink a bunch of cash into the Star Wars defense while reducing the nuclear arsenal? What’s up with that?
SingleDad, I’m trying to understand where you’re coming from on this.
So, if the Soviets nuked America, you would have let it happen with no retaliation, then hoped that everybody else left in the world would say to the Soviets, “We’re really, really mad at you. That was a terrible thing to do.” Huh?
Actually, I’m putting words in your mouth. You didn’t even say that. Whoever fires the nukes first is the winning “competing belief system,” I guess, and anyone who does anything after the fact is inhuman and not worthy of drinking beer with.
After everybody else got really, REALLY mad at the Soviets for killing a few hundred million Americans, they of course would have immediately laid down their weapons of mass destruction and their role as the world’s only remaining superpower, now given carte blanche for world domination.
Let’s also remember that, according to NATO, if Russia launched nukes on us, the decision for retaliation wouldn’t just have been ours – it would have been all but required of Britain and others.
MAD is a wicked (in that damn cool in a poker game way) and useful bluff, but when it comes right down to it I’d rather leave the ability for freedom to exist in humanity at some future date than the ability for some mutated form of life to exist at some future date. Think about what you are choosing…The idea that it is more important to live up to our word of violence than allow humanity to continue to improve is not akin to playing football or playing the quarter game. (We all know that drinking game, right?) In some cases it is cool to hold up a violent end of a bargain to teach a lesson, at a point it becomes useless. How will we teach the “commies” the great lessons of Democracy after everyone involved is dead and Darwin has to start over with cockroaches?
Well, 500 nukes, aimed at America, won’t immediately destroy all life on Earth… the fallout will, though. Our retaliation would only ensure that the Russians can’t do the same thing to China or Britain. Either way, things will be DARK for humanity, and it’ll be thousands of years before all the effects are forgotten. However, I think mankind WOULD survive, if only barely. The problem is, we don’t know EXACTLY what effects would occur, since we haven’t completely nuked the planet (at least, not to my knowledge). So any president faced with that decision shouldn’t be thinking about what’ll happen in the next ten thousand years… they should be thinking about what’ll happen in the next hour or so.
What? You missed it? Were you in the john?
Anyone ever play Fallout 2? The idea was discused right before you kill the president.
I don’t think so, but I may have been playing StarCraft. When’d it happen? Were there any cool mutations? Did it go “boom” or “splat”?
This is a very tough topic. I’d have to launch, though.
-If the Soviets launched on us, they’d launch on anyone. Nuking them would be a public service for any of the public left to appreciate it.
-We’re all dead anyway so I’d rather die quickly of the direct effects of blast and radiation rather than starve or freeze.
-Nobody would be left to question me. Face it, that’s more of a reason than you think.
I just had to add this:
There can be no reasonable answers to an unreasonable question, and there can be no reasonable responses to an unreasonable situation. There is really no right answer, as any answer leads to untold destruction.
Sorry dudes and dude-etts,
Those submarines out there already have orders to fire.
When a submarine losses all contact with the U.S., The commander and his Executive officer have the authority to launch (Based on some kind of rules, I hope), no launch codes needed.
Any former submariners out there know different?
SPOOFE Bo Diddly said, and I
That depends on what your definition of “is” is. 
Sorry, I couldn’t help myself.
Oh, crap, I completely forgot… the US nuclear missile system (not just the ones that are sub-based) is designed with “we die, you die” in mind. The theory goes (my dad was touting this big-time back when people still thought Y2K was gonna be damaging) that, every eighteen hours (or twelve, or twenty-four, depending on which “source” you go to), a signal is sent from somewhere in Washington, D.C., presumably the White House, to the nuclear missile silos scattered about the country. The signal tells the nukes to NOT launch. If the source of the signal is destroyed, our nukes go after pre-determined targets.
Can anyone confirm this? I know it’s a crappy “cite” (well, not really much of a cite at all), but if you think about it, it makes sense (sorta… if you can ignore the fact that nuking the planet in and of itself makes no sense to begin with).
In addition, a discussion I had in my Government class dealt partially with this. My Government teacher (Dr. Johnston… smart man, very intelligent) showed an old movie that brought up the point that if Russia were to fire nukes at us, their main targets wouldn’t be L.A. or Chicago… they’d be OUR nuclear silos (I think the movie was made before the advent of nuclear subs). Anyway, it was a pretty good documentary… next time I see Dr. Johnston, I’ll ask him for the name of that movie, so’s we ALL can bask in it’s fissionistic glory.
Hey, I didn’t USE the word “is” in that quote!
Scientific American did a pretty decent write-up on nuclear launch procedures some years ago. I’m writing this from memory, so please don’t tear me a new one if I get the details wrong - I’ll gloss over some of them anyway.
US missile crews don’t automatically launch if communication breaks down. If communication breaks down, a missile crew can launch on its own after a delay - but another missile crew can veto the launch decision. However, two missile crews acting in concert can’t be vetoed. This - of course - requires that communication between the silo crews isn’t cut off. (There was some timers involved as well, IIRC - the launch authority didn’t pop up the second communications was down).
The US missile submarines can launch on their own, if the officers act in concert.
The Soviet system was mainly different in having two separate authorities on every level. Political and military authority had to act in concert to launch.
The article stressed the difference between peacetime and crisis. In peacetime, focus is on negative control (“We DON’T want to fire by accident”), while in crisis you stress positive control (“The missiles WILL fly when the order is given”). This mindset seems to favor the aggressor, unfortunately - if you’ve moved to positive control while the opponent is still on negative control, a surprise attack has a better chance of succeeding.
As for targeting: Back in the early missile age, ICBMs were not exactly accurate. You compensate for this by aiming them at something big (cities) and by putting big warheads in them. And you place your own missiles in hardened silos, where tahy ar epretty well protected.
This is a rather stable situation: You can kill your opponents civilians, but after that, he’ll still have his missiles and he’ll be pissed at you, while you have a lot of empty silos. No real gain by launching first.
Then, unfortunately, missiles got more precise. Now, you could start targeting your enemys missiles. This means that an incoming attack might be headed for your own missiles, and if you’re not to be left powerless, you’ll have to launch an attack of your own, hopefully having the incoming missiles landing on empty silos. (If you have money to burn and no problem with zoning laws, this is when you start moving your ICBMs around.) Launching first might take out most of your opponents silos, but presumably some will survive, enough to hurt you badly.
Then the ultimate in destabilizing inventions was introduced: The MIRV - one missile, many warheads. Now, one incoming missile can kill - say five - of yours, and by extension, 25 warheads of yours. This means that “riding out” an incoming attack leaves you at a very serious disadvantage. If you don’t respond to an attack, your arsenal might get taken out and your opponent will still be able to threaten your civilians. Taking out missiles still in silos becomes a priority.
MAD was not a really great concept - perhaps we just got lucky ?
Oh, the OP: Being at heart a softie, I guess I’d say “Wouldn’t you know, MAD just HAD to fail in my term”, flush the launch codes out the White House john, grab the best bottle in the White House wine cellar and go outside to watch the fireworks.
And he wouldn’t use his finger.
Regarding the flaws in MAD, the biggest one I think is that it put the world at risk of destruction from pure accident. I’ve read some accounts of how close we came from pure fuckups (like accidently running a simulation at NORAD that looked like we were under attack) that made my nuts crawl so far up I became an “inny”.
Regarding what I would do in the situation described in the OP, I would retaliate against a few Soviet cities. I wouldn’t unload the full arsenal, so maybe there would be some retaliation, but life would go on. Hopefully.
I would hope that when a person becomes president (before, actually) they would consider what to do in case of a nuke attack, and wouldn’t have to think of a response totally out of the blue.
I think that the heart of the OP has nothing to do with whether or not the whole planet is dead regardless of our decision as president. To answer the question, we should assume that it’s just us and the Soviets who are blowing our loads, and that if the U.S. doesn’t launch we’re dead, but if we do launch than everyone is dead.
Assuming that, answer is simple: better a red planet than a dead planet. We send off our fairwells to our pals (U.K., Liberia), our “fuck you”'s to our enemies (USSR, China, France), and our apologies to Canada and Mexico for getting them into this mess. Then we shoot dope and fuck like wild animals (though the squares may want to “pray” to their “god”. Whatever.)