# How would the world respond to a successful nuclear attack? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 29, 2003, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-the-world-respond-to-a-successful-nuclear-attack/221511 "2003-12-29T03:11:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![gouda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c77e96/32.png) [@gouda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gouda)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-the-world-respond-to-a-successful-nuclear-attack/221511/21 "2003-12-30T06:53:09Z")
In times of all-out war, the leadership of no country will present itself as such easy an target, especially it is within easy striking distance from the enemy, as is the case with India-Pakistan. There will always be alternative command centers. For example, I know that India is in the process of acquiring something similar to Air Force 1 for her leadership. Pakistan may not have that, but it will have contingencies. And yeah, invading a country of India’s size and population is as good as impossible. No question about it. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-the-world-respond-to-a-successful-nuclear-attack/221511/22 "2003-12-30T12:46:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lemur866 \* > **Yes, but are you going to impose trade sanctions on an economically devastated and ruined country, where millions are already dead, and tens of millions are facing starvation, disease, and famine? And it also assumes that the government that launched the nukes will remain in power. I don’t think that is very likely. I can imagine many people in the military of the aggressor country whose families were killed by the retaliatory strike wouldn’t be too pleased with the dictators who launched the nukes.** People are often unhappy with dictators yet they stay in power all the time. Saddam’s citizens were tortured and murdered wholesale by his Baathist followers, but it wasn’t they who removed him. \*\*The probable response wouldn’t be trade sanctions, it would be the military removal of the offending government. Once the government is removed, trade sanctions don’t make sense any more. And I personally can’t see the US and Europe allowing a government that throws nuclear bombs around to stay in power. Expect invasion within weeks, barring a coup and cooperation by the new regime. \*\* Unless that government were, say, China. Then we’re in WWIII nuclear armageddon scenario time again. Remember, the Chinese govenrment would likely regard the loss of a few hundred million citizens as a GOOD thing (while publicly decrying it). I agree that where feasible a military removal of the government that does a nuclear first strike is probable. Might even get the UN off its fat ass for that one. Failing that, trade sanctions, and I mean EXTREME trade sanctions, are likely. So people are starving and dying in the aggressor country. There will be people starving and dying in the victim country’s and more to the point, there may well be people dying in countries hit by fallout. There’s gonna be some EXTREME pissed-offedness aruond for the aggressor country, and most folks will be of a mind to hurt them any way they can. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-the-world-respond-to-a-successful-nuclear-attack/221511/23 "2003-12-30T12:49:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by msmith537 \* > **By the way, Draconian sanctions sure worked well against Germany after WWI.** Germany after WWI was a defeated enemy. What we’re discussing here is a country which launched a nuclear first strike and is presumably still in business. Apples and oranges. ---
**Author:** ![ZebraShaSha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/eada6e/32.png) [@ZebraShaSha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZebraShaSha)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-the-world-respond-to-a-successful-nuclear-attack/221511/24 "2003-12-30T14:04:14Z")
Russia would be super pissed about the fallout over their land so they attack India. India gets super pissed and they launch a nuke at Russia. This engages the doomsday machine, the whole world dies before going into a mine shaft. Does this answer your question? ---
**Author:** ![ZebraShaSha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/eada6e/32.png) [@ZebraShaSha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZebraShaSha)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-the-world-respond-to-a-successful-nuclear-attack/221511/25 "2003-12-30T14:28:18Z")
Russia would be super pissed about the fallout over their land so they attack India. India gets super pissed and they launch a nuke at Russia. This engages the doomsday machine, the whole world dies before going into a mine shaft. Does this answer your question? ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-the-world-respond-to-a-successful-nuclear-attack/221511/26 "2003-12-30T15:42:08Z")
Yah, Mein Fuh… ZebraShaSha. The problem with any nuclear scenario, as already mentioned in an oblique way, is the uncertainty. It’s hard to say what other nations will do. The Sum of All Fears, by Tom Clancy, shows what the fog of war (confusion) can lead to. There have been several movies dealing with various nuclear decapitation (nukes make a nation leaderless) scenarios. Then, maybe, someone lower on the food chain does make the decisions, good or bad. ---
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-the-world-respond-to-a-successful-nuclear-attack/221511/27 "2003-12-30T17:22:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gouda \* > \*\*Typical knee-jerk reaction. Why do you want to wait for a nuclear flare-up before ‘demanding’ disarmament? And how about those countries who have no record of nuclear proliferation - why should they give up their nuclear deterence because a war in another part of the world? \*\* Well, “demanding” Iraq to disarm this past year did not go over too well with alot of the world. “Demanding” in the sense they deem justified doesnt seem to work too well with any of those that either opted out of the NPT or are evasive in their nuclear ambitions. I dont see North Korea or Israel toeing the line too well. > [@](#): > > Right. Sanctions on a country already devastated by war. What are you going to do? Stop buying their radioactive wheat? :rolleyes: I highly doubt that teh international communities top priority after a nuclear war that killed millions would be concern for the citizens of the offenders. That would probably take a back seat to trying to deter such a thing from happening again. And if a country is unwilling to cooperate fully then punishment is justified. > [@](#): > > Oh I see… _American_ troops in danger warrant a nuclear retaliation, but anyone else facing a nuclear strike dare not ‘retaliate in kind’? what?? I do not know if you know this or not, but North Korea and Japan do not have nukes’ , so they cannot “retaliate in kind”. And I was refering to the US’ unofficial stance that any attack on US interests with WMD’s will be met with a retaliation in kind. And the only WMD’s the US officially has in its arsenal is nukes. I dont know where you came up with “but anyone else facing a nuclear strike dare not ‘retaliate in kind’?” ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-the-world-respond-to-a-successful-nuclear-attack/221511/28 "2003-12-30T17:32:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ZebraShaSha \* > \*\*Russia would be super pissed about the fallout over their land so they attack India. India gets super pissed and they launch a nuke at Russia. This engages the doomsday machine, the whole world dies before going into a mine shaft. > > Does this answer your question? \*\* Whoa… put down the crack-pipe and back up a bit. There are a few things I have issue with here. 1. What the hell is the “Doomsday Machine”? Sounds like something out of Star Trek. There isn’t and hasn’t been any kind of automated launch system, at least by the US. It’s always been pretty secure(hence the “football”) and there’s little chance that if India/Pakistan/Russia started nuking the hell out of each other that the US, France, Britain or Israel would get involved. We’d likely wait that out and help out afterwards. 2. Russia’s a long way from India/Pakistan. Enough to where the fallout plumes would dilute and disperse enough so that they wouldn’t be lethal in Russia. Plus, depending on the time of the year, the prevailing winds don’t even blow that direction- some of the year, they blow East-West. [Prevailing Winds #1](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/06/01/wkash101.xml) [Prevailing Winds #2 (not sure about veracity though)](http://cellar.org/iotd.php?threadid=1648) 1. Do you really think Russia would be stupid enough to get involved in a nuclear war over dilute fallout? I give Putin and co. much more credit than this. My guesses for how things might go down are as follows: 1. Indo/Pakistani war. Pakistan essentially ceases to exist as an organized nation. Tens of millions die on both sides, but India continues to exist, albeit lacking a few major cities. India falls out of the developing nation list, and falls back into definite 3rd World status for a while. 2. Israel/Arab world. I believe the Israeli nukes are strictly self-defense. If for some reason, the Arab world managed to threaten Israel enough, then I think the Israelis would probably hit several Arab nations at once- hitting one would just piss off the rest of the Arab nations. Arabs have no effective way to retaliate. Not sure about aftermath. 3. North Korea/Japan/South Korea. North Koreans get stupid and nuke a city in either Japan or South Korea. I think it’s likely that the US would probably nuke a smaller city in North Korea as retaliation, and let it be known that we will continue until the North Koreans surrender. World will cry foul, but due to massive economic power of US, nothing major will really happen. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-the-world-respond-to-a-successful-nuclear-attack/221511/29 "2003-12-30T18:08:54Z")
I think the possibility of an organized government overtly using a nuclear weapon in this day and age is essentially nil. Nukes made sense as a usable weapon for about five years after their creation, and beyond that, mutual assured destruction takes over. The only reason to have them is so the other guy will never use them. Some have speculated that nuking the ten largest US cities would effectively destroy our economy. Nuke the next ten, and total chaos ensues. In other words, if China were to nuke the US, even though we’ve probably got hundreds of times more warheads than they do, and could render their entire territory an incandescent wasteland, both combattants essentially lose. In such an exchange, the US, as we know it, would cease to exist. I figure the same logic holds on the Indian subcontinent, and in the Middle East. In the former case, both nations have such fragile economies that the relative impact of even the exchange of a handful of weapons could conceivably result in the effective destruction of the nation as a political unit. In the latter case, though the Arab states could not respond in kind, a unified attack with what remains of their combined military might would be more than Israel could stave off by itself. It would be an endgame battle for pure retribution, and nothing resembling the old political map would remain. There would be no one but losers. What scares the pants off of me is that there are tens of thousands of nuclear warheads in the world and and a sizeable group of people who don’t mind the idea burning this world away to usher in the next. For these, the ends will always justify the means, and all they need is one weapon. Unsecure weapons caches, like in Russia, maybe, or Pakistan, might supply the requisite bomb. How would we respond if someone detonated even a small warhead in Manhattan? When terrorists toppled the World Trade Center, the US responded by invading and destroying the governments of two entire sovereign nations. We’re prepared to go after a third (North Korea, I’m guessing). What would be, in the retaliatory calculus of the post-9/11 world, an adequate response to a nuclear terrorist attack? How could we top what we’ve already accomplished? I shudder to think. ---
**Author:** ![Saen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d2c977/32.png) [@Saen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saen)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-the-world-respond-to-a-successful-nuclear-attack/221511/30 "2003-12-30T18:12:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Saen \* > \*\* > > I do not know if you know this or not, but North Korea and Japan do not have nukes’ , \*\* I mean South Korea. not North ---
**Author:** ![Flash-57](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/839c29/32.png) [@Flash-57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flash-57)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-the-world-respond-to-a-successful-nuclear-attack/221511/31 "2003-12-30T18:20:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > \*\* > Who cares? The lesson here is simple: Keep control of your nukes. > \*\* The thing is that learning a lesson is only effective if there’s someone left around. If a country is nuked out of existence to “teach them a lesson”, nobody really learns anything, do they? It’s not like they are going to do better next time, since there won’t be a next time. And, of course, other nearby countries won’t learn from this country’s mistake. We already know that this kind of thing doesn’t work (note how the death penalty doesn’t stop or reduce future murders). > [@](#): > > \*\* > Well, instead of launching 100 nukes back at Pakistan, India should instead join the rest of the world in launching nukes at India through whatever process is in place. > \*\* Think about it for a moment. You are India, and Pakistan has just nuked New Delhi. Are you just going to shake your head and simply submit paperwork to the UN indicating that you’ll join in with the counterattack? Gee, hopefully, Pakistan won’t launch ALL of it’s missles at you before the paperwork gets filed. If they know retaliation is coming, they have nothing to lose by pushing all the buttons in the war room. > [@](#): > > \*\* > You could use the same argument to say that the police shouldn’t carry guns because shooting people is a crime. > \*\* Well, technically, it is. I believe the Bible states that. Most governments, however, give waivers for a law officer or military unit that kills an enemy or criminal. It’s still murder, however. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-the-world-respond-to-a-successful-nuclear-attack/221511/32 "2003-12-30T20:31:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Flash-57 \* > **The thing is that learning a lesson is only effective if there’s someone left around. If a country is nuked out of existence to “teach them a lesson”, nobody really learns anything, do they? It’s not like they are going to do better next time, since there won’t be a next time.** You’re almost there. Now, imagine that the people who are being taught a lesson aren’t the ones who launched the nukes, but other government leaders who think it might be a good idea. It’s one thing to launch a nuclear strike knowing your country MIGHT be destroyed. It’s another to launch a nuclear strike knowing it WILL be destroyed, based on past evidence. Absolutely the sanest thing the nations of the world could do in the event of a nuclear exchange would be to kill every last citizen of the offending country. Maybe not with nukes, maybe just with conventional weapons but kill them. It would scare the hell out of the rest and maybe prevent further nuclear exchanges. Even Saddam Hussein would think twice about nuking an enemy if he knew that the most likely outcome would be no more Iraq. I think most government leaders understand these kinds of risks are likely in a nuclear scenario and so it’s not likely. But terrorists, as has been pointed out, are a different breed. They might see a post nuclear world as more friendly to some major religion … say, Islam. ---
**Author:** ![Flash-57](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/839c29/32.png) [@Flash-57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flash-57)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-the-world-respond-to-a-successful-nuclear-attack/221511/33 "2003-12-30T20:43:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Loopydude \* > \*\* > How would we respond if someone detonated even a small warhead in Manhattan? When terrorists toppled the World Trade Center, the US responded by invading and destroying the governments of two entire sovereign nations. … How could we top what we’ve already accomplished? I shudder to think. \*\* In the late 90s, I used to speculate about that with my lunch buddies. “What would we do if Boston suddenly vaporized when a terrorist detonated an atomic bomb in a suitcase?” My reply was that the US would step up to the UN and say, “Look. You’ve had 50 years to fix the world. We’ve now suffered a major loss because of your lack of ability to do that. We can’t afford to let this continue. The United States will now be the world’s police force. Anyone that would like to join us is welcome. Anyone who opposes, please signify by shouting out the coordinates of your capital city.” “Here’s the plan. We have a large number of tactical nukes that we are prepared to use. If your country sponsors terrorism, we will use one on you. If you go to war with your neighbor, we will use one. If you try ethnic clensing, we will use one. You will become an upstanding citizen of the world community.” “All countries, except the United States, that currently have nuclear weapons will reduce their number to two within six months. If not, be prepared to use them, since we will be sending some tacts your way. I’m serious.” “We are not fooling around anymore. We don’t want to rule the wolrd, we simply want to live in a civilized world. And we are willing to shed your blood and risk living with fallout to accomplish that. Good day.” ---
**Author:** ![Windwalker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/5e9695/32.png) [@Windwalker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Windwalker)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-the-world-respond-to-a-successful-nuclear-attack/221511/34 "2003-12-31T01:03:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Evil Captor \* > \*\* > I agree that where feasible a military removal of the government that does a nuclear first strike is probable. Might even get the UN off its fat ass for that one. Failing that, trade sanctions, and I mean EXTREME trade sanctions, are likely. So people are starving and dying in the aggressor country. There will be people starving and dying in the victim country’s and more to the point, there may well be people dying in countries hit by fallout. \*\* I think that military removal of the government may be the goal of the world response (and not retaliatory genocide), but what if the offending government doesn’t comply? A full-scale invasion of a country like India is likely to be extraordinarily messy… Also, if the world threatens the country’s leadership with nuclear reprisal if they don’t step down, wouldn’t that country also be able to counter-threaten? “Look, we still have nukes, and we’ll respond to nuclear attacks in kind. Do you really want armageddon?” Would any world power call that bluff for the sake of justice or deterrence? Also, what if the victim-aggressor angle is muddied? What if Pakistan initiated the war, and India initiated the nuclear exchange? What if Pakistan managed to get off 1 or 2 nukes as well? About sanctions on the offending government, that sounds plausible, except would it really do to make a nuclear aggressor even more desperate? Perhaps a negotiated disarmament plan would be in the works? But we all know how well that worked with Iraq… ---
**Author:** ![Racer1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ee59a6/32.png) [@Racer1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Racer1)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-the-world-respond-to-a-successful-nuclear-attack/221511/35 "2003-12-31T13:09:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Flash-57 \* > **"All countries, except the United States, that currently have nuclear weapons will reduce their number to two within six months. If not, be prepared to use them, since we will be sending some tacts your way. I’m serious."** Is that still your view now you’re a little older though, because can you seriously see Russia, China, or even Western Europe agreeing to such demands? I suspect they’d be much more likely to choose the second option and level the US (as the US levels them) and that’s probably the end of the world. You don’t threaten people with destruction when they can destroy you back, that’s why MAD worked for so long. Or were you just talking about threatening the smaller nuclear nations? As for the OP, my best guess is that the rest of the world would do whatever was necessary to remove the offending government. They would probably start with threats of sanctions and eventually reach up to invasion until they complied. Messy or not, I suspect the whole world would be united on this so an invasion would be used as a last resort. This would be done while providing aid to the victims, and then when the offending government was gone, aid and reconciliation would be offered all around. I doubt they would be nuked unless they’d directly hit a nuclear power that could still hit back. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-the-world-respond-to-a-successful-nuclear-attack/221511/36 "2003-12-31T14:42:07Z")
Well (returning to the OP scenario) there would be both local and global outcomes. If Pakistan was destroyed as state, it would fragment into a number of very angry heavily-armed statelets, all screaming for Indian (and no doubt America for some reason) blood. We are talking decades or centuries of low-level warfare punctuated by some really spectacular terrorism. India and Iran would move in to carve up the radioactive ruins. More critically there would be a very basic rethink around the world about the utility of nukes. Presently, few nations think they would ever really use their nukes. They were built for a huge global bluff. After they are used, and they work, many more nations would see that they too could use nukes to get what they want. That would be to say, the “Nuclear Threshold” would be lowered. That would be a Very Bad Thing. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-the-world-respond-to-a-successful-nuclear-attack/221511/37 "2003-12-31T18:22:35Z")
Uhg. I was not seriously stating that the world should form a nuclear deterrance policy based on a book written by Frank Hebert. I just said that it’s not _that_ crazy of an idea, if you consider that every “country” involved was located on seperate planets. * * * > [@](#): > > _by gouda_ > So using nukes in retaliation to a nuke is okay then? Amusing. Well, this is that stated policy of the United States. The only Weapon of Mass Destruction in the arsenal of the US is nukes. We have chemical and biological agents that are used for study and experimentation, but for defense against them only. If the US is attacked by a WMD (chemical, biological, or nuke) then we reserve the right to counter attack with our only WMD = Nukes. I don’t see what’s amusing about it. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-the-world-respond-to-a-successful-nuclear-attack/221511/38 "2003-12-31T18:31:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Flash-57 \* > The thing is that learning a lesson is only effective if there’s someone left around. If a country is nuked out of existence to “teach them a lesson”, nobody really learns anything, do they? It’s not like they are going to do better next time, since there won’t be a next time. Heh. Nobody ever said that it was fair. > [@](#): > > And, of course, other nearby countries won’t learn from this country’s mistake. We already know that this kind of thing doesn’t work (note how the death penalty doesn’t stop or reduce future murders). Do you really think that lessons learned from the reactions of individuals to the death penalty are applicable to nation states? Of course, other nations (or planets) would learn from the total distruction of a neighbor. It would have a profound impact on them. > [@](#): > > Think about it for a moment. You are India, and Pakistan has just nuked New Delhi. Are you just going to shake your head and simply submit paperwork to the UN indicating that you’ll join in with the counterattack? I’m not arguing that such a system is possible or practicle in the world as it exists today. Certainly, the UN is not capable of such a feat. > [@](#): > > Well, technically, it is. I believe the Bible states that. Oh, then it must be true. :rolleyes: Just like the pi = 3, right? > [@](#): > > Most governments, however, give waivers for a law officer or military unit that kills an enemy or criminal. It’s still murder, however. You’re wrong. Get a dictionary and look up murder. ---
**Author:** ![Flash-57](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/839c29/32.png) [@Flash-57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flash-57)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-the-world-respond-to-a-successful-nuclear-attack/221511/39 "2003-12-31T19:43:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Racer1 \* > **Is that still your view now you’re a little older though, because can you seriously see Russia, China, or even Western Europe agreeing to such demands? I suspect they’d be much more likely to choose the second option and level the US.** I’m not quite sure what I think nowadays. On the one hand, you have quite an Ace in the Hole–You can hold up a photo of the Boston crater and say, “Look. You people didn’t just lose a major city and several million citizens. Next time, these kind of terrorists might target you. We are going to do what must be done to reduce the possibility of a repeat performance. If you refuse to help, we will bring this kind of devastation to your continent.” It would be sort of like that old episode of Star Trek where they destroyed the war-game computer and the citizens faced a messy real war unless they negotiated peace. > [@](#): > > \*\* > As for the OP, my best guess is that the rest of the world would do whatever was necessary to remove the offending government. They would probably start with threats of sanctions and eventually reach up to invasion until they complied. Messy or not, I suspect the whole world would be united on this so an invasion would be used as a last resort.\*\* Not with the kind of UN we have today. They don’t seem to do much more than impose sanctions. They talk about human rights all day, but never do anything to enforce them. ---
**Author:** ![Flash-57](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/839c29/32.png) [@Flash-57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flash-57)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2003, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-the-world-respond-to-a-successful-nuclear-attack/221511/40 "2003-12-31T20:24:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > **Of course, other nations (or planets) would learn from the total distruction of a neighbor. It would have a profound impact on them.** Would they? So, now that the squeaky wheel, Iraq, has been crushed, will North Korea shape right up and become a fine, upstanding nation? I mean, surely they can see the fate that is in store for them. Or is it more likely that North Korea thinks that they are much smarter than Saddam and can avoid the same fate? > [@](#): > > **Oh, then it must be true. :rolleyes:** Perhaps you have noticed that there are a LOT of people who consider the Bible to be the ultimate lawbook. > [@](#): > > **You’re wrong. Get a dictionary and look up murder.** Fair enough. Most definitions include the word, “unlawful.” But that kind of supports my point. The fact that you can kill and get away with it, because there is a law that allows it, is nothing more than a technicality. Suppose, as we invade Iraq, we find a lawbook that Saddam wrote that makes it lawful for Kurds to be killed on sight and another law that allows him to kill any of his people for any reason. We would be forced to set him free because, technically, he had not violated any laws. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-the-world-respond-to-a-successful-nuclear-attack/221511.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-would-the-world-respond-to-a-successful-nuclear-attack/221511.md?page=3)