How exactly do you expect things to get worse?
It could be raining :Feldman:
MAD is the threat. The doctrine of deterrence by assuring the other side’s destruction.
One might argue that the doctrine is wrong or not necessary at some level–that a nuclear power would not launch a first strike under this or that circumstances, even with the expectation that their own country could survive. But one cannot argue that the doctrine failed, as that would mean that a nuclear attack had occurred.
The OP of this thread is asking about the hypothetical case in which MAD has failed.
Retaliate immediately. Missiles from the fields and subs will be launched ASAP. The first B-1s, B-2s, and B-52s will be uploaded and in the air within a hour. Inaction is not a option, as soon Russia initiated their first attack WWIII started. Sitting on your hands and doing nothing because" we already lost" would be extreme negligence.
I like the username/post combo. 
Of course, and I’d probably end up hitting the Chinese as well starting with the Three Gorges Dam.
It can always get worse.
First take on it after reading it is yes with everything we got and the kitchen sink, not because of retaliation but because such a force that would launch such a strike should not be allowed to exist for the sake of the remaining humanity.
Second thought, if their strike would cause a nuke winter, no need to go full out, just take out their command and control strategically, let Ma Nature handle their remaining forces and government which will collapse.
MAD might or might not have prevented anyone from launching a first strike. But if it truly worked, then we’d all be dead from retaliatory strikes, from any of the many times that one side or the other knew the other had already launched. Read up on Stanislav Petrov, for instance. Spoiler alert: All of those times turned out to be false alarms. But we didn’t know that at the time, and if MAD had functioned, the side that thought they were being attacked would have retaliated.
The real reason we survived the Cold War was not MAD. It was that people, on both sides of the Iron Curtain, are mostly fundamentally decent.
As I understand it, AD never required or assumed launch on warning. The whole point of a large arsenal was to survive the first strike and be able to launch a devastating second strike. Whether we ever reached that point is as unknowable as to whether any of the many close calls could have triggered a launch.
BTW, Col. Petrov and others in the Soviet system have always contended that there were additional safeguards in place that probably would have prevented a launch even if the Col. had done what he was supposed to do.
As far as I know, the worst time was the Cuban Missile Crisis. There was a conference after the cold war ended where the principals on both sides sat down to go over the details. At least 2 moments struck me as most serious: US Navy pinging of a soviet submarine had become so intense that 2 of the 3 officers on board with the keys were OK with launching a nuclear torpedo at US Navy vessels. If that one officer had succumbed to the pressure, full-scale war would have been immediate. And Moscow had decided that communication with Cuba was about to be cut off and had turned over full launch control to the Soviet commander in Cuba. While the missiles weren’t quite ready, they were a lot closer than the US believed. And the Cuban Government (Castro and his buddies) had decided everyone was already about to die and was pressuring the Soviet commander to launch as soon as he could. No one on the US side was aware of either of these situations until the conference.
That may well be true.
No. The moment anyone on either side pushes a launch button for real, then it has failed. And in terms of its own logic, that is the only way it can fail.* It doesn’t matter if that person thinks they are launching a first strike or a second. The premise of MAD is that any nuclear exchange between the US/Nato and the Soviet Union/Russia is unthinkable.
Given this context, Petrov knew that an actual American first strike would be a desperate, insane gamble with the fate of the world. These few blips… didn’t look anything like that. If the prevailing doctrine had not been that nuclear war was unwinnable, it would have been more imaginable that an attack of one or a very few missiles was real. It would have been easier to push the button in response.
- Of course, as long as the capacity to wage nuclear war remains in the world, it cannot be said to have ultimately succeeded, either.
I doubt that’s how the choice should be made, but I’m curious: if you don’t fire back, won’t you go down in history as the guy Putin figured wouldn’t fire back? Like, future historians will say “America had all those nukes pointed right at Russia – but Putin realized he could bomb them back to the Stone Age without Bob retaliating!”
But if you do launch, won’t future historians say, “Man, what the hell was wrong with Putin? I mean, all those nuclear missiles pointed right at his country – and he thought that Bob wouldn’t retaliate in kind? Had he lost his damn mind?”
Putin has done nothing truly wrong for a start and is a good man trying to do his best for his nation and his people do love him much more than any US President is liked by there people.
Any nuke attack will be bad for the nation that starts it, the rest of the world will unite and come down hard on such stupidity and such a government will be kicked out that fast.
The USA is acting as morons with Russia and should just piss off and leave things to Europe to deal with such things, if Europe wants help fine but US is nuts to deal as it has been doing with Russia and the US has been only a total shit stirrer.
Let Europe lead the way as they truly know what they are dealing with and the US are uneducated on the subject and will only cause so much trouble because of their ignorance of the reality.
We don’t want a war in Europe, so f off and go home.
No one will win taking on Russia, taking them on is totally insane, all hostility should stop directly, any leader acting in a hostile or cunning way is not fit for office.
The US President is a total moron who’s only has worked towards trying to be creating trouble.
We are talking about millions of peoples lives here, nothing is worth that ! haven’t people learnt or figured that out yet.
Uh . . . you realize this is all supposed to be in the context of the OP, right?
So, yeah: that is, in this hypothetical, the thing he’s done, is what I’m saying.
Funny that was just reading about Harold Haring. He asked the right question. That said, I don’t know what I would do. They have to believe that I am willing to push the button, but my last act were I to do so would be that of an insane, genocidal madman. My conscience says I wouldn’t do it, but in the end I can’t be sure.
I would be kind of weary if it was a situation like Stanislav Petrov, but assuming a perfect information scenario as laid out by the hypothetical and I’m about to be vaporized I say fuck it let 'em fly!
For those of you who hesitate about retaliation, think about the next time. If you fail to retaliate, then nuclear arms will no longer be a deterrent and the world just became a much more dangerous place.
Not necessarily, just because one individual or nation didn’t respond in kind doesn’t mean the next person or nation wouldn’t, that element of doubt still remains.
But precedent would indicate otherwise. And it would be most problematic in the smaller scenarios such as an attack with a single nuke. If there is the precedent of not retaliating for a large strike, people will think retaliation for a small strike even less likely.
They would only have that one example though, and even if all other aspects are the same personalities would come into play, would President Hillary Clinton be more or less likely to order nuclear retaliation than President Trump for example?*
Regarding the small versus large strike someone might be more willing to retaliate on a generally like for like basis to a limited nuclear attack than massively retaliate to a massive strike, its possibly two cities with several million dead as compared to every city and hundreds of millions, possibly billions dead.
I’m not sure I can put into words how it makes me feel that people would be genuinely willing to do that. I hope it would be somewhat different if the person actually had their finger on ‘the button’ as opposed to typing up a response on a message board.
*this is purely hypothetical, although a long and detailed answer including deep psychoanalysis would be…helpful.