I don’t see any country defending Pakistan in a case like this. It was Philadelphia this time but next year it could be Moscow or Shanghai or Paris or Cairo; nobody wants to condone a country that isn’t able to control its nuclear arsenal.
After 9/11 even countries like Cuba and Iran publicly announced their support for America and condemned Al Qaeda. After a nuclear attack, the reaction would be even more one-sided.
Going to disagree about the immediate bloodlust. At least among the people I knew and conversed with in the aftermath. But different people have different experiences and the plural of anecdote isn’t data.
Really though, I wanted to chime in to point out that even a ‘modest’ Hiroshima-sized device, detonated at ground level in the heart of Philly, is going to result in a public health catastrophe at least an order of magnitude greater than anything this country has ever faced. Play around with NUKEMAP and get your own numbers, but I had 80k-ish deaths and the same number of wounded, not counting those from fallout. EDIT: Which, in a groundburst, even with a small device, are going to be significant, if the plume extends over a populated area. At least in contamination and later health care costs, if not actual deaths.
Ballpark, my guess for casualty in $ would be in the 100s of billions USD. IMHO, the desire for retribution that would unleash in Vox Populi Americana, would not be satisfied by merely killing/capturing those responsible and denuclearizing Pakistan.
The losses and shock to the American public would be unprecedented in US history. I easily can see it triggering something like a global economic depression, and I don’t know that the republic would survive it, frankly.
It is not stated policy. The latest Nuclear Posture Review published in Feb 2018 has this set off from the rest of the text as it’s “articulation of U.S. declaratory policy regarding the potential employment of nuclear weapons” (my bolding)-
We consider nuclear response. It’s an option, not a promise. It doesn’t even take targeting US forces specifically. Allies or partners is enough. We need to be careful about assuming old notions of bilateral Mutually Assured Destruction from the Cold War sstill apply in a multilateral post-Cold War environment. Things change. Nuclear use policy is one of the things that’s continued to change during the almost three decades since the Berlin Wall fell.
One significant change is in the next paragraph of declaratory policy which specifically mention usage only against nuclear states or states that are not signatories of, and in compliance with, the Non-proliferation Treaty. We abandoned the old notion of treating all WMD attacks as the same in 2009 under the Obama administration NPR. As a matter of policy, most states in the world can currently use chemical weapons against the US without that potentially triggering a nuclear response.
There is a section in the executive summary of the NPR that specifically talks about the role of our nuclear weapons in response to nuclear terror:
.
I could see some extreme hypotheticals where Pakistan actually assisted a terror organization in a failed attempt to create plausible denial for a limited nuclear strike. Outside of that, I’d be surprised if the Joint Chiefs or CENTCOM Commander would recommend nuclear release against Pakistan, or against terror organizations in the loosely controlled Federally Administered TribalAreas of Pakistan, under current policy There’s just not much in the way of clear benefit for using a nuclear versus a conventional response. We certainly aren’t in a policy environment where we’d automatically treat it as a nuke for a nuke.
One aspect that I believe has not been raised yet is the fact that Pakistan is an Islamic nation.
Would that enter into the US’s deliberations?
I hadn’t meant for it to be considered in the OP, but the effect of an ‘Islamic Bomb’ does, I think, add an interesting ‘nuance’. ETA: and any US response may be contingent on who is POTUS at the time, e.g. Trump or someone else.
According to the OP’s original premise, it’s already known unambiguously that the bomb was of Pakistani origin. We might not know who actually set it off: It might be the Pakistani government itself, or it might be rogue factions within the Pakistani military, or it might be unrelated terrorists. But that’s not even relevant. At the very best, their security was insufficient to keep one of their weapons out of the hands of those who would use it against us. And if it happened once, it can happen again. Hence, we will ensure that they disarm.
How they disarm will be up to them. They can cooperate, or we can do it without their cooperation.
Dino, while the benefits of ambiguity in strategic response are documented (See, e.g., the United States’s policy towards the PRC regarding Taiwan’s independence and maintenance of same.), isn’t the clause, ‘the United States will not necessarily respond to a nuclear attack on its city with nuclear weapons’, really meant to cover things like a radiological attack instead of a city getting nuked? IOW, I wouldn’t expect that clause to decide whether the US would respond with a nuclear attack upon the nation that originated the weapons or personnel that were responsible for Philly taking a Hiroshima groundburst.
Karl, since this is an oddly specific hypo, how does the US know the device originated from Pakistan? And if it did, with Stranger’s post in mind, does the US know if it was the: device, nuclear material (fissionable material, tritium or other source for boosted fusion, or fusible material), actors, or any and all of the above? Because it seems to me that culpability varies greatly depending on which permutation we choose.
Moreover, what other information is available concerning the attack: is there an entity claiming responsibility, do they claim that other devices are cached in other US cities, is there a decapitation attack inbound figuring—based on some of the above posters’ logic—that the US is just going to lash out at everyone anyway, so see if they can interdict any US retaliatory response?
My understanding (and I’ll acknowledge I’m not an expert) is that it is possible to determine the origins of nuclear material to a fairly high decree. The processing of raw ore into weapons-grade material requires the use of a number of facilities and each one is different enough that it leaves its own distinct signature on the final product. So investigators can analyze the various trace elements and specific isotopes that are present and tell if the weapon was made in Russia or France or China or Pakistan.
I didn’t say “bloodlust” and would never frame it like that. But public support for sending troops to Afghanistan was over 90% in 2001 according to Gallup.
Obviously there’s a great deal of opposition to the Afghanistan war (let alone Iraq) now, but let’s not misremember what it was like in the initial aftermath.
And a nuclear strike is of course many orders of magnitude greater in terms of bodycount, casualties and destruction.
Americans will be watching, day after day, countless horrific images: huge population centers reduced to ash, charcoal corpses, casualties with burns covering their whole bodies, the blind, the families weeping for their lost relatives and on and on. I doubt any country would be appropriately restrained at a time like that, but especially not the US.
Playing devil’s advocate, maybe if it’s very clear immediately (within 48 hours) that it was an isolated action of a terrorist group and US troops and/or Pakistan army were able to apprehend or kill all of the leadership of that group within, say, 2 weeks, and Pakistan agreed to surrender its nuclear deterrent and for a huge number of US troops to be stationed there while that happened…yeah I can conceive that there would be no further escalation. But that’s what it would take to avoid another war.
Again I am not talking about the rights and wrongs of it at this point, just speculating about what would happen.
Yeah, I’m not an expert either, but I thought the transmutive properties of multi-stage devices muddied the ability by which a radio chemist could pronounce definitively the properties of a bomb debris sample, a la the denouement of “The Sum Of All Fears”. Moreover, and not covered in the Clancy novel, you’re only going to be able to match bomb debris to a given reactor run (as in that book, from Savannah River’s reactor) if you had material coupons from the source reactor to begin with. None of which—unless the CIA’s a lot better than I think—applies to a device from Pakistani source nuclear material.
“Certain” like a plane flying into a building, or “certain” like Iraq having usable WMDs in 2003?
Since the world would be expected to go by some sort of isotope analysis here and - let’s just say the US government and its allies’ track record of honestly sourcing nuclear materiel is … not great.
Exactly. Basically, every country that has nukes (and probably a bunch that don’t) would be in a fog of war initially wrt what the fuck had just happened and what, exactly, would be the US response to having one of our cities go up in nuclear fire. No one would be looking to defend Pakistan (even it’s purported allies, like China, would be looking to distance themselves from them), but they wouldn’t or couldn’t know what we would do next. Hell, turn it around…what would the Russian’s do if Saint Petersburg went up in fire? Gods know but they would be VERY pissed and pretty tense and everyone, including the US, would be falling over themselves to assure the Russian’s that it wasn’t them and that they would help in any way they could. Just like your example after 9/11…but multiplied by…7!
63/77!
If the USA is gonna bring the sunshine to Karachi, fuck no.
The facts are that the city of brotherly love had a nuclear event and a shit ton of Americans are dead and a state of war now exists.
Did the Pakistani politicians and military have anything to do with it, personally I am gonna think not and they are getting framed.
Did the ISI have anything to do with it, even if they are innocent lots of people are going to think otherwise.
So basically I can see the US responding with a strike on the Northwest territories, no one is going to give a shit if they get nuked
No politician is gonna care if they are christian or islamic