So, how many Tomahawks get fired and how fast?
I have 712 Tomahawks in my office pool.
The office at Raytheon? 
Yes. It makes swimming difficult.
Lol. I see. Gonna be a hot summer.
You could almost say it’s gonna be… nuclear.
I would not be surprised right now , if Riyadh was being defended by Israeli arrow batteries.
If the Iranian govt is willing to go after the Saudi’s, then the balloon is going to be going up in the Middle east, and thats going to be an all Middle East intermural.
Declan
Absolutely not. Bleeding heart sympathies may work in conventional warfare but they are completely misguided when it comes to a world that always had the potential to go to full scale or fragmented nuclear war over time. It isn’t the same thing as conventional war at all. The only solution known comes from Game Theory and that requires full nuclear response to any nation or group that launches a nuclear attack even if the result is tens of millions of civilian deaths. Anyone making that decision has the of future of humanity itself in their hands and the must follow through with it. That is the kindest response in the long-term for the most number of people.
I take it that a lot of people in this thread are not people that grew up during the Cold War so you probably aren’t as educated on it as even a schoolchild that grew up under it in the 1950’s - the early 1990’s. The ONLY determent to strategic nuclear strikes is the absolute promise that any nation that engages in a first strike has to be destroyed along with most of its population. It sound cold and it is but the future of humanity is at stake so tens of millions of lives lost in Iran or any other nation that might see fit to launch a strike is a small ethical price to pay.
All of these plans are already in place now and ready to be acted on within a few minutes for any type of nuclear strike. Cheyenne Mountain Colorado is still fully active and the sole purpose of that mountain military bunker base to this day is to react to a nuclear strike coming from anywhere in the world with the full MAD doctrine.
The procedure for this is Cheyenne Mountain makes a confirmation of a launch or detonation, the Joint Chiefs of Staff are called for an emergency, the proper pre-prepared counter-attack plan is identified, and then the President of the United States is contacted to authorize the counterattack. The President has a military officer that follows him around 100% of the time and carries the ‘nuclear football’ which tells him the procedures for authoring a launch when time comes. The response plan for any given strike is already planned so it is just a matter of executing the pre-authorized procedures.
All of this happens in just a few minutes. From there, the launch sequence begins probably from nuclear subs that are always awaiting the launch call hidden in underwater all over all over the world. Time to first detonation on the offending country should be less than an hour as long as the identification is confident.
I don’t know what the counterattack plan would be for Iran but it has to follow MAD Doctrine. That is an easy one. Really hard problems for the U.S. would be if Israel started using its nukes against anyone or if a rouge group took control of Israeli nuclear asserts on their soil.
I must be on your ignore list.
I think we all hear what you’re saying, but honestly, you don’t think conventional military wisdom has been modified AT ALL since the cold war? What you’re describing is analagous to shooting the beehive of the bee that stung you with an RPG, then lighting it on fire despite the fact that the tree it hung from goes up in flames too.
America has much more potential now than they did in the cold war to completely obliterate any minor state that launches ANYTHING against us without the assistance of nuclear weapons, once all political pressure is removed (like if they nuked us). Many many big bombs, and many many moderate sized bombs, all without the nuclear fallout, can and would be launched quickly.
Escalation only goes in ONE direction. It’ll turn into a planet-destroying shitstorm of nukes long before anybody learns any lessons. Nuclear deterrence is kinda tiered…and Iran isn’t even on the first tier with one nuke, or even two. Nuking America (or anyone else) means Iran will just become the biggest douchebags on the planet for the next 100 years, besides being demolished by every country we’ve ever done any business with, and nobody would even seriously consider launching nukes back at them. Once they blow their load, it’s gone man. Ain’t no second shot coming from that little sand dune.
Imagine playing dodgeball, and there’s one guy left on the other side, and 100 on your side, and he throws his one and only ball. The game’s over at that point. He loses. He’s got nothing left to taunt anyone else with. Because in the real world, after Iran launches a nuke, all their nuke-launching capabilities will be taken away from them FOREVER by every grown-up nation on the planet. They will no longer hold any balls to throw. There’s no need to shoot the guy in the face in retaliation. It proves nothing, nor does it prevent anything.
Destroying Iran with non-nuclear means is the absolutely only way to make sure that no other little douchebag nations step up and try to repeat the idiotic move, and it sets the example for all the other big dogs on the planet.
Destroying their entire existence with a shitload of nukes is the absolutely only way to insure that the entire planet goes ape-shit crazy from that point forward. Now nukes are the standard, and everybody with half a grudge goes blowing each other to smithereens, cuz America did it, so it’s ok now!
Oh, please. The “plan” you are recommending isn’t based on any noble desire to save humanity, it’s based on the fact that we have thousands of nukes and they don’t. We’d mass murder their entire population because they can’t do the same to us in return. If we nuked them in a first strike as we’ve occasionally threatened (like Bush explicitly refusing to “take the nuclear option off the table” with Iran), we’d never consider it reasonable for someone to obliterate all of America in return.
But of course, our foreign policy is based on the theory that you only count as human if you are an American, so that isn’t surprising. Most Americans would have no more concern about killing everyone in Iran than they would about killing the same number of rats. Less, if anything.
So, you think that the best way to prevent a single nuclear attack from escalating into a larger nuclear war is to launch a full scale nuclear counterattack? :dubious:
There’s nothing “bleeding heart” about it-- a full-scale nuclear response to a single attack by a small rogue state would be almost as insane as the attack itself. It would be an unmitigated diplomatic and environmental disaster, and would have far more potential to devolve into a true world war. How’s Russia going to feel about the huge radioactive mess wafting into their heartland and the enormous destabilization of its southern borders, for instance?
I think people of the Cold War generations (of which I am in the tail end) seem to impart almost magical qualities on the MAD doctrine because nuclear war seemed so inevitable at some points, which in retrospect was not nearly as true as it seemed. MAD’s effectiveness even in its stated aim (to prevent a first-strike by another major nuclear power) is arguable and there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to think it is or should be our one-size-fits all policy towards nuclear weapons in the present day.
Heck, it sure worked in Iraq.
What in the Sam Hill are you blathering on about? Are you even in the same discussion?
Where’s all this America-demonizing attitude coming from? We can be dumbasses sure, but man you’re the king of the hill when it comes to embellishing, exaggerating, and hyperbolic extrapolations.
Do you hate the country you live in THAT much? Perhaps a move to the much calmer Canada, or Switzerland, would help you gain some perspective.
You do realize that the people in charge of killing entire other nations have a bit more sense and couth than the average person waiting in line at the local Dairy Queen? I think you’re conflating the attitudes prevalent in your day-to-day life with the attitudes that motivate people with the big red button at their disposal.
^+1
Word.
The discussion where much of one side is calling for genocide? Yes, that’s the discussion I’m in.
America’s rather “demonic” behavior.
And now we have the old “America love it or leave it” routine.
I see no evidence of that at all. Less, if anything.
MAD worked and continues to work just based on results.The U.S. nuked Japan twice and I think justifiably so because we were the only nuclear power at the time. The whole game changes as soon as more than one side has nuclear bombs. I grew up with the very real possibility that I wouldn’t live to see adulthood due to nuclear war as I am sure you did. The threat was very real and never went away. I don’t distinguish between the U.S. killing close to a hundred million Soviets or vice versa and killing tens of millions in Iran (and again, vice vesra). Circumstances changed over the last 20 years but that doesn’t mean that the best way to play the game ever did.
There is no point in having nuclear weapons unless you are prepared to unleash their full power when necessary. They are weapons of total destruction, not strategic weapons.
A lot of that fear of nuclear war was being fed by propagandists and fear-mongers on both sides. The fact of the matter is that after the 50’s or so, it became quite clear that nuclear weapons were only effective at achieving diplomatic goals when used as a bargaining chip. Actually using them in practice meant you’d at best be able to conquer a pile of radioactive rubble.
After Stalin, no Soviet leader was ever in a position where they would have seriously considered a nuclear first strike, and of course no US leader was either. In the meantime, though, the MAD doctrine demanded a hairpin-trigger attitude that led to several very near misses. In retrospect, MAD was probably more likely to cause an accidental nuclear war than prevent an intentional one. I seriously doubt MAD is even our current policy towards large nuclear powers, and I seriously hope it isn’t towards minor ones.
Actually, according to a 2006 Greenpeace article (I know, not always a font of fully accurate information);
"within 48 hours,prevailing winds would spread fallout to cover a large area in Iran,most of Afghanistan and then spread on into Pakistan and India. Thereis little likelihood, in most seasons, that rain would mitigate thespread of fallout.
In this scenario, over 35 million people in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India would suffer significant radiation exposure"
So we’d be nuking our own troops in Afghanistan with the fallout and spreading it across Pakistan (good luck getting any of our shit out of or through there ever again) and India. Wonderful.
Other sources confirm that Pakistan would be hardest hit.
And they have their own nukes, in case they find themselves rather annoyed with us.
You outlined the major reasons in favor of MAD in your first paragraph but it was and is far from being a farse. There were a few near misses and I hope the U.S. and everyone else is much more careful today. However, there is a very good reason why we have those nuclear subs hidden underwater all the time and NORAD on 24/7 alert even today. I don’t know what the pre-planned response would be for any given Iran or North Korea nuclear attack but I do know that the response has already been pre-planned and it would be extremely swift.
The countless billions of dollars of U.S. infrastructure still set up for a nuclear launch are not just for show and MAD Doctrine says that offending country be be destroyed along with millions of civilians.
Keep in mind that this isn’t a short-term plan. Again, it is to ensure humanity’s long-term survival by sending an unambiguous message to anyone that has nukes. Looking at the long-term, many of believe that complete destruction of any offending country is a kind goal to humanity as whole in the long-term and really the only solution.