Sounds like your original motive was revenge, not what was best for humanity. Even if your original motive was doing what was best for humanity…needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few and all that, most pro-life people don’t support abortion even if it would benefit others (like in the case of a struggling family that can’t afford to feed another, or perhaps better related to this scenario, a terrorist or a dictator’s unborn child that he hopes will follow in his footsteps).
I would launch and with great relish! Screw em.
If not then they’d have won. They’d have gambled that you wouldn’t have the stones to actually launch nukes even in the face of your destruction. And they’d be right.
They’d be throwing themselves a big parade on top of your dead body. I don’t think that would be nice.
If someone broke into your house and shot you, but before you were hit (you had also pulled a gun) you had a chance to shoot and kill them…(whilst you realized you were about to die), you wouldn’t shoot them? Not even for spite?
I think that’s nuts.
If someone broke into your house and shot you, would you blow up your house, killing your family and some of your neighbors? Not even for spite?
Thus denying them any chance of fighting off the evil Commies themselves.
Following this logic, maybe we should just take a preemptive strike and blow everything up now, and eliminate that threat forever.
Your analogy is a FAIL.
My family would be already dead (he killed them)…the correct analogy would be “would you kill HIS family too”. Sure, if that was the pre-arranged deal, “kill someone and their family and they kill YOU and YOUR FAMILY”. I’d do it in a second. His family is probably a bunch of jerks, just like him.
Yes, if they (who ever they are) fired on North America.
Now if China and Russia go head to head or India vs Pakistan for that matter, then no. Simple proportianate response if we have a " friendly fire" or accidental incident with a five megaton nuke on domestic or military occupied soil or sea.
Take outa carrier battlegroup “accidently” and we are gonna accept, oops my bad, not likely.
Declan
I’d fire off the nukes, why wouldn’t I? I’d have a duty to all of my countrymen that I’ve been sworn to protect. If I let Russia knock us off the map without a fight I would have let everyone down.
And I’m sure all those who are dead will rise up out of their graves and applaud your fine efforts.
Not necessarily, if the pro-life position is view to be be more about control than life. Want to control who can have an abortion? Want to contol who lives or dies? It kinda fits.
Yes, because to be “pro-life” one must obviously be a complete pacifist, never support war in any circumstance, never kill in self defense or defense of their family, etc.
And to be pro-choice, you have to support someone’s choice to be able to view child porn or steal someone’s car. After all, those are choices, and if you’re pro choice you must be pro all choices!
Let’s just stop this ridiculousness.
If you can show how nuking a country for revenge is justifiable war or self defense, then you would have a point. I think it’s reasonable to say that being pro-life should mean being opposed to killing millions of innocent civilians. It’s also reasonable to hold such views without being a complete pacifist.
You’ve got a scenario where you think it would be best to launch a counter-attack, and I think in the case you describe (where the attackers are the Soviet Union, the US won’t be completely destroyed by the attack, etc.), what you are suggesting might be reasonable. I might add that I still think it would be inconsistent with a pro-life view, but I’m not sure if that would even be a concern of yours.
In the OP’s scenario, though, the motive proposed was to “try to kill as many of them as they kill your people”. No mention of specific countries was given. The impression I took was that some rouge nation attacked the US with a attack large enough to wipe out the country, and the counterstrike would be designed to wipe out the attacking country (and quite likely its neighbors as well). I just find this to be contradictory to the pro-life position expressed by the OP.
Oh sure , start another zombie thread
Declan
I’d think I’d at least think deserve a parade or something.
Right. So then, Delirious as Head of Government of Great Power X (so as to remove the “US” factor from it), and the nukes are flying:
Scenario 1: Attack is by another Great Power and is a strictly strategic strike (against my militarily valuable targets and key command centers). Order immediate retaliatory counterforce strike – if possible by launching the very weapons of mine THEY are targeting – at THEIR missile silos, airbases, naval and army depots, command centers, EW radars, leadership bunkers and militarily strategic industrial/transport assets . No city-busting for extermination’s own sake, though the latter two classes of target will probably take out quite a bit of civilian collaterals.
Scenario 2: Attack is by rogue state seeking to cause maximum casualties on my civilians, but it’s not “Great Power” scale. Again, retaliatory counterforce strike to their strategic assets, plus, strategic strike to annihilate their conventional forces and cripple their overall economy and infrastructure. Render the rogue state unable to follow up. Considerably heavier collaterals for this one but still, no city-busting for extermination’s own sake. The amount of casualties created by collaterals from the economy-crippling and command-decapitation strikes should sate most people’s thrist for blood.
Scenario 3: My nation has been caught with our collective pants down, holding our privy members, in a massive total strike exchange. After one or two rounds of retaliation, we’re wiped out, ruined, our history has ended, we have no more cities, industries, powerplants, means of transportation; my surviving peoples will starve over the next winter if there’s noone to come aid them. The other side looks almost as bad, only they may actually be able to make it through the winter if we just stop shooting now. . .
The order stands. If able to do so, as long as able to do so, and to the extent able to do so, take out militarily strategic assets, so their threat to other nations is reduced. But when there is no strategic objective left to achieve, but to maximize death and have two instead of one ruined nations starve over the next winter… it’s over. I’ve been defeated. I’m putting away the remaining launch codes and notifying the victors mi successor awaits their terms.
I see two good reasons to strike back given the OP:
1.) To scare the living fuck out of the next person who gets this idea.
2.) To make sure this country doesn’t go for the nuclear blackmail option with the rest of the world.
I think killing 20-30 million people to satisfy those goals would be acceptable under the circumstances. The remaining 5.97 billion people will live in a saner world.
Buying into most current thinking on international affairs, it would take a really really odd circumstance for a non-totalitarian state to do launch a full scale nuclear first strike (only remotely plausible case is india v pakistan, and that’s really much more likely to be targeted at military installations, especially nuclear sites). So lets assume that it’s russia or china, the only states that could really pull this off.
In either case, a true decapitation strike would probably bring the country to its knees as they’d be lucky to avert civil war. I’d hit the capital, the major military installations, and wherever i thought the leadership was most likely to be hiding. in a country like China, you could completely destroy it’s power projection ability while leaving the vast majority of it’s population totally unaffected. In russia…lets face it, they’d be lucky if their missiles worked and, even if they did, they’d need a lot of further luck for their bombers…or their tanks. Removing Russia as a conventional or atomic threat wouldn’t be a challenge.
The more interesting scenario is what to do if China nukes just LA and then tells us that war is coming unless we yank out of the South China Sea. Now that’s poker.
I’d be tempted to launch if only because Provokia’s citizens would die a quick death by the immediate effects of a nuclear blast, as opposed to a slow, painful death by the nuclear fallout and later climate change that would follow from Themanwiththegoldengunland getting nuked.
Right. Well I’m not voting for you to be President then Squink! 
I would launch a small nuke at wherever the leadership happens to be. My obligation is to the survival of the human race, and part of that must include the assassination of the leadership willing to destroy everything. But I imagine most of their civilians would be as innocent as my own, so I would let them inherit the Earth.
Better them than no one.