In the book ArcLight by Eric L. Harry the USSR launches nukes at the US but instead of a full scale retaliation the US invades the USSR.
Admittedly the launched nukes are not a massive attack but even so…
Oh, yeah, sure, since that worked out so well for Napoleon and Hitler.
Would I launch back? Yes, of course. Out of mercy too.
A world after the US is nuked out of the map is going to be hell for everyone anyways. The fallout: radioactive, social, economic et multiple al would doom the “winners” anyways, so might as well end their misery in a flash of nuclear glory.
ETA: Oh, I had missed The Man With The Golden Gun’s response.
Ugghh, I CANNOT stand this meme.
An all out nuke exchange could probably wipe out fairly quickly a few hundred million to a billion or so.
That leaves billions of humans left.
A good fraction of those will starve in the first few years as a result of any possible nuclear winter and the near collapse of modern society.
Civilization will be set back at a low number 50 years and at a high number 100 years.
We will still be left with anywhere from hundreds of millions to a few billion people IMO. The damn dirty apes won’t stand a chance.
With the greatest respect:
Hitler and Napoleon actually lived y’know.
I’m talking about a work of fiction
My word, you do think the US is the be all and end all of everything don’t you?
No. What would be best for humanity and for all living things on the planet would be to minimize the total number of nukes launched in one episode. I believe there is a finite number of nukes that could be detonated before catastrophic and irreversible damage is done and I don’t believe the number is extraordinarily high. I’d rather die knowing that we didn’t murder the rest of the planet in our death throes.
I know, I know. But in each case, the invasion of Russia set in motion a chain of events which led to the invaders’ leader losing power (and Hitler died by his own hand as the Soviets closed in on him). I haven’t read Arc Light, but a U.S. ground invasion of the Soviet Union at any time between 1945 and 1991, and most especially after the U.S. had suffered a nuclear attack, is simply absurd, IMHO.
No, but it does use a large chunk of land and it will take a good number of nukes to destroy. The ecological consequences of this will be huge. Not to mention the economic fallout of some major stock markets being offline, plus the disappearance of a large importer of goods. Not to mention the loss of consumer confidence all around the world in what is by any measure a serious war situation, no matter who is the country bombing the US.
Heck, make it nuking Italy and the consequences are not really that different. A serious ecological catastrophe and major economic implosion.
And leave the world to enemy domination?
Y’see, this time - heh, heh, this is the good part here - this time we invade from the East!
waits for high-fives
There is a reason why the President of the United States is followed around at ABSOLUTELY under all costs at all times by a military officer with the launch plans of the day (the nuclear football) and he carries the launch codes with him at all times. There is also a reason why U.S. nuclear armed submarines hide all around the world at all times in absolute secrecy. Some of them are hiding under Arctic pack ice at this moment ready to launch as well as lots of other places around the world let alone ground based stations.
Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles are extremely fast (they are small space ships) and any leader of such a thing, especially the POTUS, only has a few minutes to decide what to do and it has already been pre-planned. If he isn’t prepared to launch, there is no reason to have it there in the first place.
The U.S. government has several nuclear war contingencies already built in to the system. One is under the White House. The older one was under the The Greenbrier Hotel in West Virginia which had to be abandoned because an irresponsible and arrogant Washington Post reporter decided to reveal it resulting in many millions of dollars of costs to to the tax payers. There is a new one now but few people know where it is (thankfully).
It is completely irresponsible for the last remaining Superpower not to launch with 15 minutes notice. That has to be decided ahead of time.
Here is the Greenbrier nuclear bunker. I assume the new one is better.
If the enemy is launching missiles armed with evil genies who are guaranteed to wipe out everyone else in the world, then there is no point to retaliation.
But if they are only launching regular nukes, then of course you retaliate with your own. You don’t surrender the world to them without a fight unless they have actual unbeatable magic on their side.
Agreed.
I forgot to mention that in the book the nukes were launched following a partly successful coup by some nutty hard line army guys who managed to seize control of a few nuclear facilities.
The Russian gummint apologised to the US but American citizens were mightily pissed and so…
Yes, because its not about deterrence in the present, but deterrence in the future. With the use of nuclear weapons in response to a first strike, you can rest assured that not only will you get very satisfying revenge, but you will prevent the stupid shits from trying to sell that “but they’d never hit us back crap” again. But, would the world crack open like in Civ IV?
Yes, if I could do it as Slim Pickens a la Major T. J. “King” Kong/Dr. Strangelove 
That would be preferable to extinction of life on the planet.
Preferable to **Curtis LeMay **led US domination as well, for that matter.
You make a compelling point.
In the event that nuclear war becomes inevitable, I would launch a preemptive nuclear strike on Dick Cheney.
In the face.
Unless both sides launch 10,000 nukes at once I highly doubt a nuclear war will extinguish life on Earth. We survived the Toba Volcano Eruption.