# You're the POTUS. A nuclear first strike is inbound. Do you authorise the second strike? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 28, 2011, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579 "2011-05-28T17:03:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Mr.Kobayashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Mr.Kobayashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Kobayashi)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/1 "2011-05-28T17:03:02Z")
[Second strike](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_strike) being the return nuclear launch upon a detected first strike, the bread and butter of the MAD doctrine which arguably kept the world intact throughout the Cold War. Here’s the scenario. You’re the pres, shaken awake by an aide in the middle of the night. You are informed that a massive enemy nuclear strike is inbound, confirmed by all possible sources - there is no technical fault, no miscommunication, this is the real deal. You get on the phone with NORAD, confirming that enemy ICBMs are on their way and SLBMs are minutes away from destroying U.S. silos. You try the Red Telephone, but receive no answer. The chain of command waits for your decision. Do you launch the nukes and turn enemy cities to glass, as is your duty under U.S. doctrine, or do you hold off content that you will not go to your grave with the blood of millions on your hands? Any delay or attempt to take a third option is akin to deciding against a strike, given the urgency. For sake of argument, the Vice Pres/Secretary of Defence/whoever are out of contact, so it’s all on you. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/2 "2011-05-28T18:13:47Z")
I would authorise the strike. However, I would be aiming to maximise damage to their chain of command, not their cities. The goal would be to kill the man who ordered the attack, the men who carried out the attack, and everyone in between. ---
**Author:** ![Foggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foggy/32/1082_2.png) [@Foggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Foggy)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/3 "2011-05-28T19:05:17Z")
I would order a full retaliatory strike. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/4 "2011-05-28T19:08:59Z")
Yes, order the strike. And then piss on a spark plug, in case that helps. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/5 "2011-05-28T19:34:32Z")
No. I’d rather my petty culture dies than 99% of the human race. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/6 "2011-05-28T19:34:37Z")
> [@Foggy](#): > > I would order a full retaliatory strike. Bear in mind that their system will be just as good as ours, giving them an equal opportunity to launch a full strike before any of our missiles hit the targets. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/7 "2011-05-28T19:40:10Z")
Of course. I don’t even see an issue here. It’s like you’re asking whether I wipe after taking a dump. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/8 "2011-05-28T19:41:46Z")
> [@Mr.Kobayashi](#): > > [Second strike](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_strike) being the return nuclear launch upon a detected first strike, the bread and butter of the MAD doctrine which arguably kept the world intact throughout the Cold War. > > Here’s the scenario. You’re the pres, shaken awake by an aide in the middle of the night. You are informed that a massive enemy nuclear strike is inbound, confirmed by all possible sources - there is no technical fault, no miscommunication, this is the real deal. You get on the phone with NORAD, confirming that enemy ICBMs are on their way and SLBMs are minutes away from destroying U.S. silos. You try the Red Telephone, but receive no answer. > > The chain of command waits for your decision. Do you launch the nukes and turn enemy cities to glass, as is your duty under U.S. doctrine, or do you hold off content that you will not go to your grave with the blood of millions on your hands? > > Any delay or attempt to take a third option is akin to deciding against a strike, given the urgency. For sake of argument, the Vice Pres/Secretary of Defence/whoever are out of contact, so it’s all on you. Small country with limited nuclear capability, or Russia/China situation with bullgoose loony crap-your-pants capability? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/9 "2011-05-28T19:43:15Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Of course. I don’t even see an issue here. It’s like you’re asking whether I wipe after taking a dump. It’s more like asking whether you should attempt to take an even bigger dump to show who is the big dog. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/10 "2011-05-28T19:45:11Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > No. I’d rather my petty culture dies than 99% of the human race. If someone has control of nuclear-armed ICBMs and is willing to use them without provocation, they _have_ to be stopped. Failure to do so merely delivers the human race into the hands of a monster. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/11 "2011-05-28T19:56:30Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > If someone has control of nuclear-armed ICBMs and is willing to use them without provocation, they _have_ to be stopped. Failure to do so merely delivers the human race into the hands of a monster. Which is still objectively better than destroying the human race altogether (which a full retaliation would lead to one way or the other). Monsters are a strictly temporary problem. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/12 "2011-05-28T19:56:43Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > If someone has control of nuclear-armed ICBMs and is willing to use them without provocation, they _have_ to be stopped. Failure to do so merely delivers the human race into the hands of a monster. Launching your missiles will _not_ stop them from launching what they’ve got left-do you understand this? ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/13 "2011-05-28T20:00:58Z")
Sure - it’s what my voters would want me to do. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/14 "2011-05-28T20:01:49Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Launching your missiles will _not_ stop them from launching what they’ve got left-do you understand this? Isn’t the premise of the question that the bulk of their missiles are already en route? Not responding to a first strike with a second strike in order to prevent a third strike seems like a pretty narrow outcome on the range of outcomes. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/15 "2011-05-28T20:03:41Z")
No. Even taking **Grumman’s** reasoning, I think our nation’s massive martyrdom would be a better message to the rest of the world, and more lethal to such thinking for the rest of human history, than a retaliatory strike. I might send out a message explaining what happened and that the US decided not to make hundreds of millions more innocent people die, and trust that the monsters who committed this crime would soon learn what a revolution looks like. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/16 "2011-05-28T20:04:02Z")
Nuclear war isn’t the world-ending scenario that popular culture portrays it as. It’s the opening salvo of a greater war - at least if we’re assuming a full cold war type exchange. If you weren’t to retaliate, you would be giving up the rest of the war and allowing the power who proved themselves to be evil to dominate the world and further wreck your country. Thinking that not launching would somehow be the humane thing to do would be short sighted. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/17 "2011-05-28T20:13:51Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Nuclear war isn’t the world-ending scenario that popular culture portrays it as. It’s the opening salvo of a greater war - at least if we’re assuming a full cold war type exchange. If you weren’t to retaliate, you would be giving up the rest of the war and allowing the power who proved themselves to be evil to dominate the world and further wreck your country. > > Thinking that not launching would somehow be the humane thing to do would be short sighted. Which is only true if you consider it in terms of my culture vs. their culture. If you forget about borders and ideologies for a minute and instead think in terms of humankind, the conclusion differs. “Saving” your culture, destroying theirs or destroying both is not the humane thing to do. A win from _either side_ is deleterious. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/18 "2011-05-28T20:17:52Z")
It’s not necesarily culture - it can be looked at as a country. A country that was willing to aggressively wipe out a significant chunk of humanity, and you’re willing to let them survive it unscathed so that they could dominate the rest of the world? So that they could keep attacking you and destroy your attempts to keep the remaining 40-80% of your population alive? ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/19 "2011-05-28T20:26:43Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Nuclear war isn’t the world-ending scenario that popular culture portrays it as. Do you have anything to back this up? Anything I’ve heard about popular depictions like The Day After and Threads and whatnot says that they all tend to fail on the side of optimism. If the US or USSR launched a full scale nuclear strike, everything I’ve seen says that it’s basically a world ending event, regardless of retaliation. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2011, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/20 "2011-05-28T20:28:35Z")
Country, culture, same thing. The point is you’re letting the whole us vs. them thing dictate your actions, and decide that dooming the entire human race is a better idea than letting “them” win. Who cares if they dominate the rest of the world ? That’s up to the rest of the world to solve in their own time. Tyrants aren’t immortal. Everything dies. Injustice never lasts, cannot last. It’s a temporary problem. But if I retaliate, there won’t \*be \*a rest of the world. Nuclear winter will blanket the Earth and it’s game over for all but a precious few lucky Adams and Eves. Perhaps not even them. In absolute terms, it’s way worse - a permanent “solution” to a temporary problem. It’s akin to committing suicide because you’re out of money. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579.md?page=2)