# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/61 "2011-05-29T02:07:59Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > The same can be said of any war. There were undoubtedly many people in Germany, Japan, and Italy for instance who opposed their governments’ wars, yet we ended up in the end, sadly, harming many of them in our campaigns? How many anti-Nazis died at Dresden, or how many opponents of genocidal Bushidoism died at Hiroshima? What you said you would do, order a full retaliatory strike, is much much different in scale than what the Allies did in WW2. If you have misinterpreted what you would do, or if I have mistaken what you would have done, then correct me. But from what I gather, you seem like you’d find it more important to prove your POTUS credentials than minimize casualties. For example, like I said, I personally would not fully retaliate, leaving nukes only for the capital city and probably some important weapon cities. I’d go with a conventional strike to cripple as much of their capabilities as possible > [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Simple reason. A lot of the nukes will get shot down, fail, be destroyed on the ground etc. and many will be exploded in high-priority targets at once thus sparing other areas. Again, where are you getting your calculations from? How do you know that “a lot”, if any, nukes will be shot down, fail, or be destroyed on the ground? > [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Exactly. Primitives survived those great disasters, we- far more intelligent and advanced can survive it better, I thought you were Christian? You’d doom most of the globe to a slow death from nuclear winter? And you mistake the point I’m trying to make. I didn’t say humanity wouldn’t survive, but I question that such a near-extinction event is BETTER than being under a totalitarian state. Why do you think it’s BETTER that humanity start over than simply submit to such a ruler for a few decades? > [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > We survived them by fighting massive wars against them, not letting them cut our throats. Is your contention that if the US is destroyed, no other country in the world nor in the FUTURE history of the world will be capable of overthrowing the regime that destroyed it? And that you’re so sure of that you’d be willing to bet most of the human race on it in the form of a catastrophic nuclear strike? > [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Except it won’t destruction of civlization. It’ll be as others have said lead to a conventional war once both sides get past the nuke phase, and in addition if we don’t retaliate the Soviets will continue to bomb us. It will be the destruction of civilization because the amount of nukes the US and Russia has is enough to darken the skies of the planet for years and spread radiation to all corners of the globe. If the Soviets continue to bomb us it will STILL be less suffering than if we threw dozens, hundreds, or thousands of nukes at them in retaliation. I’m not saying give up, but I’m saying that a full nuclear retaliation is insane and would help no one. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/62 "2011-05-29T02:09:33Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > I would not of course delibrately target civilians or population centres. Then you can’t use nukes. You don’t do surgical militray strikes with nukes. Their intent is to mass slaughter civilians. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/63 "2011-05-29T02:13:49Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > What you said you would do, order a full retaliatory strike, is much much different in scale than what the Allies did in WW2. If you have misinterpreted what you would do, or if I have mistaken what you would have done, then correct me. But from what I gather, you seem like you’d find it more important to prove your POTUS credentials than minimize casualties. For example, like I said, I personally would not fully retaliate, leaving nukes only for the capital city and probably some important weapon cities. I’d go with a conventional strike to cripple as much of their capabilities as possible I would not mass slaughter civilians for the sake of revenge obviously but I would target their military bases, oil reserves, industrial centres, and so on to cripple them. > [@](#): > > Again, where are you getting your calculations from? How do you know that “a lot”, if any, nukes will be shot down, fail, or be destroyed on the ground? Because the first target of the nukes will be other nukes. > [@](#): > > I thought you were Christian? You’d doom most of the globe to a slow death from nuclear winter? > > And you mistake the point I’m trying to make. I didn’t say humanity wouldn’t survive, but I question that such a near-extinction event is BETTER than being under a totalitarian state. Why do you think it’s BETTER that humanity start over than simply submit to such a ruler for a few decades? Humanity does not have to start over. If we don’t retalitate the USSR isn’t going to stop until unconditional surrender or until everyone’s dead. A retaliation would really be self-defence. > [@](#): > > Is your contention that if the US is destroyed, no other country in the world nor in the FUTURE history of the world will be capable of overthrowing the regime that destroyed it? And that you’re so sure of that you’d be willing to bet most of the human race on it in the form of a catastrophic nuclear strike? No see above,. > [@](#): > > It will be the destruction of civilization because the amount of nukes the US and Russia has is enough to darken the skies of the planet for years and spread radiation to all corners of the globe. If the Soviets continue to bomb us it will STILL be less suffering than if we threw dozens, hundreds, or thousands of nukes at them in retaliation. I’m not saying give up, but I’m saying that a full nuclear retaliation is insane and would help no one. I am not advocating one in the sense of wiping out the USSR’s population. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Then you can’t use nukes. You don’t do surgical militray strikes with nukes. Their intent is to mass slaughter civilians. Even if the military base is in the middle of nowhere with the nearest village being two hundred miles away? ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/64 "2011-05-29T02:26:42Z")
Assuming it is the Cold War style full scale launch, I will order firing everything we’ve got–launch the bombers, fire all silos, anything at sea, and the few we probably snuck into space at some point. When Loki leads the frost giants across the Bifrost Bridge, I shall meet them in the middle, \* …singing and crying…Val-hall-a I am coming…\* Or, for those that don’t speak Zeppelin, **Rooster Cogburn** : \* Fill yore hand, you sonuvabitch!\* Or, for those that are Klingon, _KA-PLAH! Today is a good day to die._ Yeah, that whole turning the other cheek thing? Doesn’t work for me. ---
**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 29, 2011, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/65 "2011-05-29T02:27:25Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > I’m very disturbed that you feel that a war where a third of the human population survives (ie. the death of 4 billion people) is a better option than surrender I was clear that there wouldn’t be one third of the world population surviving, I’m saying at a minimum 1/3rd of the US population would survive, more likely double that. That’s just from the initial strike - many more would die from complications of civilization collapsing. But part of that is how well the country is able to be protected from further attack, organize relief efforts, etc. But let’s say it is one third. You’re essentially saying welp - those 100 million survivng Americans, you’re fucked. I’m going to let the attackers have a field day with you. They can do some recon and figure out which parts of the country are least hurt, where you guys are congregating to form shelters and distribute food, and then I’ll let them go ahead and bomb and even nuke those places. Oh, and future victims of a country that has shown itself willing to murder hundreds of millions of people unprovoked - you’re fucked too. Sorry, I’m just not willing to disable their ability to fight. But I’m going to pat myself on the back and tell myself how noble and humane I am for refusing to do it. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Then you can’t use nukes. You don’t do surgical militray strikes with nukes. Their intent is to mass slaughter civilians. Tell me, then - if the only point of nuclear weapons is to “mass slaughter civilians”, why is it that over the years the yields on nuclear weapons has dramatically decreased even though our ability to build heavier rockets has increased? No one besides **Stranger on a train** has any clue what nuclear weapons are capable of or what the actual strategies involved would be, yet you’re so authoratatively willing to set the terms of the debate by throwing around this nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/66 "2011-05-29T02:33:53Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Even if the military base is in the middle of nowhere with the nearest village being two hundred miles away? Yes, two hundred miles is nothing to an ICBM, and you aren’t going to find a military base that far from a civilian population anyway. You don’t need nukes to bomb a military base, and you would not be protecting anybody from anything anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/67 "2011-05-29T02:36:16Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Assuming it is the Cold War style full scale launch, I will order firing everything we’ve got–launch the bombers, fire all silos, anything at sea, and the few we probably snuck into space at some point. When Loki leads the frost giants across the Bifrost Bridge, I shall meet them in the middle, > \* > …singing and crying…Val-hall-a I am coming…\* > > Or, for those that don’t speak Zeppelin, > **Rooster Cogburn** : \* Fill yore hand, you sonuvabitch!\* > > Or, for those that are Klingon, > > _KA-PLAH! Today is a good day to die._ > Yeah, that whole turning the other cheek thing? Doesn’t work for me. So basically, you’re just admitting that you lack any moral center and would mass slaughter innocents just for spite. Apparently you believe this kind of posturing resembles machismo. It actually indicates just the opposite. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/68 "2011-05-29T02:37:19Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Tell me, then - if the only point of nuclear weapons is to “mass slaughter civilians”, why is it that over the years the yields on nuclear weapons has dramatically decreased even though our ability to build heavier rockets has increased? To make contracters rich. ---
**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 29, 2011, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/69 "2011-05-29T02:39:09Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Yes, two hundred miles is nothing to an ICBM The explosion is going to cause a 200 mile wide zone of destruction now? What sort of yield do you need to achieve that? > [@](#): > > , and you aren’t going to find a military base that far from a civilian population anyway. You don’t need nukes to bomb a military base, and you would not be protecting anybody from anything anyway. Military bases include nuclear launch facilities - why wouldn’t you use nukes on them? Silos are hardened, difficult targets. The defenses against conventional weapons are considerable. The fastest conventional attack will be far slower than the nuclear attacks. You’ve managed to cram nothing but wrong into this post. You probably meant that a 200 mile flight is nothing to an ICBM, but that doesn’t make any sense - he was clearly giving an example of nuking a military base 200 miles away from a major population center. So you either made that mistake or you think nuclear warheads create swaths of destruction with a 200 mile radius. Then you say you don’t need nukes to take out a potentially nuke-launching facility, because you can show up 20 hours later with some conventional bombers that will probably be shot down long before their reach their target, after their target launches their nukes, and would be largely ineffective against the hardened targets anyway. Then you assert that you wouldn’t be protecting anyone from anything anyway - apparently striking and eliminating a nuclear launching facility has no protective effects. ---
**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 29, 2011, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/70 "2011-05-29T02:40:42Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > To make contracters rich. So we designed our nuclear arsenal - the most critical part of our entire national defense and military - in such a way to please the contractors? And … additionally, for some unspecified reason, building nuclear weapons with smaller yields, which are less destructive… somehow ends up giving the contractors more money? Maybe explain this one a bit instead of just being like UH MAN IT’S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY MANNNNN ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/71 "2011-05-29T02:43:37Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > So basically, you’re just admitting that you lack any moral center and would mass slaughter innocents just for spite. Apparently you believe this kind of posturing resembles machismo. It actually indicates just the opposite. :rolleyes: Shooting nukes at me for no damn reason makes me a little cranky. Not real happy about an unprovoked attack that will destroy my country, and murder millions of innocents. And then there’s that whole oath of office/duty to country/CIC thing. Firing back is the only acceptable choice in my world. If you disagree, I suggest you do not vote for me for POTUS. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/72 "2011-05-29T02:50:11Z")
> [@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. Would need more info. Probably send every nuke we had, first to the offending country and then to all known allies. But how many nukes are en route? And how did we miss this? ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/73 "2011-05-29T02:59:19Z")
An unprovoked attack is another matter. Its not like a country bombed us in defense. Not knowing what was next, id be forced to retaliate tenfold. That being said, if I were leader of a smaller and weaker nation, I may throw up a white flag if I thought it was a viable action…I’m not the type to condone hiroshima. Or dresden. There’s no way we could miss that one, though. Our intelligence, satellites and allies are just too great. I hope. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/74 "2011-05-29T03:03:40Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > So basically, you’re just admitting that you lack any moral center and would mass slaughter innocents just for spite. Apparently you believe this kind of posturing resembles machismo. It actually indicates just the opposite. Innocents? Hardly. They are the ones with the government that is launching the first strike. They are to blame. Torch them all. Spite doesn’t enter into it at all. They started it, we will end it. Turning the other cheek just means you take it in the neck. ---
**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 29, 2011, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/75 "2011-05-29T04:23:42Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > We are the flower of humanity and civilization. Undoubtedly the Soviets represent barbarism and totalitarianism, they must be destroyed if they destroy us for the welfare of the world. It is the best thing for the world. The Soviet Union fell in 1991. Either you are using some wildly outdated history books, or you need to explain why a 15 year old is using an argument that one would expect from someone 30 years old or more. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/76 "2011-05-29T04:46:46Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > The Soviet Union fell in 1991. Either you are using some wildly outdated history books, or you need to explain why a 15 year old is using an argument that one would expect from someone 30 years old or more. The OP assumed it was the USSR. ---
**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 29, 2011, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/77 "2011-05-29T05:09:43Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > The OP assumed it was the USSR. Yeah, it was back in the… back in the… back in the… …OP. ---
**Author:** ![tingbudong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tingbudong/32/520_2.png) [@tingbudong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tingbudong)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/78 "2011-05-29T05:45:42Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > No. Deterrence works by making them \*believe \*you will retaliate. It doesn’t matter if it’s fact or bluff - if they believe it, it will deter them period. If they assume you’re not going to it won’t, even if you’re absolutely determined to fire back and do decide to fire back. Retaliating won’t change anything. > Once the bombs are aloft, deterrence doesn’t matter. It has already failed. > > IOW, the point of having the bombs is to subsantiate your possible bluff. It’s neither here nor there on whether you’re bluffing or not. It is necessary to have them either way, but having them or even pledging to use them as part of deterrence doesn’t make it a good idea to actually do so. Apparently the Soviets did actually have a [fail-deadly](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail-deadly) system ([dead hand](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_hand_(nuclear_war))) in order to guarantee their nuclear deterrence. ---
**Author:** ![Otara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a88e4f/32.png) [@Otara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otara)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/79 "2011-05-29T06:26:35Z")
The most interesting thing is how much it seems to be decided on whether the other people are ‘baddies’ or not. What if it was a mistake or overreaction rather than outright aggression? Would this change peoples retaliation? With the scenario as stated it doesnt seem to be known how this first strike came about. Otra ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2011, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579/80 "2011-05-29T06:35:17Z")
> [@wellanuff](#): > > Who or what are these nuclear-capable “Soviets” that people are referring to? 😕 > > Or is this a “historical what if?” question? 😉 I think its about the historical soviet arsenal transplanted on todays Russians. Declan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-the-potus-a-nuclear-first-strike-is-inbound-do-you-authorise-the-second-strike/583579.md?page=3) [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=5)