Authorize land base missiles , hold on the SLBM’s and keep the bombers at the fail safe points.
If a full laydown is in progress, the minute men are toast anyways , no loss by launching them and I dont think the bombers will have enough time to upload nukes, I not even sure how many of them are still plumbed for nukes , so they are going to be going in with either conventional weapons , or holding to determine what dispersal sites are still operational.
That and authorize the Navy and Army to throw the switch and convert the Patriot and SM3 missiles to ABM mode, they might get lucky.
See, when you open up with that sort of crap, it’s very hard to take you seriously. Or to dismiss the idea that the only reason you’re retaliating is stupid, short sighted, conceited “us vs. them”.
Yes. That was my point. I don’t think you should.
I’m surprised you of all people fail to grasp that concept, didn’t a famous near-exhibitionist teach you to turn the other cheek ?
As for the idea that one could keep the retaliation from harming third party onlookers and the nuclear holocaust in control (“No more than ten to twenty million people killed ! Uh, depending on the breaks.”), even if one posits no nuclear winter I strongly suggest you people play (or watch) a game of Defcon. It’s a fun game anyway.
But there’s a very good reason its tagline is “Everybody dies”. It’s a very rare occurence that the whole map isn’t covered in the green glow by the end of all games as a natural consequence of game theory and strategy - if Russia and USA flip their silos to shoot at each other, then Europe can flip theirs to shoot at China without fear of retaliation (or getting their nukes shot down by Soviet defenses on the way), and so forth. Of course, in the game it’s the consequence of needing to kill the maximum of people to win the game with the default scoring (though while the strategies changes when playing “Survivors”, it usually still ends in Green Glow), but in the real world that domino effect would probably also happen to determine who gets to be king of the rubble, due to one (or more) superpowers destroyed creating a large power vacuum and a chain-failure of deterrence.
I’d order a limited retaliation targeted at industrial and military targets, but I wouldn’t go out of my way to target civilian centers just for having a lot of people. That limited strike would still probably kill a hundred million people, though. I would also not launch any nukes at any non-aggressor countries. I also doubt that Europe and China would automatically nuke each other just because Russia and USA are doing it, though Russia itself could be nuking European targets. A game of Defcon is very different to real life.
Suppose Russia was attacking with 5000 nukes. I know they have less than 3000 active ones right now, but I’m assuming there would be some weapons buildup and bad relations prior to the actual attack. If I retaliate with 100 or 200 nukes, is it really going to make a difference in whether there’s a nuclear winter or not? A limited counterstrike would aim at giving neutral countries the best chance at rebuilding. My own country would probably be toast anyway. I might also keep one nuclear submarine unlaunched, to serve as a post-war weapon against the aggressor country.
A retaliation would be based on the premise that it would increase the odds of the bystander countries against the one starting the war. Given the choice between the total extinction of humanity and living under a brutal dictatorship however, I would choose the dictatorship every time instead of petty revenge. Dictators die eventually, and dictatorships can be overthrown. Death kills all hope.
This may come as a complete and utter shock to you, but “'Cause I say so” just isn’t good enough, especially from someone who is still inexperienced enough to think in terms of “Good Guys” and “Bad Guys”.
Ah what’s the worst that could happen?
Ok serious answer, I’d go with doctrine. I’ve seen your reaction to 9/11. There’s no way what was left of the American public would want their president to pull a Gandhi in the face of such an attack. By attacking the other side, you might also protect your allies, and your forces not currently on American soil.
I’m curious of a couple of things.
In the circumstances in the OP would there be any plausible way the President could be protected from the attack, and might survive??
Also, are US and Russian forces still kept on alert for the possiblity of a surprise strike? How would/could one or other side react to a surprise first strike in 2011.
I assumed you’d be toast once the nukes reached Washington D.C. - but if you like, assume you can make it into a bunker in time. Would a guaranteed survival really alter your decision?
On when the hypothetical is set, in the OP I was assuming a Cold War scenario with a Soviet launch. Again, would it make a big difference if it was the Russian Federation? Other than the potential number of nukes inbound that is, although I’m sure that Russia still has enough nukes to wipe out every American city - just under 3000 warheads in 2009 according to wiki.
Apologies for the lack of clarity, when I said your I was referring generally to the US public. I don’t know what your personal views are or were on 9/11.
No, I’m just curious as to the likelihood of escape or there being somewhere close at hand to the POTUS that would protect him/her from such an attack.
For the moral question, it would make no difference. However the logistics of launching an attack now might be different, that’s what I’m curious about. It’s slightly off topic though, so I should probably just ask it in another thread.
According to this a nuclear exchange between the U.S.S.R. and U.S. would reduce the world population from 5,150,000,000 in 1988 to 3,300,000,000 in 1989. Can’t speak to the veracity of the claim but the author cites sources and mentions that casualty projections may be off by 30% in the U.S.
He also states that the idea of nuclear war being a world ending apocalypse is a misconception - humanity would survive, albeit in a weakened state.
