When Is A Nuclear Strike Justified?

[ScrambledEggs]

Simple & straight forward question.

Many people still say the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan were justified (devil's advocate: it was the white Christian men doing it for your own good, while still denying equal rights to blacks & women). However, the concept of MAD did not exist then. The calculus changes. MAD now exists.

I can't think of a single rational justification to launch a large scale nuke. What about tactical nukes?

WWJD?

 

[Felis Leo]

Beyond immediate retaliation for another nuclear power dropping a nuke on your country and it being made abundantly clear that your country is undergoing an existential war, there is absolutely none.

 

[KingLeo]

Never actually.
Once a nuclear war began the domino effect would be staggering.
There would be no 'winners'.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Simple & straight forward question.

Many people still say the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan were justified (devil's advocate: it was the white Christian men doing it for your own good, while still denying equal rights to blacks & women). However, the concept of MAD did not exist then. The calculus changes. MAD now exists.

I can't think of a single rational justification to launch a large scale nuke. What about tactical nukes?

WWJD?

I see no reason to use nukes at all, unless WMDs are used on us or our allies first.

Launch on warning counts.

 

[Hamish Howl]

The world war two thing was different, partly because we didn't know how bad long term effects would be, and partly because it was that kinda war.

 

[dmpi]

The populous has been convinced that the world cannot survive a limited nuclear conflict. The whole MAD thing is dependent on that belief. The real question is one of escalation. Will the 'loser' just ramp up and double down? Maybe or maybe not.

 

[Hamish Howl]

The populous has been convinced that the world cannot survive a limited nuclear conflict. The whole MAD thing is dependent on that belief. The real question is one of escalation. Will the 'loser' just ramp up and double down? Maybe or maybe not.

No such animal.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Nuclear weapons are only useful today as a defensive weapon. If you decide that a particular piece of real estate cannot be held and if the enemy takes it, it means your ultimate defeat, then you nuke that part of the earth to prevent the enemy from occupying it.

 

[Safiel]

There is no limited nuclear war.

Once one is unleashed, it will rapidly escalate to total war and the extermination of humanity.

If an enemy actually launches a nuclear attack on us, that would be the only scenario under which we should launch.

Just the pragmatic notion that we are going to die anyway, we should take the enemy with us to hell.

 

[ScrambledEggs]

Beyond immediate retaliation for another nuclear power dropping a nuke on your country and it being made abundantly clear that your country is undergoing an existential war, there is absolutely none.

I see no reason to use nukes at all, unless WMDs are used on us or our allies first.

Launch on warning counts.

If an enemy actually launches a nuclear attack on us, that would be the only scenario under which we should launch.

How is nuclear retaliation rational, if you take the first hit? Feels like a "I'm gonna take the whole world down with me" mentality.

 

[Safiel]

How is nuclear retaliation rational, if you take the first hit? Feels like a "I'm gonna take the whole world down with me" mentality.

That's exactly right and **** them.

If they want to kill me, then they die too.

 

[ScrambledEggs]

That's exactly right and **** them.

If they want to kill me, then they die too.

Even if you only targeted your enemy country, you are affecting the rest of the world, too, with the fallout & climate that comes from mass detonation.

 

[Felis Leo]

Even if you only targeted your enemy country, you are affecting the rest of the world, too, with the fallout & climate that comes from mass detonation.

I am presuming the country that was hit is targeting only the country that attacked them, and only as much as necessary to stop further attacks.

 

[Safiel]

Even if you only targeted your enemy country, you are affecting the rest of the world, too, with the fallout & climate that comes from mass detonation.

Yep.

That is why they call it mutual assured destruction and it has kept any nukes from being used since 1945 and is perhaps the only restraint we have to keep a nation from launching.

 

[anatta]

a battlefield (tactical) nuke is small scale but still a nuke. Strategic nukes are part of MAD. Using them otherwise is crazy

 

[Serenity]

There is no justification for knowingly killing innocent civilians.

My Country does not possess any nuclear weapons and we are a signatory to the NPT as a non-nuclear-weapon state. We are committed to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons.

I'm more than ok with that.

 

[bongsaway]

Simple & straight forward question.

Many people still say the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan were justified (devil's advocate: it was the white Christian men doing it for your own good, while still denying equal rights to blacks & women). However, the concept of MAD did not exist then. The calculus changes. MAD now exists.

I can't think of a single rational justification to launch a large scale nuke. What about tactical nukes?

WWJD?

No kings with nukes.

 

[Sweden]

There is no justification for knowingly killing innocent civilians.

My Country does not possess any nuclear weapons and we are a signatory to the NPT as a non-nuclear-weapon state. We are committed to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons.

I'm more than ok with that.

The UK's system is this: a hand written letter of instruction written by the PM is kept in a special safe of nuclear armed submarines.It contains orders, known only to the Prime Minister, on what to do if the UK has been attacked and almost certainly destroyed by a nuclear attack. The sub's Captain is either told either to retaliate or not. Potential enemies have no way of knowing which and will, l it is hoped, be deterred from a first strike.

I think this is about the best set of rules for the use of nuclear weapons that can be devised.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Apparently Israel bit off way more than they could chew, and the ceasefire disproportionately benefited them because they were getting more than a bloody nose.

 

[BirdinHand]

Living in a gigantic target zone in the MidAtlantic, kind of hoping the answer is never.

Otherwise hoping they land directly on my house to make it a quick ending.

 

[Hamish Howl]

How is nuclear retaliation rational, if you take the first hit? Feels like a "I'm gonna take the whole world down with me" mentality.

Because I am okay with going to hell if I can take my enemies with me.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Living in a gigantic target zone in the MidAtlantic, kind of hoping the answer is never.

Otherwise hoping they land directly on my house to make it a quick ending.

I can spit into DM AFB from here. I have no concerns at all. I will have about 20-45 minutes to watch Lady Gaga videos and then it's all over.

 

[Revelation]

Simple & straight forward question.

Many people still say the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan were justified

i don't.

(devil's advocate: it was the white Christian men doing it for your own good, while still denying equal rights to blacks & women).

not really. no playing of race cards necessary, the picture is much bigger than that my friend.

However, the concept of MAD did not exist then. The calculus changes. MAD now exists.

yes, MAD exists but will not be used during WW three.

WW three is already choreographed and planned/staged on the books, and will be waged over a 91 day period, or 13 x 7 weeks, on 5 fronts. during the 91 days, they will destroy a city on one side and then one on another until 91 days is up. that way there will be no escape as you don't know where the next one will hit.

this will be totally effective: 'shock and awe', and will cause the sheep to agree to a World Wide neo Fascist rule of the planet involving 10 Super Nations and the dissolution of an Sovereign nation.

well now you know, may wanna prep for the day.

I can't think of a single rational justification to launch a large scale nuke.

you can't, but those who are going to use them will be in Deep Underground Military Bunkers (DUMB) and have developed extensive plans to use them irregardless of whether you think those plans are rational.

call it WW three, and it is fast approaching my friends.

one of the Tools for nuclear war is the notion of 'shock and awe', which goes way beyond what was experienced in the Gulf Wars. however the Gulf Wars proved (conventional) Shock and Awe will work on any opponent and has been well tested. nuclear war will amplify those effects World Wide.

What about tactical nukes?

tactical nukes have been used recently on the battle front, but not widely reported.

WWJD?

he will come back and stop Armageddon before the Luciferians destroy the whole planet.

.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

If I was country A and I have nukes I would use them if country b was invading ( not just attacking) and it looked like country b was going to be able to take over the country.

In such a case I would nuke country b"s capital, main manufacturing city and main port cities

 

[pedex]

When it lands on Israel.

Puts on flame retardant suit.