Nuclear Launch Retaliation

[Ringer]

How likely would it be for the U.S. to retaliate a nuclear attack with our own nuclear attack? Do you think we would obliterate the opposition without regard for collateral civilian casualties or would we attempt to work internationally to avoid being labaled (again) as a rogue nation?

My immediate thought is that any country or group that launches a nuclear warhead would need to be destroyed to prevent the chance of any further launch. Trying to move towards diplomatic measures or to forumlate a plan of attack with international parties would probably require a great deal of time and logistics. I think the assumption would be that if one nuclear attack has been carried out then it's time to brace for more. Do we counter with a nuclear weapon of our own or do we use more conventional means? Does the U.S. or any country have the "right" for preemptive nuclear strike if it feels its saftey has been compromised by a nuclear attack that has already been carried out?

 

[Heneni]

I dont know all the places that the US have nuclear warheads. But if a nuke or many nukes were dropped on the US, you would think there might not be too many US people left to launch their own.

But lets say that the US is nuked only with one bomb and the damage is obviously huge but does not destroy the whole country...should they nuke back?. I dont think they should. My concern is where will it end? It will cause such pandemonium all over the world, that everybody that has these things can very well become trigger happy thinking its me or them. Its a grim thought.

The US will most likely think that the nuke that came their way was unjustified, but the people who sent it will feel they had the right to do it. So then americans will think, well we have been nuked so we have the right to nuke back. But then they have to understand that the receivers of the nuke will think they have the right to send another one. So...round and round we go. Until there is nothing left.

Yes it will take a great deal of time and logistics to work out a kind of peace plan when that happens, but judging from america's response to attacks thus far, i would say they will probably go right ahead and nuke the other guys in the mean time. Kill and then make peace. Hope that wont happen.

Now the other thing is.... if the ant nuked the elephant and the elephant is not dead, the ant knows there is no way for it to see the next day. So it will be rediculous for the ant to nuke the elephant unless they made sure the elephant does not get up. On the other hand, the little ant might have many ants on its side, all with nukes of their own..... and well, in the end i think the little ants will survive better. Keeping your eye on many little ants is much harder than keeping your eye on a huge elephant.

How many little ants or god forbid, elephants does north korea have on its side?

Thanks for listening. LOL...I will let the americans get on with formulating a strategy then...

 

[Valjean]

When has collateral damage ever restrained the US military, particularly in the usage of aerial ordnance?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

What many don't understand is that the explosions from the two types of atomic bombs are very different. One is a 1,000 times stronger than the other.

I believe what we dropped on Japan was the weaker kind.

With that said, unless I am wrong if the weaker bomb was dropped on the US it would only hurt small cities, not the whole country.

I don't believe in violence, but I think the US would obliterate whoever did it, unless the US government was behind it trying to create another war so they and the big bankers could get richer off war profiteering. Which then they would just invade the country and semi destroy it so Halliberton could come in and repair.

What a minute, that sound familiar?

 

[Ringer]

The US will most likely think that the nuke that came their way was unjustified, but the people who sent it will feel they had the right to do it. So then americans will think, well we have been nuked so we have the right to nuke back. But then they have to understand that the receivers of the nuke will think they have the right to send another one. So...round and round we go. Until there is nothing left.

I've always imagined that this mentality is what would start a nuclear holocaust. This is probably the opportune time to practice turning the other cheek. The fate of the world could depend on it. :cover:

 

[Ringer]

When has collateral damage ever restrained the US military, particularly in the usage of aerial ordnance?

The bombing of Bahgdad in the beginning of the War in Iraq?

 

[3.14]

its the mad strategy to avoid attacks (Mutualy Assured Destruction),

its sad but the best strategy as of yet since noone is able to leave the planet yet

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

How likely would it be for the U.S. to retaliate a nuclear attack with our own nuclear attack?

There are too many unknown variables. If the nuclear attack is via a suitcase bomb by a terrorist organization then there would be no nuclear retaliation. If it is China launching 100 ICBMs then we would probably launch as well. But there are thousands of scenarios in between these two that each have a multitude of choices in response.

 

[silvermoon383]

I agree that MAD was what kept the Cold War cold, but sadly it's application in today's situations is getting to be very tenuous. The key part to MAD was that rational nuclear-capable leaders would know that setting a nuke off would mean the end of the world. Sadly many of the leaders who possess nuclear weaponry aren't that rational. They'll develop nukes and use them believing that they can rightfully use such destructive weaponry.

If in the event that a less-rational leader were to commit such an atrocity I would hope that the target's survivors would not escalate it to a full blown nuclear war (assuming said victims were also nuclear capable.)

I fully agree with Joshua (WOPR). Nuclear War is an interesting game. The only winning move is not to play.

 

[Valjean]

What many don't understand is that the explosions from the two types of atomic bombs are very different. One is a 1,000 times stronger than the other.

I believe what we dropped on Japan was the weaker kind.

With that said, unless I am wrong if the weaker bomb was dropped on the US it would only hurt small cities, not the whole country.

I don't believe in violence, but I think the US would obliterate whoever did it, unless the US government was behind it trying to create another war so they and the big bankers could get richer off war profiteering. Which then they would just invade the country and semi destroy it so Halliberton could come in and repair.

What a minute, that sound familiar?

This is misleading. Like gasoline vs diesel engines, each can came in different sizes.
I'm sure you're referring to fission vs fusion bombs -- "A-Bombs" vs "H-Bombs." True, H-Bombs have greater potential, but there is no tactical advantage to really large bombs. Nobody makes really big bombs any more. Two small bombs can do more damage than a big one of equal or greater tonnage.

 

[Panda]

This is misleading. Like gasoline vs diesel engines, each can came in different sizes.
I'm sure you're referring to fission vs fusion bombs -- "A-Bombs" vs "H-Bombs." True, H-Bombs have greater potential, but there is no tactical advantage to really large bombs. Nobody makes really big bombs any more. Two small bombs can do more damage than a big one of equal or greater tonnage.

There are three main types of nuclear bomb. The pure fission is the weakest of the three, this is what was dropped on Japan, and is your basic fission reaction.

Next is normally the fusion boosted bomb which has a fission reaction and at it's core tritium and deuterium, isotopes of hydrogen, the fission reaction compresses and heats the gas enough to meet the Lawson Criteria which allows fusion to occur. Though the energy from this is negliagible is realises a neutron which reduces the waste of fission material, ie it boosts efficiency, and can double the blast power.

The last type is a multi stage system that uses one fission reaction to start another one by using x-ray radiation from the first explosion to implode a second. This is far more efficient than an explosive and results in a much greater blast. Most use two stages though more can be added, I think a three stage was developed at one point though the power of it would have be enormous.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't think any country has a right to preemptive nuclear attack.

 

[rojse]

its the mad strategy to avoid attacks (Mutualy Assured Destruction)...

In other news, a more apt acronym than MAD has not yet been devised.

 

[rojse]

Having watched Doctor Strangelove just a few weeks ago, I wonder if the desire to own a lot of rockets is partially based on their phallic shape, and the connotations that could be attached to this.

 

[DadBurnett]

How likely would it be for the U.S. to retaliate a nuclear attack with our own nuclear attack? Do you think we would obliterate the opposition without regard for collateral civilian casualties or would we attempt to work internationally to avoid being labaled (again) as a rogue nation?

My immediate thought is that any country or group that launches a nuclear warhead would need to be destroyed to prevent the chance of any further launch. Trying to move towards diplomatic measures or to forumlate a plan of attack with international parties would probably require a great deal of time and logistics. I think the assumption would be that if one nuclear attack has been carried out then it's time to brace for more. Do we counter with a nuclear weapon of our own or do we use more conventional means? Does the U.S. or any country have the "right" for preemptive nuclear strike if it feels its saftey has been compromised by a nuclear attack that has already been carried out?

Your question makes it obvious that we are of different generations. My exposure to the threat of war started with WW-II. That was followed by decades of questions and speculations like yours. Trying to draws conclusions from such only resulted in increased tensions, created th need to build bomb shelters and in teaching school kids to hide under their desks in the event of an arom bomb attack. Its only been a couple of decades since many public buildings were designatged as "Civil Defense" Shelters. Looking back, it now seems to have been rather foolish ...
I say this in the hopes that such speculations do not start all over again.
You are right, however to entertain such questions and I would hope that you would endeavor to explore a variety of books at your local library on the "Cold War," and our Civil Defense responses to it and tghe stuff of nuclear deterance ...