Would You Retaliate?

[Augustus]

Yes, hence using means other than a nuclear attack.

To be followed by 2nd, 3rd, 4th nuclear attack from Russia. If escalation works, keep escalating.

NATO forces are superior, but not to the extent that they balance out not using nukes.

This is the entire point of threatening to nuke NATO, they back down and Putin gets his way. It's the only way he can win.

It is the most rational strategy for Russia, and one that has been successful for the past decade or more.

 

[Mock Turtle]

If you were President and Putin let fly the nukes, would you retaliate in kind?

I wouldn't. Russia could not contend with the military might of NATO regardless of nuclear retaliation, and Putin would likely incur the wrath of the world beyond all hope.

And, I could not morally live with the weight of the destruction regardless of who started it.

I haven't followed all the various strategies involved in possible nuclear exchanges - so many wargames are no doubt postulated and run through to see where one might obtain an advantage with minimum or affordable losses - but one hopes the two sides are at least playing the same game with the same rules. Unfortunately many suspect that Putin is not doing so, is possibly unhinged, and hence will do something crazy - as a gamble rather than being rationally understood.

Putin has gone beyond what the MAD doctrine seemingly obtained for the last several decades - some sort of peace - when he is apparently threatening to use nuclear weapons in order to further his territorial aims - justified or not as these may be. If we get through this mess, and it is a bit shaky as to whether we will, then we seriously need to look at this issue again and as to what nations can and cannot do with regards nuclear weapons - if we want to survive as a species, that is, or at least one that doesn't have this as a constant threat.

 

[Twilight Hue]

If you were President and Putin let fly the nukes, would you retaliate in kind?

I wouldn't. Russia could not contend with the military might of NATO regardless of nuclear retaliation, and Putin would likely incur the wrath of the world beyond all hope.

And, I could not morally live with the weight of the destruction regardless of who started it.

Yep. That would end nuclear war for awhile and I will get to wear a pair of moped tires on my shoulders with my band of rouge wasteland vagabond runners.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

To be followed by 2nd, 3rd, 4th nuclear attack from Russia. If escalation works, keep escalating.

NATO forces are superior, but not to the extent that they balance out not using nukes.

This is the entire point of threatening to nuke NATO, they back down and Putin gets his way. It's the only way he can win.

It is the most rational strategy for Russia, and one that has been successful for the past decade or more.

I think you would need to retaliate with nukes because the ability to sustain a supply of conventional weapons would likely be vapourised along with the cities when you were struck with nukes.

But a pre-emptive nuclear strike would be out of the question for me. They would have to strike first.

Although mind you if I had the means to take out Putin with a drone strike I wouldn't bother with nuclear retaliation.

In my opinion.

I think the US alone, again even considering that much of the world would likely be united against a leader striking first with nukes, could handle it.

Could the US win World War III without using nuclear weapons?

But even if not, considering the humanitarian and environmental implications of it, I am not sure if it is pragmatically moral to do so:

Humanitarian impacts and risks of use of nuclear weapons

My sense is that were Putin, already not the most popular fellow in the world, to nuke the US and the US did not respond in kind, this would put us in better standing and prevent us from being one of the two world bullies wreaking death and devastation on an already suffering world.

 

[Augustus]

Could the US win World War III without using nuclear weapons?

Arguably a higher risk strategy though.

If you know the enemy wants to destroy all your nukes, might motivate you to fire as many off as you can before you become defenceless.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Yep. That would end nuclear war for awhile and I will get to wear a pair of moped tires on my shoulders with my band of rouge wasteland vagabond runners.

oh that movie, I remember the part where the giant mutant flung globs of slime into all of your guys's motorcycle spokes. It was a tight situation, but they pulled through that scene

 

[danieldemol]

I think the US alone, again even considering that much of the world would likely be united against a leader striking first with nukes, could handle it.

Could the US win World War III without using nuclear weapons?

But even if not, considering the humanitarian and environmental implications of it, I am not sure if it is pragmatically moral to do so:

Humanitarian impacts and risks of use of nuclear weapons

My sense is that were Putin, already not the most popular fellow in the world, to nuke the US and the US did not respond in kind, this would put us in better standing and prevent us from being one of the two world bullies wreaking death and devastation on an already suffering world.

Well if I were the president I'd be prepared to give conventional weapons a go first, but if they failed the thought of bequeathing the world to a tyrant doesn't strike me as the overall beneficial thing to do.

In my opinion.

 

[Bill Starr]

I think the most dangerous weapon both countries have are subs with ballistic missiles - both countries can fire them from anywhere. They are also thermonuclear devices AKA the Hydrogen Bomb the latest Russian missile is said to carry ten war heads and can take out the area of the size France in one shot - the American missile is similar. It would make no sense to use a nuke here unless its retaliatory and they must know that nobody wins in a global nuclear war . If anyone survives the person who started it will go down as the worse human being to ever live in history and a guaranteed first class ticket to hell if it exists. If its going to happen there will be some heavy sabre rattling before it happens which i have not seen just threats at this point to use battle field nukes which is a small nuclear device - do we retaliate if they use one of the small devices.

 

[Ponder This]

If you were President and Putin let fly the nukes, would you retaliate in kind?

I wouldn't. Russia could not contend with the military might of NATO regardless of nuclear retaliation, and Putin would likely incur the wrath of the world beyond all hope.

And, I could not morally live with the weight of the destruction regardless of who started it.

As the President, I would likely feel morally and ethically obligated to retaliate because I would be the primary person chosen by my nation with the greatest responsibility in this exact regard to protect the people and uphold their values. I should not allow my people to be slain without consequence, nor should I allow such great evil to go unchecked. If I was just some guy who happened to have nukes of my own, then maybe the moral and ethical obligations of being an elected representative of the people wouldn't be there and I could more easily turn a blind eye to the callous destruction inflicted by a megalomaniac. But as the holder of an office of power charged with carrying out the duties and responsibilities associated with a nation, I cannot simply choose a path which is the most personally convenient for myself. I have to choose a path that defends the well-being of everyone, and such a path will never be to allow a megalomaniac to go around nuking people.

 

[JIMMY12345]

If you were President and Putin let fly the nukes, would you retaliate in kind?

I wouldn't. Russia could not contend with the military might of NATO regardless of nuclear retaliation, and Putin would likely incur the wrath of the world beyond all hope.

And, I could not morally live with the weight of the destruction regardless of who started it.

I am afraid your too innocent.Bullies who do not get challenged will pile on the pressure.The Russians do not want this war only Putin.If anyone in Putin's cabinet disagrees they will be shot.If Russians protest they are put in jail.What keeps the peace is no nuclear power wants to risk elimination.
To paraphrase those who live by nuclear weapons will die by nuclear weapons.Putin (not any of us on the forum) will see pacifists as fools and weaklings to be preyed upon.He would have to have this mindset to survive with no parents and to rise high in an organisation on the dark side.Before promotion in politics which is just as deadly and the reason he cannot quit the job much as he might want to.He holds the structure up.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

As the President, I would likely feel morally and ethically obligated to retaliate because I would be the primary person chosen by my nation with the greatest responsibility in this exact regard to protect the people and uphold their values. I should not allow my people to be slain without consequence, nor should I allow such great evil to go unchecked. If I was just some guy who happened to have nukes of my own, then maybe the moral and ethical obligations of being an elected representative of the people wouldn't be there and I could more easily turn a blind eye to the callous destruction inflicted by a megalomaniac. But as the holder of an office of power charged with carrying out the duties and responsibilities associated with a nation, I cannot simply choose a path which is the most personally convenient for myself. I have to choose a path that defends the well-being of everyone, and such a path will never be to allow a megalomaniac to go around nuking people.

But, consider that the well-being of many people, completely innocent and outside the theater of this conflict, would be impacted from your decision to retaliate. Should we look at this from a utilitarian perspective, by choosing not to retaliate with nukes, there would likely be less destruction.

I am afraid your too innocent.Bullies who do not get challenged will pile on the pressure.The Russians do not want this war only Putin.If anyone in Putin's cabinet disagrees they will be shot.If Russians protest they are put in jail.What keeps the peace is no nuclear power wants to risk elimination.
To paraphrase those who live by nuclear weapons will die by nuclear weapons.Putin (not any of us on the forum) will see pacifists as fools and weaklings to be preyed upon.He would have to have this mindset to survive with no parents and to rise high in an organisation on the dark side.Before promotion in politics which is just as deadly and the reason he cannot quit the job much as he might want to.He holds the structure up.

I guess being too innocent is better than being too guilty?

In your bully analogy, do you stand up to the bully by also hurting the bystanders around them? Not retaliating with nukes, doesn't mean not retaliating. Nuclear bombs, especially in a global conflict, do more than simply "standing up to a bully."

 

[wellwisher]

If you were President and Putin let fly the nukes, would you retaliate in kind?

I wouldn't. Russia could not contend with the military might of NATO regardless of nuclear retaliation, and Putin would likely incur the wrath of the world beyond all hope.

And, I could not morally live with the weight of the destruction regardless of who started it.

The major military powers know where each other's ground based nuke launch sites are. As retaliation, I would take out as many sites as I could with a counter strike. Some of this could be done without nukes; high speed penetration devices.

This leaves mobile nukes on submarines, trains, trucks and aircraft. The country will now need to be on full guard for their heat and radiation signatures. These can be seen from satellites. Another response will follow, if they mobilize, hoping to escalate.

Civilian targets would be off limit, even if there is a push to get even with the other country. I would allow a limited target strike on the leadership, to end this.

One of the problems is, rules are such that we do not go after the leaders who start trouble. Rather the conventional game is to scapegoat subordinates and the masses, who did not do the bad deed or were ordered to act.

This convention was created by all the corrupt leaders at a corrupt leader union meeting. I would not follow this nonsense convention, but would be go after the sources of crime. The masses do not have launch codes. Leadership and political targets would be next; kill the head of the snake. This last action can be stopped short, if those who started this, put on the brakes.

 

[Ponder This]

But, consider that the well-being of many people, completely innocent and outside the theater of this conflict, would be impacted from your decision to retaliate. Should we look at this from a utilitarian perspective, by choosing not to retaliate with nukes, there would likely be less destruction.

That would be a sort of computer way to look at it - to just treat people like numbers. But there's another way to look at it that examines people as people and not as numbers. People exist in relationship to other people. No man is an island. A president represents the people of his nation and bears a responsibility to defend them. This isn't just computer utility calculus, the leader of a nation is held accountable whether he likes it or not.

When the President of the U.S. ordered nuclear bombs to be dropped on Heroshima and Nagasaki, these are not actions he ever wanted to take, but they were actions he was obligated to take even though many people died. If a megalomaniac starts nuking people and the President doesn't take the necessary actions that are within his power to take in order to fulfill his sworn oath to defend his people, then he is a moral coward who has abdicated his responsibility and forsworn his oath.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

these are not actions he ever wanted to take

Where are you getting this from?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

That would be a sort of computer way to look at it - to just treat people like numbers. But there's another way to look at it that examines people as people and not as numbers. People exist in relationship to other people. No man is an island. A president represents the people of his nation and bears a responsibility to defend them. This isn't just computer utility calculus, the leader of a nation is held accountable whether he likes it or not.

When the President of the U.S. ordered nuclear bombs to be dropped on Heroshima and Nagasaki, these are not actions he ever wanted to take, but they were actions he was obligated to take even though many people died. If a megalomaniac starts nuking people and the President doesn't take the necessary actions that are within his power to take in order to fulfill his sworn oath to defend his people, then he is a moral coward who has abdicated his responsibility and forsworn his oath.

The President can defend their people without the use of nuclear arms. I would argue that not retaliating with nukes wouldn't make a person a moral coward, but the opposite; they would be considering the horrific implications of what a global nuclear war would result in.

 

[Kooky]

If you were President and Putin let fly the nukes, would you retaliate in kind?

I wouldn't. Russia could not contend with the military might of NATO regardless of nuclear retaliation, and Putin would likely incur the wrath of the world beyond all hope.

And, I could not morally live with the weight of the destruction regardless of who started it.

A good portion of these response systems are probably automated.

 

[Kooky]

It is the most rational strategy for Russia, and one that has been successful for the past decade or more.

To my knowledge, Putin has literally never threatened NATO with using nukes on them before the invasion of Ukraine. Feel free to correct this notion with contrary evidence.

 

[Augustus]

To my knowledge, Putin has literally never threatened NATO with using nukes on them before the invasion of Ukraine. Feel free to correct this notion with contrary evidence.

Russian ambassador threatens Denmark with naval nuclear attack if it joins missile shield

After Georgia, Moscow issues nuclear warning to Poland

 

[Debater Slayer]

Russian ambassador threatens Denmark with naval nuclear attack if it joins missile shield

After Georgia, Moscow issues nuclear warning to Poland

Nuclear threats, annexation of Crimea, invasion of Georgia, and war crimes in Syria. The writing was on the wall for years, yet some are still arguing that Putin is somehow this diplomatic guy who was forced into war in Ukraine.

 

[Augustus]

Nuclear threats, annexation of Crimea, invasion of Georgia, and war crimes in Syria. The writing was on the wall for years, yet some are still arguing that Putin is somehow this diplomatic guy who was forced into war in Ukraine.

"But they poked the bear..."

As if Russia has no agency and other countries must remain vassal states otherwise the bear will have been poked and is justified in invading.

Not to mention the idea that Russia simply wanted them to remain neutral and would then have left them in peace rather than wanted a pro-Russian government.

It used to be parts of the "left" that made the arguments that saw every war as the fault of the US and everyone else as helpless pawns. Now seems to be parts of the "right" that have adopted the meme.