You, as President, Responds How?

[metis]

Some 30 years ago or so, a friend of mine who also was and still is a deacon in the Southern Baptist Convention, asked me this: Let's say you're President of the U.S., and you just got official and verified word that we were under a full strategic nuclear attack by the Soviet Union (let's update this and call it "Russia"), what would your response be?

I ask this because it led to a rather lively, albeit still friendly, discussion that has has various implications. However, before giving my response to him, I'd like to see how you would have responded if he asked you that same question.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is no justification for launching nukes. Ever.

But I can't trust top military brass to understand or accept that, so I suppose I would have to pretend to believe otherwise.

Come to think of it, I would have to renounce for (among others) that very reason. It is a no-win game to try and deal with conflict-hungry military. It ill suits me to even try.

Assuming that nevertheless I am the commander-in-chief at that very moment despite all that, I would have to employ stalling tactics, and check and recheck whether the Russian strike is for real until eventually stating outright that no retaliation is to be deployed at all.

Better to be the victim of destructive insanity than its accomplice and enabler, after all.

 

[Revoltingest]

My answer would depend upon conditions leading up to the attack.

1) If tensions were running high, then I'd expect their attack to be
intentional, & followed up by conventional warfare & conquering....

Counter-attack!
Both sides would survive nuclear warfare

2) The Soviets once almost did this by mistake (true).
So if tensions weren't running high....

Endure the attack to minimize the carnage.
Who knows, the commies might even be ashamed of their actions.

 

[LuisDantas]

Both sides would survive nuclear warfare

I honestly wonder, how did you conclude that?

I assume you don't mean short-term. Would both sides survive for, say, six months or so? And would it be worth it even if they did?

 

[Revoltingest]

I honestly wonder, how did you conclude that?
I assume you don't mean short-term. Would both sides survive for, say, six months or so? And would it be worth it even if they did?

Contrary to popular legend, we don't have enuf nukes to wipe life off the face of the earth.
The attacks would necessarily be strategic, leaving many areas unscathed. Of course, there
would be widespread & lingering effects due to radioactivity during the following conventional
war & conquest.

 

[LuisDantas]

Contrary to popular legend, we don't have enuf nukes to wipe life off the face of the earth.
The attacks would necessarily be strategic, leaving many areas unscathed. Of course, there
would be widespread & lingering effects due to radioactivity during the following conventional
war & conquest.

We seem to be doing a fair enough job of whacking the climate without nukes as it is. As our ambitions as societies grow, so does our need for a stable environment in both the social, economic and ecological senses of the word.

In short, a "strategic" nuclear conflict in still a nuclear conflict, and it is by no means obvious that it can or should be tolerated even as a conception. Among other reasons, because of those lingering effects you mention late in your post.

And all that is before considering how defensable the conventional warfare is in the first place, which is "certainly not a whole lot".

 

[Revoltingest]

We seem to be doing a fair enough job of whacking the climate without nukes as it is. As our ambitions as societies grow, so does our need for a stable environment in both the social, economic and ecological senses of the word.

In short, a "strategic" nuclear conflict in still a nuclear conflict, and it is by no means obvious that it can or should be tolerated even as a conception. Among other reasons, because of those lingering effects you mention late in your post.

And all that is before considering how defensable the conventional warfare is in the first place, which is "certainly not a whole lot".

Well, nuclear conflict is the premise of the OP.
So it's gonna happen (in his scenario), & the question is about how to respond.
Whether war is defensible is a personal matter. You might eschew all war.
I'd rather avoid war too, but if I'm in it at all, I'm in it to win it.

 

[nazz]

Some 30 years ago or so, a friend of mine who also was and still is a deacon in the Southern Baptist Convention, asked me this: Let's say you're President of the U.S., and you just got official and verified word that we were under a full strategic nuclear attack by the Soviet Union (let's update this and call it "Russia"), what would your response be?

I ask this because it led to a rather lively, albeit still friendly, discussion that has has various implications. However, before giving my response to him, I'd like to see how you would have responded if he asked you that same question.

I would try to destroy their missiles if possible but I would not counter attack. Which is why I could never be President.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'd rather avoid war too, but if I'm in it at all, I'm in it to win it.

Of course.

However, how does one "win" a nuclear war except by refusing to participate in it (or to make it bigger)?

I don't think there is any other way.

 

[LuisDantas]

I would try to destroy their missiles if possible but I would not counter attack. Which is why I could never be President.

I echo those feelings.

Some kinds of prestige are simply not worth the price, not at all.

 

[Revoltingest]

I echo those feelings.

Some kinds of prestige are simply not worth the price, not at all.

It isn't about prestige at all, but rather living in our society instead of a Soviet one.

 

[LuisDantas]

It isn't about prestige at all, but rather living in our society instead of a Soviet one.

Is it, though?

I'm just doubtful.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is it, though?

Given the conditions stated in the OP, ie, that I'm the prez responding to a Soviet attack,
then yes...it is exactly as I say it is. Who would know my motives better than I, eh?

I'm just doubtful.

Doubt away then.

 

[LuisDantas]

Given the conditions stated in the OP, ie, that I'm the prez responding to a Soviet attack,
then yes...it is exactly as I say it is. Who would know my motives better than I, eh?

Oh, I don't have any reason to question your motives here.

I am very much in doubt about the accuracy of your premises, though.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, I don't have any reason to question your motives here.
I am very much in doubt about the accuracy of your premises, though.

So am I.
But one must make choices.

 

[metis]

When my friend asked me if I would respond by launching our nukes back at them, I said I probably would. He slammed his fist on a locker door (we were dressing after playing racquetball and showering), and said how could I do that? How could I in due conscience launch back, thus killing many millions of people in that region and elsewhere who would be completely innocent?

He was right-- I couldn't.

We have to remember a couple of other things. One is that we really don't have the ability to stop a nuclear full-strike outside our atmosphere. Secondly, the estimate made then by Carl Sagan's research group on this had it that the exploding of just 20,000 strategic nukes would be more than enough to create a "nuclear winter" that would decimate most of the world's population. His research on this has not been disputed by the science community even though the results shocked even Sagan.

 

[dust1n]

It would only take something like 16,000 Russian Tsar Bomba's to obliterate the entire mass land, not including radioactivity. And this was the biggest bomb ever tested, over 50 years ago. God only knows how much energy could potentially be released in a modern, all out-nuclear-war-mode type nuke.

 

[metis]

It would only take something like 16,000 Russian Tsar Bomba's to obliterate the entire mass land, not including radioactivity. And this was the biggest bomb ever tested, over 50 years ago. God only knows how much energy could potentially be released in a modern, all out-nuclear-war-mode type nuke.

I have this theory that in an all-out nuclear war, heaven forbid, I wanna catch the first bomb-- I really don't want to be a round to see the carnage.

 

[LuisDantas]

It sickens me to think that people in India actually make manifestations defending the creation and keeping of atomic bombs. So sad.

 

[bobhikes]

Some 30 years ago or so, a friend of mine who also was and still is a deacon in the Southern Baptist Convention, asked me this: Let's say you're President of the U.S., and you just got official and verified word that we were under a full strategic nuclear attack by the Soviet Union (let's update this and call it "Russia"), what would your response be?

I ask this because it led to a rather lively, albeit still friendly, discussion that has has various implications. However, before giving my response to him, I'd like to see how you would have responded if he asked you that same question.

I would have no problems launching a counter attack if there were no options. There's to many people on the world anyway. If I could swing it though, I would launch a full land invasion of Russia and try to take over the country that started the attack and use there land for our suvivors.

It depends on a lot and I have no idea what other options there are but I would not let them go without penalty.