Enemy Ace asks: Americans, would you approve of a full nuke attack on a country?

Hello-ha!

Another for my US chums today!
If the President decided to break out the city-busters on a nation that has displeased the Whitehouse, would you cheer, or shriek?

OK, try these for size!

1. For what reasons APART FROM AN ATTACK ON US SOIL would you approve a nuclear strike?

2. Would you oppose a nuclear attack on a city full of people?

3. Would you consider it unpatriotic to oppose the President in such an action?

4. Would you fear a counter-strike by another nation?

5. Would you be concerned about the potential end of normal life on Earth?

6. Would you be willing to take the blame if such an end came about?

7. Would you be happy to nuke a similarly nuclear-armed nation?

8. Facing a nuclear threat from another state, would you call for a first strike?

9. If you were a soldier, would you obey an order to march into enemy irradiated regions?

10. If your city was hit, and you survived, but lost family and everything - would you still support the President’s action?


And you know the rules! - No bashing or disrespect! - I want serious answers!

Thanks for taking part!

1. None. There would have to be a credible imminent threat of nuclear attacks that could be averted (partially or fully) with our use of nukes. Otherwise, conventional strike only.

2. Yes, military targets only. Civilian death as collatoral damage = MONSTROUS, but acceptable under the above circumstances.

3. No, a nuclear strike is ALWAYS protestable in my opinion.

4. Yes.

5. Yes.

6. Yes.

7. No.

8. If credible and imminent, yes.

9. That's my job. I'd do it as a civilian if I thought it would help somehow. But I would probably not be the first to volunteer.

10. A couple unanswered if-and scenarios here. I assume you mean if I were gung-ho for war but then my family was killed would it change my mind? I am extremely skeptical of war as a problem-solving tool. Don't like it at all.

War is win-lose. The best solutions are win-win. And I believe that every interpersonal puzzle we face has at least one win-win solution buried within. It's just that people don't want to compromise, ever. And our lack of ability to compromise and cooperate leads us down these paths of conflict. All conflict is unneccesary. Whenever war is faught it's because SOMEONE grasped for more than their fair share.

Not all combatants are unrighteous (for example the Allied forces were clearly more righteous than the aggressor Axis forces in WW2,) but ultimately all wars are unrighteous, wretched and the result of someone going to far. Most often BOTH or ALL sides share blame.

Pretty much as Mr. Mojo said. I would add that were the air raid sirens to go off and missile tracks ascended into the skies from their North Dakota silos (and elsewhere), if I weren't in a city, I would be preparing for the "every man for himself" that would surely be coming upon us. EVERYTHING will change, forever, and the term "the United States of America" (or pretty much the name of every country directly or even indirectly affected) will cease to have any meaningful relevance in the new, post-civilized world to come.

I'd probably rather be IN a city at the time, and hopefully enjoy the last 30 minutes of my life somehow.

If you're talking LIMITED nuclear war, I'm with Mojo. If you're talking FULL nuclear war, none of these questions will matter much, will they? Everyone left over will no doubt be opposed to this happening to them, no matter what the rationale was before the fact.

Nuclear war should NEVER be an option.
What would have my support is the use of TACTICAL nuclear warheads, specifically targetting the leader of the attacking country, or the training camps of the terrorist faction, or the supply depots of the ennemy army and so on.

Targetting specifically the guy who is in the lead, and not his population, is not only much more defendable on a moral ground, but also much more effective as a deterrent.

Sorry, but I can't imagine how erasing some millions civilians can be justified.

1. Not another one. They'd have to attack us or nuke us.

2. Yes, only military should die, not civilians.

3. Knowing my town, Yes.

4. OF course. Especcialy if it was North Korea.

5. No.

6. No

7. No, I would not want to be nuked.

8. No, I consider a first strike if they attacked.

9. IF I am in the army, this is what I have to do. So Yes.

10. I would have never supported his action if they didnt attack first, and if I did support him, I would just kill my self because my friends family and things would be gone.

1. Any state committing an act of war, or harbouring/supporting those who have.

2. Yes, without a shadow of a doubt.

3. Yes, and more than unpatriotic. Opposition in times of war and national emergency is of a far more serious nature, and should be ruthlessly quashed as such.

4. No other nation has a capability for a valid counter strike after a US first strike except the Russkies, and their capability for such a counter strike is vastly diminished. So, no.

5. No.

6. Yes, for what it would be worth.

7. Yes. Hit 'em hard and hit 'em first. Do not allow nuclear parity, or anything close to it.

8. Yes.

9. Yes. My honour is my loyalty.

10. Yes. Desparate times call for desparate measures.

As for me, whilst all the unrighteous are being atomized, I will retire safely to my cryogenic hideyhole, as the Survivalist did.

Well, they didn't aproove nuking the USSR, even though it was "really evil". Nukes do too much colateral damage. What in the past could only be destroyed by nukes now can be dealt with by smart weapons with almost-pin-point accuracy.

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
4. No other nation has a capability for a valid counter strike after a US first strike except the Russkies, and their capability for such a counter strike is vastly diminished. So, no.

Click to expand...

What about France?
As I just said in the "war against the UK" thread, we have at all time a minimum of three nuclear submarines at sea, in secret and ever-changing locations.
Each of those carries 16 nuclear missiles. Every one of those missiles can destroy a metropolis.
Since they are aboard subs, they would not be affected by a first strike. And since they are free to move in close to US coasts before firing, the US's still primitive anti-missiles system would be hard-pressed to destroy them.
I would call 3*16 nuclear missiles a "valid counter strike". Not enough to wipe out the US, just half its population...

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
As for me, whilst all the unrighteous are being atomized, I will retire safely to my cryogenic hideyhole, as the Survivalist did.

Click to expand...

As the cryo-gas takes hold, the last thing you will see is my laughing face as I am reaching for the life support 'OFF' lever!

Sorry, Simon!
There can only be one Lord Humungous-style leader of the post-WW3 empire!

America has said it will not use nuclear weapons unless first used against them. And if nuclear weapons are used against America then I think they would be fully justified in responsing with everything they've got.

1. NOPE!!!

2. Yes

3. No

4. Yes

5. Yes

6. No, i didn't launch the nuke

7. No (MAD [Mutually Assured Destruction])

8. Depends on if it is terrorist run (Taliban Afghanistan) or a real government (China). Terrorist YES government NO

9. Yes, only if other people go (Misery Loves Company)

10. Yes, but right after i would want the blow the damn country of the planet

Originally posted by Kinniken
What about France?
As I just said in the "war against the UK" thread, we have at all time a minimum of three nuclear submarines at sea, in secret and ever-changing locations.
Each of those carries 16 nuclear missiles. Every one of those missiles can destroy a metropolis.
Since they are aboard subs, they would not be affected by a first strike. And since they are free to move in close to US coasts before firing, the US's still primitive anti-missiles system would be hard-pressed to destroy them.
I would call 3*16 nuclear missiles a "valid counter strike". Not enough to wipe out the US, just half its population...

Click to expand...

France do not have a valid capability in this regard.

They have a total of 4 SSBNs in service, based at one port. Three are not on constant patrol; this runs contrary to much evidence and doctrine. Even the British only have one out at once. They consist of L'Intomptable, launched in 1974, the aging L'Inflexible and two of the new Le Triomphante class - Le Triomphante and Le Temeraire. A new one is due in 2004.
The French do not have 3/4s of their entire force out on deterrence patrol; this is not the doctrine of any nuclear power, and was not even the case during the height of the Cold War. To do so would endanger national deterrence capabilities extremely.
The French keep three at a ready state, and one or two out on patrol.
As is said here: Of these four submarines, three are maintained in the operational cycle, although only one or two are normally "on station" in designated patrol areas at any given time, compared with three in the early 1990s. http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab16.asp

Their patrol areas are designed to hit targets in Russia. For many years, this meant that they had to patrol off the coast of Norway. Now, they can move in the Western Atlantic, which would allow them to hit some targets on the US eastern seaboard, but it also puts them

French SLBMs do not carry city buster payloads, but rather 6 100-150kt warheads.

Furthermore, they are not as secret and untrackable as characterised; certainly not as quiet as the Ohio class. If a situation developed between France and the US, the continued existence of the French SSBN on patrol would not be for long.

Presuming that one or even two French boomers survive a first strike, then they are not free to move close to US coasts, nor do they need to. 32 SLBMs does not constitute a valid second strike - it would not destroy US nuclear capability that was not launched in the first instance. The Ohios carry 24 Trident II D5s, each with between 4 and 8 RVs (they can carry up to 16), but more significantly, the French could not significantly damage the missile fields or hit the bombers already in the air.

The US does have a number of working ABM systems, and this increases by the day; USS Lake Erie and USS Port Royal carry Linebacker, which is more than handy.

Anyway, the point is that the valid counterstrike capability one referred to was the capability to destroy the enemies nuclear capability in a serious manner. The French nuclear deterrent is significant on its own level, but is far from serious when compared to the US.

Curt - This world has turned out to be big enough for the two of us at the moment; after the main event, there will be even more space.

Originally posted by CurtSibling

9. If you were a soldier, would you obey an order to march into enemy irradiated regions?

Click to expand...

As a non American I can't say whether I'd support a nukelar strike of my country, but during my military service I was trained to do exactly what you mention under 9. If I ever had to walk into a radiated/contaminated area I would refuse and/or desert. Everyone's want for self-preservation should be enough to stop him from entering a contaminated area. I am not willing to suffer for the rest of my life because of political mistakes made by others.

Generally considering a nuklear strike is inhumane because there is no way of preventing civilian victims. The main impact would be that thousands of people (civilians and soldiers) suffer for ther rest of their life. No country and no inhabitant of a country deserves it, if it is considered as a retaliation attack it only shows your disrespect for human lives. However no politician should be allowed to say this, since deterrance would no longer be possible.

Kinniken, get real : a US-France would annihilate France in less than a week. Maybe the US would have one or two of their major cities destroyed but that's about it.

Originally posted by CurtSibling
1. For what reasons APART FROM AN ATTACK ON US SOIL would you approve a nuclear strike?

Click to expand...

Nope. Conventional munitions can do even better than nuclear weapons.

2. Would you oppose a nuclear attack on a city full of people?

Click to expand...

Yes, because I don't think nuclear weapons are really necessary for modern warfare.

3. Would you consider it unpatriotic to oppose the President in such an action?

Click to expand...

Democratic opposition isn't unpatriotic.

4. Would you fear a counter-strike by another nation?

Click to expand...

Of course.

5. Would you be concerned about the potential end of normal life on Earth?

Click to expand...

Any fission-based weapon used after 1945 would most certainly change the dynamics of what we percieve as normal. So, yes.

6. Would you be willing to take the blame if such an end came about?

Click to expand...

Wasn't my fault, I didn't support the action in the first place.

7. Would you be happy to nuke a similarly nuclear-armed nation?

Click to expand...

And destroy the entire country? No.

8. Facing a nuclear threat from another state, would you call for a first strike?

Click to expand...

Nope. We faced this threat for 50 years from a country ran by crackpots and we never struck them first.

9. If you were a soldier, would you obey an order to march into enemy irradiated regions?

Click to expand...

No, unless I was certain that I was given proper equipment in order to keep myself safe from the area.

10. If your city was hit, and you survived, but lost family and everything - would you still support the President’s action?

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter, because I didn't support the action in the first place.

1. I can't imagine such a reason.

2. Certainly. Or an unpopulated city, for that matter.

3. I'd consider it unpatriotic not to oppose such action.

4. Dependant on circumstances.

5. I'm always concerned about the end of life on earth.

6. No mea culpa here. I doubt I'd be consulted about such a decision, anyway.

7. No happier than to nuke a non-nuclear nation.

8. Not likely. Circumstance-dependant.

9. Only if a gun were being held to my head.

10. Since I wouldn't have supported it in the first place... nope.

Originally posted by D' Artagnan
Kinniken, get real : a US-France would annihilate France in less than a week. Maybe the US would have one or two of their major cities destroyed but that's about it.

Click to expand...

Less than a week? If it's a full-scale nuclear war, I would count that in hours.
Though if Simon is correct, I was over-estimating our dissuation force, you'll notice that Simon did not rule out "one or two" surviving. It is indeed not enough to stop a second strike (and in any case, would one be needed?), but it should be enough to anihilate more than "one or two" American cities.
Honestly, I cannot conceive a country going to war if it knows it will nearly certainly lose at least half a dozen of its major cities in return.

I fully agree with rmsharpe.

Originally posted by Ohwell
I fully agree with rmsharpe.

Click to expand...

I do, also!

Originally posted by CurtSibling


I do, also!

Click to expand...

And so do I...
Hmm, that makes two agreements to a post by MrPresident, and one to a post by rmsharpe, in one weekend! Have stranger things been seen to happen?