The morality of nuclear retalitation.

Terxpahseyton · Mar 21, 2012

So lets suppose nation B starts a surprise nuclear attack on nation A and lets suppose the nukes are already in the air. Let's further suppose that those nukes are sufficient to utterly destroy nation A, basically removing it from the face of the earth. Moreover, nation A lacks sufficient means to do anything about that, however, it is able to detect the coming nukes and has still enough time left to react with an equally disastrous counter-attack on nation B, taking it down as well (nation B couldn't prevent its own destruction, either).

In the past, both nations have made it clear that any nuclear attack would be responded to in kind (nuclear deterrence and all).

But, now that this scenario actually takes place, under all the assumptions given by this OP, would it actually be the right thing to do for nation A? Would it be the moral thing to do? Would you want nation A to take such an action being a citizen of it?

edit: Meh, wrong spelling in thread titles is embarrassing

luiz · Mar 21, 2012

Well, I suppose they have to do it for the sake of the rest of mankind, that is, so that governments contemplating nuclear assaults realize that the consequence would be annihilation and thus refrain from that. Otherwise nuclear bullies might try to repeat this winning formula to achieve global supremacy.

emzie · Mar 21, 2012

Agreed with luiz. Plus, screw country B.

Samson · Mar 21, 2012

I think this is a very good question. After thinking about it, I do not know the answer to the question given, but I know that if it was me with my finger on the button I would not press it, knowing that if there is a maker, I will be meeting him very soon.

Save_Ferris · Mar 21, 2012

Depends. Which is Country A and which is Country B? If the world is going to be left with one dictatorship, nothing good can come out of it. If both countries are destroyed, humanity will be in anarchy, but it has a chance to restart.

Hygro · Mar 21, 2012

Also if you leave country B, not only will other governments not fear retaliation but it would be presumably be the kind of nation that would then go around and nuke and conquer other nations. It's probably a superpower fighting the other superpower, because otherwise the threat of retaliation from nation C, with Atlanticesque treaty states in conglomerate D would cruise missile/nuke it to the ground.

NickyJ · Mar 21, 2012

contre said:
Agreed with luiz. Plus, screw country B.

Agreed. M.A.D. #1!!!

BasketCase · Mar 21, 2012

luiz said:
Well, I suppose they have to do it for the sake of the rest of mankind, that is, so that governments contemplating nuclear assaults realize that the consequence would be annihilation and thus refrain from that. Otherwise nuclear bullies might try to repeat this winning formula to achieve global supremacy.

You realize the United States itself is a counterexample to that.....?

The U.S. did use nuclear weapons once. The result: our opponent surrendered. Yet, half a century later, we still haven't repeated the winning formula.....

Skwink · Mar 21, 2012

That's a D move by country B. Bomb them.

emzie · Mar 21, 2012

BasketCase said:
You realize the United States itself is a counterexample to that.....?

The U.S. did use nuclear weapons once. The result: our opponent surrendered. Yet, half a century later, we still haven't repeated the winning formula.....

Would the US have dropped the bomb if Japan had the ability to retaliate equally?

kramerfan86 · Mar 21, 2012

luiz said:
Well, I suppose they have to do it for the sake of the rest of mankind, that is, so that governments contemplating nuclear assaults realize that the consequence would be annihilation and thus refrain from that. Otherwise nuclear bullies might try to repeat this winning formula to achieve global supremacy.

Agreed, it would be best for humanity for the victim country to prove MAD true.

Ayn Rand · Mar 21, 2012

In a detatched and objective sense, I think retaliation is an immoral and futile action. If the bluff fails, there is really no point [objectively] in going ahead with a retaliatory strike.

[Which is why, for the bluff to succeed, the people in charge need to be the kind of lunatics who would launch anyway].

Hmm.. first person to vote no

Arwon · Mar 21, 2012

BasketCase said:
You realize the United States itself is a counterexample to that.....?

The U.S. did use nuclear weapons once. The result: our opponent surrendered. Yet, half a century later, we still haven't repeated the winning formula.....

Not sure but I think there might be a couple other variables in play here. Just maybe.

IdiotsOpposite · Mar 21, 2012

Absolutely. Wipe Country B from the face of the earth.

IdiotsOpposite · Mar 21, 2012

BasketCase said:
You realize the United States itself is a counterexample to that.....?

The U.S. did use nuclear weapons once. The result: our opponent surrendered. Yet, half a century later, we still haven't repeated the winning formula.....

Japan was not armed with nuclear weapons. Completely different scenario.

squadbroken · Mar 21, 2012

MAD "makes sense" in its own psychotic way.
But is it moral? Is it something I would want carried out, even if I was a member of the soon-to-annihilated nation A?
No.

velosepappe · Mar 21, 2012

kramerfan86 said:
Agreed, it would be best for humanity for the victim country to prove MAD true.

So the people left behind can say: "hey, the system works!". I believe that MAD is maddness, and that we are only lucky that we didn't have to apply the philosophy. We don't even know wether it works or not.
All said and done, I would certainly not push the button as the inhumane consequences of that action would only be slightly mitigated by the fact that the others 'started first'.

Core Imposter · Mar 21, 2012

Everytime this sort of thing comes up I point out that morality is not an attribute that can be or should be assigned to governments. Its a stupid idea.

What a government has is a responsibility. You can't know for sure what the results of the initial strike will be. Its likely that the effects of nukes have been inflated by a conspiracty of common interest. They are so terrible nobody wants them to be used. So inflate there efficencies to prevent people from even thinking of it. (and this appears to have worked well)

So you have to assume some level of survivability and so you must launch.

Also, the government has the responsibility of providing justice. People are barred from doing this as individuals (vengence is the Lord's) but governments are in the business of providing justice. Therefore, a launch would be correct even if there was somehow a certainty of outcomes.

It is the duty of government to revenge its people.

emzie · Mar 21, 2012

MisterCooper said:
It is the duty of government to revenge its people.

Big-government Republicans :shake:

bombshoo · Mar 21, 2012

I wouldn't do it, though I recognize the need for it.

I guess that's why I could never want to be President.

The morality of nuclear retalitation.

Would you?

Yes

No

Not sure / Other

Nobody

Trendy Revolutionary

wicked witch of the North

Deity

Admiring Myself

soundcloud.com/hygro/

Retired Narrator

Username sez it all

FRIIIIIIIIIITZ

wicked witch of the North

Deity

Deity

stop being water

Boom, headshot.

Boom, headshot.

King

Warlord

Felon

wicked witch of the North

Never mind...

Similar threads