Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
This might cause fallout that devastates surrounding, innocent countries, or even the world as a whole.
Nuclear question: what would happen?
- Thread starter Winner
- Start date
This might cause fallout that devastates surrounding, innocent countries, or even the world as a whole.
i think nuclear retalition would be overkill, especially as in this scenario the government in question didnt authorise it, just take out the individuals responsible for it and track down and take any nuclear material this organisation had, attacking the populace of the country would just cause more problems
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
Is anyone taking into account where you're bombing, and who the neighbors are? Doesn't it seem like it would be difficult to bomb, say, France, without pissing off, say, Belgium? Or do you not give a crap about Belgium?
(I know, silly examples, but you get the point.)
(I know, silly examples, but you get the point.)
Godwynn
March to the Sea
- Joined
- May 17, 2003
- Messages
- 20,502
They didn't seem to care if New York City was nuked. This will give the innocents the incentive to not let a nuclear weapon fall into the wrong hands.
Godwynn
March to the Sea
- Joined
- May 17, 2003
- Messages
- 20,502
Which should be avoided, but we'll try our best not to hurt them in any way.
Waste the mother f*****s.
If people start to think we are just bluffing, then we are gonna get pwnd again and again. What good is it having all this military and nuclear power if we show we are afraid/unwilling to use it? Responding to an attack like this with anything less than overwhelming force would show just that.
Of course, I think we should do this only AFTER exhuasting all diplomatic options. LOL
If people start to think we are just bluffing, then we are gonna get pwnd again and again. What good is it having all this military and nuclear power if we show we are afraid/unwilling to use it? Responding to an attack like this with anything less than overwhelming force would show just that.
Of course, I think we should do this only AFTER exhuasting all diplomatic options. LOL
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
What kind of diplomacy can you conduct with a nuke?
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
In this scenario, the government would put the nation on a full military footing/mobilization....not simply to retalitate against the agressor, but also to protect the local populace from looters and theives. Most likey their would be a national curfew with full militia enforcement. Once the situation in our nation is stabilized, we most likely would retaliate with the full force of our military against who did this to us. No holds barred.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
My thoughts are:
the whole point of having a nuclear aresenal is to scare the potentional enemies. The enemy has to know, that in case they'd attack me with nuclear (or other) weapons, I'd retaliate with the same or stronger force.
But how does this "eye for an eye" (I don't say MAD, because it's not quite the case here) principle fits into the 21st centure, where the principal enemies are not states, but non-state actors which are sometimes being supported by states or some state institutions?
If the random country gave its nuke to the terrorists, or gave them the means to build one themselves, would that constitute an attack? Would it mean it indirectly attacked the target country? And if it was so, would that mean than nuclear retaliation is justified?
I am afraid that terrorists are just another form of "warhead delivery system". In my opinion, it doesn't make any difference if someone launches a nuclear missile at you or smuggle the nuke into your country and then detonates it.
the whole point of having a nuclear aresenal is to scare the potentional enemies. The enemy has to know, that in case they'd attack me with nuclear (or other) weapons, I'd retaliate with the same or stronger force.
But how does this "eye for an eye" (I don't say MAD, because it's not quite the case here) principle fits into the 21st centure, where the principal enemies are not states, but non-state actors which are sometimes being supported by states or some state institutions?
If the random country gave its nuke to the terrorists, or gave them the means to build one themselves, would that constitute an attack? Would it mean it indirectly attacked the target country? And if it was so, would that mean than nuclear retaliation is justified?
I am afraid that terrorists are just another form of "warhead delivery system". In my opinion, it doesn't make any difference if someone launches a nuclear missile at you or smuggle the nuke into your country and then detonates it.
Swedishguy
Deity
I don't think this scenario will ever happen. There's an unwritten rule of all humans in the world, even the crazy ones, to not use nukes at a country. Sounds weird, but that's the state of things.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
I agree. Those that would have given the terrorists a nuclear device are just as culpable as the those who detonated it.
I would invade the country, and tried to take out the government and all terrorist organizations, and make sure it could never happen again.
Killing more innocents from the other country wouldn't make me any better than them.
Maybe said "if you do it again, we will respond with nukes"
Killing more innocents from the other country wouldn't make me any better than them.
Maybe said "if you do it again, we will respond with nukes"
Shylock
Hey smiling strange
I assume that anyone known to practice the Islamic faith (you thought the Census was benign?) would be persecuted at least by the bewildered citizenry. In addition to the mosques already destroyed in the blasts there would be few burned down around the country and if they're smart mobs, with people inside them in a throwback to the Middle Ages.
As for the government expect anything from more scrutinity to concentration camps.
As for the government expect anything from more scrutinity to concentration camps.
Fugitive Sisyphus
Escape Artist
While I more or less agree with everything you said, the real answer over whether to use nukes is "it depends"
Nukes work really good at beating a hostile governing body into submission(see WWII Japan). In some nations (like WWII Japan with a God-Emperor), if the leadership submits, the whole nation submits. However, you can't get a terrorist organization to submit by the threat or use of nukes. It might be possible to get the country who backed the terrorist organization to submit. If this what you want to do then nukes will bring it about as long as long as the country has a strong central government and has enough to lose. The other factor to consider is whether or not a nuke would be the most efficient response. Really, a nuclear weapon is just like any other weapon except it produces a bigger bang. Against a superpower that is completely mobilized for war, a nuke ensures the destruction of the entire war effort at the targeted location. Against a third-rate power that doesn't even have stable electricity, a nuke is overkill with our modern weapon systems.
In short, if there is another World War we might dust off the nukes but besides that they aren't very useful.
Italian Celtic
real european
and if the non-state actor was supported by neocon conspiration to conquer the world (like a the secret neocon organization supported the 11th september) and to sacrifice american people to advantage of the industries
what would we do? shall we destroy ourself?
see these videos if you think i am the typical filo-european anti-american crazy italian
http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=EuiIao49Xv0
http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=ioM1_efAVZo
Winner
Diverse in Unity
They have used biological weapons, chemical weapons and I guess they haven't used nuclear weapons just because they haven't had any.
We're talking about people who are firmly convinced, that they're doing the right thing and they'll go to heaven if they do it.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
While I more or less agree with everything you said, the real answer over whether to use nukes is "it depends"
Nukes work really good at beating a hostile governing body into submission(see WWII Japan). In some nations (like WWII Japan with a God-Emperor), if the leadership submits, the whole nation submits. However, you can't get a terrorist organization to submit by the threat or use of nukes. It might be possible to get the country who backed the terrorist organization to submit.
But that's the whole point. Terrorists don't care how many civilians you kill in response, in their eyes they're all just martyrs whose death only furthers their cause.
Countries, that's a different game. Even the most idiotic and genocidal governments (typically - USSR, North Korea etc.) care about themselves and their survival. They understand the language of power.
That's right, but we're talking about keeping the psychological balance of terror. The only reason why countries don't give nukes to non-state actors fighting their enemies is the fear of being nuked themselves.
If this balance was destroyed, for example if the nuked country didn't respond in the same manner, other could do the same, thinking they're safe from nuclear retaliation.
You're perfectly right when you say that nukes just produce bigger bang (+some nasty fallout), but you underestimate their psychological impact.
I think it's the other way round. Superpowers won't use nukes against each other unless they're desperate, but use of nukes is much more probable in local, regional conflicts.
France? That's easy: they immediately surrender!
Britain? Read this:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article423400.ece
and you'll get the idea of what their response would be.
USA? Considering the response for two lousy buildings and a mere 3,000 people, [editor's note: irony and sarcasm filters are not infallible, check your browser settings] who knows? They might get serious and actually go to a war footing, instead of just paying lip service to the idea of being at war while they drive through Starbucks on the way to the mall to charge more crap they don't need on their last credit card that isn't maxed out. But I seriously doubt it.
[/satire]
The above is an example, however poor, of black humor. Save your accusations of racism: that's a topic for another thread; feel free to start one. If the humor escapes you, try a bit harder. The effort you waste may be your own.
