Push the button?

[Simon Darkshade]

Pardon the incorrect euphimism in the title, but one thought it would get attention.
Hypothetical: You are the leader of a state with nuclear weapons capacity. In what situation/context would you use the nuclear option, and to what extent? Explain in reasonable length.

One's own answer will come shortly.

 

[jacques]

I don't think that it is possible to answer that question in reasonnable length.

 

[Dell19]

I would only press the button for a few reasons...
If there was a large invasion force about to attack and peace negotiations had failed. It would probably be the best way because it may reduce casualtys overall and would completely reduce my own force's casultys.
Then there are other possible reasons like when the enemy will not surrender and are continuing to send troops to massacred and so it could bring an end to a war.
If another nation had attacked with nukes and they would send more if they weren't stopped. Although this falls under the eye for an eye catergory so its not the best reason.
Generally thoiugh I would hope to never use them because they cause too much destruction and so they would be more likely to be used as a tool to threaten and to not actually use.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Jacques, why?

My own answer is fairly simple.
If the enemy deployed WMD of any sort against my state or its interests.
To preserve national independence, and to respond to serious conventional attacks.
One would use nuclear weapons against terrorist facilities that were well defended against a conventional response, or against enemy control facilities.
A pre emptive strike against a belligerent and unreasonable enemy with WMD capacity, or one with a large conventional capacity.

In short, for national defence, preferably before the other party has a chance, and for massive, unforgiving retaliation. It would be an avowed policy, which would make intransigent states and non-state actors think twice before meddling. Somewhat similar to the policy of the US at various stages, but no prohibition on a first strike.

 

[jacques]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Jacques, why?

My own answer is fairly simple.
If the enemy deployed WMD of any sort against my state or its interests.
To preserve national independence, and to respond to serious conventional attacks.

Why would someone do that, leaving you with no choice but retaliate with nuclear weapons and therefore totally destroy him.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

It is a hypothetical situation. To question its premises is not what is requested. And in answer to your query, being rational is not a precondition for leaders of states. They often take actions that another individual would lable bizarre or insane.
I reiterate: My policy would not be limited to response or retaliation, but rather the option would be reserved to go nuclear in a conventional conflict, or to use them like any other effective weapon. My point is that my policy would extend that unwillingness to risk nuclear attack from only being a consequence of using WMD or invading the homeland to being a consequence of any act of war or aggression against my state or its allies or interests.

 

[jacques]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
I reiterate: My policy would not be limited to response or retaliation, but rather the option would be reserved to go nuclear in a conventional conflict, or to use them like any other effective weapon. My point is that my policy would extend that unwillingness to risk nuclear attack from only being a consequence of using WMD or invading the homeland to being a consequence of any act of war or aggression against my state or its allies or interests.

Correct me if I misunderstood (Your sentence is quite long and I'm not that fluent in english).

You say that you would attack with nuclear weapons any country (let's say country) that threatens your state (this I would understand) or its allies (I think it's becoming questionnable) or interests (?????? what ?? what do you mean by interests, like Castro nationalizing american companies in Cuba? Nuclear bombing because of stupid factories or gold mines or whatever??).

Nowadays, nuclear bombs are hundreds of time more powerful than the one that was dropped on hiroshima. I think that nobody has the right to use those.

Moreover, the question of premises is the important one when it comes to nuclear weapons.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Yes, any nation that attacks or threatens the state, its allies, or its vital national interests. By this, one is not referring to gold mines, nationalizing companies, nor a few factories, but the vital national interests and resources of the state. Sponsorship of terrorism or insurgency, or regional instability would not be tolerated. Attempts to deny the state what it needs for its survival- materials, resources etc, would be seen as an act of war and treated as such.

My whole point is to up the ante to the extent that no one tries anything, as they ensure their destruction. If, for example, the state was Australia, and a hostile regime was in place in Indonesia, and they attacked East Timor (ally), Darwin (territory of the state), or if they embarked on development of WMD, then appropriate measures are taken.
In the case of weapons development, or terrorism, the facilities used will be hit in order to remove such a threat.
In the case of attacks on an ally, military targets would be eliminated in order to prevent any further attacks, to relieve any present ones, and as punishment.
In the case of an attack on the sovereign territory of the state itself, or deliberately targetting its people through terrorism or otherwise, then the policy would be thus:the targets would be military, political command and control centres, and possibly population centres.
Note this last item is an article of policy that is declared with the primary aim of deterrence, and would only be employed in exceptional circumstances.

If one was head of a state, and its existence was seriously threatened by that of another state, then one would feel obligated to render that state non-existent. In short, destroy it utterly.
Ruthless, yes, but very effective, and if it is known that you mean business and have a very short tether, then you will be treated with appropriate caution and respect.

Of course nuclear weapons have got more powerful since 1945. Most weapons have. That is a given fact, not open to debate, but rather irrelevant to this hypothetical situation.

Now, Jacques, I repeat that this is a hypothetical situation, and as such, one that is unlikely to happen in the next year or so. Therefore, the purpose of the exercise is to determine under what circumstances the nuclear option would be employed, if available. You have made your position quite clear, that you would not, so questioning the premises is unnecessary. You have made your point.

 

[amadeus]

Yes.

But only if conventional weapons failed, and the U.S. is on my side.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

If I was not getting enough sex in the executive office, I would be tempted to lash out with fusion phallic symbols.
:rocket2:

 

[jacques]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
You have made your position quite clear, that you would not, so questioning the premises is unnecessary. You have made your point.

Then I'm not allowed to criticize your opinion?

And what if the country you attack with nuclear weapons has itself the bomb, or allies that have it, will they be allowed to use it against your state (according to your criteria) because you threaten their interests? What will you do to prevent that? Kill them all before they strike back? What if one single missile is not destroyed and its target is Sydney?

You have made your point yourself, pardon me if I think it's the point of a madman.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

"Then I'm not allowed to criticize your opinion?"

If you want to make a big song and dance about it, then do so. It won't change anything, nor in fact do anything. I'm not trying to convince anyone that I am right and everything else is wrong, I am simply considering a hypothetical situation, in the manner of one of Geoffrey Robertson's.

As to your next points, those issues were already raised. My state would not tolerate the existence of WMD in the hands of a neighbour or regional neighbour unless they were a firm ally. If they attempted to develop them under any other circumstances, then the development program will be destroyed by conventional means if possible (think Osirak), or failing that, a nuclear ultimatum.

I am not presenting a criteria of behaviour for the international system; I am putting forth a course of action for our own state. If another state attempted to do the same to us, or develop the ability to do so, then they would be prevented. I would not allow a level playing field, but would use any means necessary to defend the state, which is an underlying point of mine: If you have the means to defend yourself, you must at least countenance their use.

In answer to your question:

"And what if the country you attack with nuclear weapons has itself the bomb, or allies that have it, will they be allowed to use it against your state (according to your criteria) because you threaten their interests? What will you do to prevent that? Kill them all before they strike back?"

Yes. If it came to that, destroy their ability to strike at you; in a sense, kill them all. I am not advocating nuclear carpet bombing in every circumstance, no matter what, but neither am I letting there be any situation where I would not employ every means available to defend the state.

As I have previously said, do unto others what they would do unto you, but do it harder, more often and better.

The matter of "what if's" is another matter. Needless to say, a nuclear policy such as this would be accompanied by heavy employment of TMD, and BMD, as well as preemptive actions using massive force.

"You have made your point yourself, pardon me if I think it's the point of a madman."
Resorting to personal abuse because you disagree with a hypothetical point is not the mark of a polite individual. It is clear you disagree. Fine.
But to label someone mad on the strength of one thread is quite silly and immature. I am quite sure that I am not mad, thank you, and so is everyone I know. To abuse someone who disagrees with you is not the sign of a good case. Why is defending one's state with every means available mad?

You can certainly argue that the use of nuclear weapons can be in so cases construed as immoral, but it does not follow that it is insane.
Mutually assured destruction would not exist under the system I put forth in this hypothetical. Or rather it would, in the form of, "if you attack us or ours, then you assure YOUR destruction, and WE assure YOUR destruction as well"

 

[jacques]

I didn't say you were mad. I said this was a madman's idea.

But anyway, I don't want to talk with people like you.
So goodbye, and happy new year.

 

[Archbob]

I'd push and then regret it afterwards..

 

[Magnus]

The good news is, if you DID 'push the button' there would be nobody left on the planet to criticize your decision.

 

[Ohwell]

I just pushed the button

If the state was at war with me, I would do it only if my loyal serfs wanted it done, and with assurance the world wouldn't care THAT much, such as North Korea. So, if there was a state I didn't perticularly like and nobody did, I would attack it if it deeply threatened my country, say if my men were starving and I had no airforce left. So, it is really only a deterrent in my eyes, and would only be used if I had no hope left.

If it were my choice I would have the damn things banned.

 

[ComradeDavo]

You are the leader of a state with nuclear weapons capacity. In what situation/context would you use the nuclear option, and to what extent? Explain in reasonable length.

I don't think I could ever bring myself to push the button....except if really viscious aliens were invading and in other crazy waco scenarios such as that.

 

[BlueMonday]

I think some of you have been playing civ a little too much...

 

[CurtSibling]

If the world was unfortunate enough to have me as a national leader, I would use the nukes for what they were intended:

Tools of policy, never fired at anyone...but I would make refrences to my nuclear might in discussions with my enemies.

Tarkin Doctrine applies:

Rule by the fear of force, rather than force itself.

 

[Six]

Hmm, I'd say I would only attack a millitary target with a nuke, like Area 51 (I don't MEAN Area 51, I'm using it as an example of remoteness), I'd never attack a city. I couldn't bring myself to kill millions of innocent people. If I did, I'd probably commit suicide or something afterwards.