Push the button?

[Xeven the God]

By Simon Darkshade
'....I am quite sure that I am not mad...'

No, you're not mad, you're EVIL.

Anywho, On-topic: If I was the head of a international state, I would use nukes much the way Simon would, as means of political defence or retaliatory device. If used as a means of
retaliation, there would certain prohibitions such as the targeting of only MILITARY targets (The one exception being a country's capitol) and non-coastal places (If you blow a nuke and the radio-active material gets in the water, it could spread very quickly indeed)


btw, I would also ally with any of my neighbors that had nukes and prevent the ones that did not from getting them. Again, much like Simon would (I guess great minds think a like )

 

[Six]

And fools seldom differ.

 

[PinkyGen]

Why, if I have enough nukes, and the paratroopers to seize the city. Of course, it would require the use of engineers to clean up the aftereffects and.... oh, you mean not in Civ?

Two options.
1. They have no nukes, or I do not risk nuclear immediate retaliation. Then it would depend on much a risk they posed. If I could do the job with minimal casaulties to my own conventional forces, I would do so. If I feel that nukes can do the job quicker and save me a large amount of life, then I would do so. Deaths among enemy civilians would also be a factor, though not an overriding factor. Real World examples
I am Israel, surprise attacked and losing a conventional battle. I would employ nukes to either attack the invading armies or destroy the capitals of the enemy countries.
I am US, caught by a surprise attack by Canda and Mexicans. Hockey playing Hooligans and banditos overrun my defenses, prepare nukes.
I am US, become aware of a Hidden Island of Evil (TM) being used by a supergenius who has prepared well against conventional attack. Use nukes.

2. They have nukes. In this case, I could only consider using them under two conditions.
a. I can take a large amount of their nukes in a first strike, and only suffer minimal casaulties. Only 20 million dead tops, not 200 million, to paraphrase Dr. Strangelove.
b. Even if my own country was losing, I don't think I would use them if I was certain they could respond.

 

[Dell19]

The chances are though by the time you are losing and have decided to use nukes, it is too late because they either occupy your own cities or they have already destroyed or captured all your nukes (Since they would be one of the major targets for an invading army).

 

[Simon Darkshade]

"No, you're not mad, you're EVIL."

Yes, I was waiting for someone to point that out, actually. Lawful evil, to be precise. Sane evil is always more threatening and frightening than insane evil, IMO.

Great minds think alike, and fools seldom differ- but one of the ways of looking at it. I would prefer to think that common sense is something most would aspire to.

"The chances are though by the time you are losing and have decided to use nukes, it is too late because they either occupy your own cities or they have already destroyed or captured all your nukes (Since they would be one of the major targets for an invading army)."

That is the problem with defensive deterrent, or waiting for the enemy to act, before one reacts. My policy of proactive offence is designed to get around this trap. The task of a national leader is not to agonize over the civilian casualties of an enemy country, or to follow "world opinion" (read 'media') like a sheep, but to defend the existence of their country and people and to secure a future for the children of that nation.'
One would not let a situation get that far, that nuclear arms were the last desparate result.

Of course, such a policy needs to be backed up by various economic, military and political policies, but they needn't merit a mention at this time. For the situation I describe, I would act first, to prevent any others acting first.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Since we are speaking hypothetically...

IF I were in charge of a country with nuclear arsenals, I would dismantle all ground-based ICBMs and use them to construct tactical sized weapons, with yields of 10 kilotons or less, and neutron and EMP weapons. These weapons would be placed in the control of my theatre commanders with strict RoE placed upon their use, like being overrun with no option, or to stop a break-through when no reserves existed to contain it. Enemy use of tac-nukes would allow a response in kind under these RoE. I would maintain a strategic reserve of missiles on subs as a deterrent against population bombing. These SLBMs would only be used as counter-force weapons, to obliterate ICBMs in-silo as a pre-emptive measure. Naturally, I would need a LOT of SLBMs...

This re-arming would have to be done in stages, naturally. One cannot disarm completely while making new weapons. I'd do about 10% of my arsenal at a time.

The RoE and existance (but obviously not location) of my deterrent force would be made public knowledge, in the hopes that no one would force me to use these weapons.

Note that under no circumstances would I ever order an attack on a populated area, unless that population was at least 80% military. Were the enemy basing his missiles in his cities, I would order a conventional pre-emptive strike before they could be made ready to fire, preferably while they were in transit. I simply will not tolerate using citizens as human shields against attack or retaliation.
Should he manage to make the missiles ready to fire via an intelligence failure, I would order his immediate assassination, while delivering a nuclear ultimatum to his nation. Should he remain in control, or the assassination fail, conventional weapons delivered by coordinated stealth fighters would be used to eliminate his weapons. Failure of this effort would almost certainly precipitate an armed conflict. At that point, those missiles would either be used or not.

Should any nation or group use WMD on my civilian population, our only response would be to expunge that entire civilization from the planet unless its own citizens immediately staged a revolution to replace their government within two hours of the attack. This policy would also be made public, along with our guarantee to assist any such revolution with the full array of military force at our command. Should the revolution fail, the civilization would be expunged from existence.

If they use tactical weapons against my armed forces, then response in kind will be part of the RoE, and my theatre commanders will already have their orders to fire if fired upon.

In short, my policy is designed to make other nations realise that WMD are no longer a viable option, except as cultural suicide, and that no war against my nation could be won, except as a Pyhrric victory in which both sides were exterminated. Either war would be obsolete real fast, or there would be one last brief war, with no winners.

Given human nature, I'd say it would be best if I were not placed in charge of a nuclear arsenal...

 

[amadeus]

I'd get a bunch of dud missiles and just fire them over the major cities and demand their surrender. The missiles are only a demonstration of what I'm prepared to do to them

 

[CurtSibling]

My nation would be so respected that any attack, nuclear or conventional, would be unthinkable by the global community!

The USA and China would leap to my nation's defence, as would Europe...remember my nation is hypothetical.

Some are just pathetical!

I would spare no mercy for ANY attack on my subjects.

"Swift and utter destruction" would ensue. But I would be on
Hand to rebuild the beaten foe...in my nation's vision of course.

PS

FearlessLeader2, I have no doubt your "expunging" of the
Enemy would be very...um, messy! But what if the enemy had
Total first-strike superiority?

And they wiped your nation of fearless crusader knights off the earth first? (A tragedy)

What would your policy be then, My Liege?

 

[Leowind]

Nuclear weapons would be an absolute last resort for me. It is very difficult to conceive of any realistic hypothetical situation where at least one of the following would not apply:
Conventional and/or Intelligence forces could accomplish the
same goals;
loss of civilian/innocent lives would be negligible.
Only if both those conditions could be met, or perhaps in the face of a large scale invasion by a country with nuclear capability (which I consider extremely unlikely) would I likely considering using nukes. If a nuclear strike were launched against my country, these conditions would no longer apply as stingently, and I would consider nuclear retaliation; but I consider the launching of a nuke against my country as an act preceded by many other hostile acts, and would likely have dealt with the situation in other ways before it got to that point.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
FearlessLeader2, I have no doubt your "expunging" of the
Enemy would be very...um, messy! But what if the enemy had
Total first-strike superiority?

And they wiped your nation of fearless crusader knights off the earth first? (A tragedy)

What would your policy be then, My Liege?

Well, I've always been of the opinion that it is the winners that get to write the history books, if they are smart enough to kill off all witnesses to their crimes. In that case, clearly, the better men won, if by better we mean more capable.

In any foreign policy, one tends to include the actions of one's allies as a given. I would hope that my [former] allies at least had the deceny to protest vigorously in the Senate of the New Imperium if I and mine did get incinerated in the opening exchanges of the Belli Imperium.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
In any foreign policy, one tends to include the actions of one's allies as a given. I would hope that my [former] allies at least had the deceny to protest vigorously in the Senate of the New Imperium if I and mine did get incinerated in the opening exchanges of the Belli Imperium.

Well, Be sure the Enemy Ace Empire's SDI defences would of course deflect the attack on the
Fearless Imperium with the greatest resistance possible!

A long as you deal out some of that unpleasant "expunging" onto our mutual foes!

We evil dictator's have to cover each other's backs!

 

[FearlessLeader2]

OH! We're talking about our Evil Empires' nuclear policies.

Well then, that changes everything.

I wouldn't need any nukes. I'd just send my ninjas forth, and when my enemies launched their nukes against me, instead of plutonium in their weapons, there would be harmless (relatively) lead. All of their missiles would be duds. The plutonium would be used by my country's nuclear power plants (mainly used for experiments involving radiation, nuclear power does not pay for itself when one includes cost of waste disposal, so I would never build a nuke plant, but I might keep one running if I inherited it for a mad scientist to play with.)

After their sudden, impotent, first strike, I would laugh derisively, and then make a menacing phone call to the fools, and send them a real-time image of their head in one of my ninja-snipers' crosshairs, just before everything went black forever.

 

[Sixchan]

Ooo, now THAT'S what I call evil!

 

[CurtSibling]

Only the most ruthless get into the Evil Dictator's Council!

 

[Sixchan]

I know, but that is pure class! The sniper-scope view is what does it for me!

 

[Gruntboy]

Reasonable use of Nuclear weapons:

The 2 on Japan seemed reasonable enough. After that I'd have threatened their use during the Berlin crisis. I'd have used them in Korea. If I didn't use them at Dien Bien Phu, I'd have certainly used them on the Cuban missile sites. Dropping them on Hanoi wouldn't be so difficult then. Anyone who stepped out of line after that would deserve one - Baghdad in '91, Khabul now. But I don't think it would get that far.

After that, I don't think anyone would **** with my country.

Then I'd be prepared to use them at sea, tactically in battle or punitively against states.

By setting a precedent, though, this would not be needed.

 

[Knowltok 2]

I don't understand how an evil dictator can be concerned with the cost of nuclear waste disposal. can't you just mail it to your enemies or something. maybe make a fountain pen out of it and give it to them as a peace offering. As long as your evil empire isn't the US, you could just assume that that big trench in Arizona is there for your waste disposal.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Sixchan
I know, but that is pure class! The sniper-scope view is what does it for me!

Hey, what can I tell ya? I'm a class kind of guy. I'd keep the movie from the gun footage and replay it in the background during my State of the Union addresses. Kind of like a warning to the others...

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Knowltok 2
I don't understand how an evil dictator can be concerned with the cost of nuclear waste disposal. can't you just mail it to your enemies or something. maybe make a fountain pen out of it and give it to them as a peace offering. As long as your evil empire isn't the US, you could just assume that that big trench in Arizona is there for your waste disposal.

Well, what can I say? I'm an eco-friendly evil dictator. Kind of like the Draka, but much more evil, and ruthless. So ruthless, I'd outlaw the name Ruth in my country.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Gruntboy
The 2 on Japan seemed reasonable enough. After that I'd have threatened their use during the Berlin crisis. I'd have used them in Korea. If I didn't use them at Dien Bien Phu, I'd have certainly used them on the Cuban missile sites. Dropping them on Hanoi wouldn't be so difficult then. Anyone who stepped out of line after that would deserve one - Baghdad in '91, Khabul now. But I don't think it would get that far.

If you had used nukes during the Cuban missile crisis or in Korea the world would now be a green rock.

You seem to think that nukes can be used in some sort of absolutely casual manner, as if they are some sort of conventional weapon hyped up.

Lets just hope you are never actually politically empowered in any way.