nuclear war
 

The "democracy" in Russia has fallen. A dictator has taken over and a new cold war ensues. One morning he decides to nuke the US. You are the president of the US and you are alerted to a full nuclear assalt- on the US only. 99.9% of the US's population will be killed. What is your decision for a nuclear response?

Same scenario except the dictator's regime is crumbling, even France has agreed that military action is nessecary if the russions don't depose of him. After A failed coup attempt the dictator launches the weapons, agains only at the US. Your response?

Re: nuclear war
 

1. Total counter-strike--against Russia and any and all of its allies. The nuclear deterrent will only work when the otherside realizes that any strike will spell out its own doom. The fact that the US population will be already dead, and the deterrence has failed in one instance changes nothing. Nuclear technology will still exist, and the deterrence model must be upheld for the sake of the remaining world.

2. Why would the response be different? The deterrence model needs to be reinforced.

Re: nuclear war
 

I agree, Im not sure I understand what the other options are, my plan is any defense possible (can you hit a nuke in the sky so it drops in the atlantic?), followed with any and all possible attack and retaliation.

But I like the model Travolta's character describes in Swordfish, and I know others dont agree:)

Re: nuclear war
 

Deterrance is a concern. But there are other countires with the capability to strike Russia, and now have justification to do so. Shouldn't they be the ones to determine what type of world they want to live in? Just a thought.

The difference between 1&2 is that in 1 the dictator is still expected to hold power and a nuclear strike could be limited to removing him for the betterment of the world. In 2, depending on the circumstances you could assume that he would be out of power very soon without the capability to attack other countries, where as a retaliation from the Us could cause him to decide to hit all US allies as well.

Re: nuclear war
 

The "democracy" in Russia has fallen.

This part is not hypothetical. Putin's regime *is* the old Commissars. The talk in Russia is that either he will find an excuse to run again despite their constitution's two-term restriction, or, if not, the sole candidate will be his hand-picked successor.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Let\'s rephrase
 

I'm coming at your base with two rockvees and an ambo. You've got a Jarmen, two scorps, and a quad. What do you do?

Re: nuclear war
 

[ QUOTE ]
In 2, depending on the circumstances you could assume that he would be out of power very soon without the capability to attack other countries, where as a retaliation from the Us could cause him to decide to hit all US allies as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you some sort of self loathing pansy masochist or something? I bet if I punch you in the stomach and steal your money you wouldn't even try to fight back.

Re: nuclear war
 

[ QUOTE ]
The "democracy" in Russia has fallen. A dictator has taken over and a new cold war ensues. One morning he decides to nuke the US. You are the president of the US and you are alerted to a full nuclear assalt- on the US only. 99.9% of the US's population will be killed. What is your decision for a nuclear response?

Same scenario except the dictator's regime is crumbling, even France has agreed that military action is nessecary if the russions don't depose of him. After A failed coup attempt the dictator launches the weapons, agains only at the US. Your response?

[/ QUOTE ]

The hypothetical questions have to be meaningful for there to be any meaningful discussion.

If Russia ever got to a postion where it could, at will, kill 99.9% of the population and the US was so weak they knew they could "take" a retaliatory strike then the US would never do anything to provoke the strike in the first place.

If the number able to be killed were a lot less the answer "strike back" becomes meaningful and, in my view, appropriate..

Re: nuclear war
 

[ QUOTE ]
The "democracy" in Russia has fallen. A dictator has taken over and a new cold war ensues. One morning he decides to nuke the US. You are the president of the US and you are alerted to a full nuclear assalt- on the US only. 99.9% of the US's population will be killed. What is your decision for a nuclear response?

Same scenario except the dictator's regime is crumbling, even France has agreed that military action is nessecary if the russions don't depose of him. After A failed coup attempt the dictator launches the weapons, agains only at the US. Your response?

[/ QUOTE ]

This question has always bugged me, because there is no rational reason to retaliate. You might as well give the human race as good a chance of survival as possible.

Re: nuclear war
 

[ QUOTE ]
1. Total counter-strike--against Russia and any and all of its allies. The nuclear deterrent will only work when the otherside realizes that any strike will spell out its own doom. The fact that the US population will be already dead, and the deterrence has failed in one instance changes nothing. Nuclear technology will still exist, and the deterrence model must be upheld for the sake of the remaining world.



[/ QUOTE ]

if that happened the deterence model would be shown to be flawed so why bother upholding it? Deterence must be absolute otherwise it is useless. By launching an attack that Russia knew would destroy them they have ignored the deterence. Both populations are now destroyed. Deterence therefore doesn't exist then, and can't be asumed to work in the future. The only thing you can be sure of is that you have just killed a few hundred million more people than before.