nuclear war

[tolbiny]

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?

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.

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

[tolbiny]

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.

[wacki]

[ 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.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting point. Are you suggesting he punches you back and steals your money? Then you get to punch him back and steal his money? etc, etc, etc.
In the end you'll both have very sore stomachs and have no idea whose money is whose.

[ 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.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree with you here. Until the Russian strike, we expected the threat of deterrence to be enough. It wasn't in this example, although in real life it appears to have worked so far.

Now we have a government that ignores deterrence and has killed your people. Counterstrike is the only choice. The enemy would only fire because he didn't believe you would return attack (or is not rational). If the enemy says if I get there first he won't fire, then the enemy would get there first. The fact that you will fire prevents the original strike. In the event the threat fails, then the return strike is necessary. The enemy cannot be allowed to profit and be rewarded for his aggression. Thus, the remaining world sees first hand that nuclear assault is a worthless venture to embark upon.

Also, aren't the 99.9% of America just as innocent?

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, aren't the 99.9% of America just as innocent?


[/ QUOTE ]

Almost everyone who would die are innocent. I dont think it gives the US theright to slaughter millions more innocents. I think the best strategy is game over, we lose. No point in [censored] up the entire world just to get a little revenge to satisfy the remaining .01%

It's not just revenge. It also [censored] over Russia so they can't do that to anyone else as easily. Why would they stop with the US? It's actually the best solution for protecting mankind.