Mutually Assured Destruction

  • Thread starter Thread starter consumedconvert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

consumedconvert

Guest
(Not sure if this thread belongs here; if not, please move it. I think it fits in War On Terror, but I have no news link.)

Scenario: Russia has decided to launch half of its ten thousand nukes our way. They are en route; our annihilation is eminent. Do we retaliate by sending all of ours?

Our nation will be destroyed. Do we destroy the aggressor nation? Would it be just to do so? Why or why not?

Now change the scenario: Korea launches all of its (theoretical number) six Nukes at California.
(1) They all get through. On what scale do we retaliate?
OR
(2) We shoot them all down. On what scale do we retaliate?

Please explain your answers, and how or if they would be justified.

I appreciate your thoughtful answers.

Thanks,

CC
 
The 2nd Vatican Council touched on weapons of Mass destruction a bit:

Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities of extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation.
Vatican II, Gaudium Et Spes 80

James
 
Wow… that is a tough one.

I do not believe the Lord would let one nation cause the destruction of the human race. That is not how things are to unfold. I think one of the main reasons thermonuclear war was avoided during the Cold War was the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.
 
This is the nuclear paradox – by being prepared to launch an overwhelming response, we never get attacked and thus never have to lauch such a response. And it has worked – the atomic (and hydrogen) bomb is the only weapon ever to “rust in the sheath.” They were first used more than 60 years ago, and have not been used since.

To make it work, the threat must go beyond being credible, and be certain. For that reason, we can never say officially that we will not launch an overwhelming retaliatory strike until we somehow manage to rid this planet of nuclear weapons. This is because the only thing that prevents nuclear war is the determination of all nuclear powers to destroy their enemies if they are attacked.
 
consumedconvert said:
(Not sure if this thread belongs here; if not, please move it. I think it fits in War On Terror, but I have no news link.)

Scenario: Russia has decided to launch half of its ten thousand nukes our way. They are en route; our annihilation is eminent. Do we retaliate by sending all of ours?

Our nation will be destroyed. Do we destroy the aggressor nation? Would it be just to do so? Why or why not?

Now change the scenario: Korea launches all of its (theoretical number) six Nukes at California.
(1) They all get through. On what scale do we retaliate?
OR
(2) We shoot them all down. On what scale do we retaliate?

Please explain your answers, and how or if they would be justified.

I appreciate your thoughtful answers.

Thanks,

CC
Click to expand...
I would imagine America would not think twice about retaliating. After all it is the only country in history that has launched a nuclear strike.
 
Situations like this are always more complicated than most of us can understand. For instance, North Korea is friendly with Russia. So if North Korea launched a nuke at America and we turned them into a 46,000 square mile crater, would that cause Russia to take action against us? Or would Russia then nuke North Korea before we retaliated to make good with us as not escalate the situation? Fear can run deeper than friendships.
 
Well, I’m always looking for a reason to get rid of the North Korean government anyway. This would be a good reason.
 
Enoch said:
Situations like this are always more complicated than most of us can understand. For instance, North Korea is friendly with Russia. So if North Korea launched a nuke at America and we turned them into a 46,000 square mile crater, would that cause Russia to take action against us? Or would Russia then nuke North Korea before we retaliated to make good with us as not escalate the situation? Fear can run deeper than friendships.
Click to expand...
Mutually Assured Destruction deals with such situations – before discussing that, let us be sure we agree: the purpose of Mutually Assured Destruction is to prevent nuclear war.

Because all involved know a nuclear strike will lead to retaliation, and that such retaliation will not be confined, the larger powers have good motivation to keep their client states on a tight rein.

In order to see how that works, we might examine how China helped curtail North Korea’s nuclear plans – China will not risk nuclear destruction because of the irrational act of Kim Jong Il.
 
consumedconvert said:
(Not sure if this thread belongs here; if not, please move it. I think it fits in War On Terror, but I have no news link.)

Scenario: Russia has decided to launch half of its ten thousand nukes our way. They are en route; our annihilation is eminent. Do we retaliate by sending all of ours?
Click to expand...
We launch enough nukes to take out their nukes enroute.
Then we call them on the phone.
Now change the scenario: Korea launches all of its (theoretical number) six Nukes at California.
(1) They all get through. On what scale do we retaliate?
OR
(2) We shoot them all down. On what scale do we retaliate?
Click to expand...
again we launch enough nukes to take out those nukes enroute.
Then we call and demand their surrender.

If any nukes get through, ether way we Launch on them till they glow in the dark.

Fighting the War and the Peace: Battlefield Ethics, Peace Talks, Treaties, and Pacifism in the Jewish Tradition
Michael J. Broyde
jlaw.com/Articles/war1.html

Basically, we can launch enough nukes to take out “incoming” nukes in the air. If a dipolomatic approach is possible after we vaporize their nukes in the air, then we should do it because we do not want third parties to start nuking others too. But, if it looks like a dipomatic approach is not possible then you nuke to win.
 
What about the threory of self assured destruction, where the US if fired upon sets off all of our nukes at the same time to take out the whole world?
 
Daniel_Marsh said:
What about the threory of self assured destruction, where the US if fired upon sets off all of our nukes at the same time to take out the whole world?
Click to expand...
And in what official document do you find that stated?
 
consumedconvert said:
Now change the scenario: Korea launches all of its (theoretical number) six Nukes at California.
(1) They all get through. On what scale do we retaliate?
OR
(2) We shoot them all down. On what scale do we retaliate?
Click to expand...
  1. I doubt nukes would be used if a sane US administration was in power. Nukes would just mean millions of innocent North Koreans being killed. The imminent threat from NK would be gone since they launched all their warheads. Kill Kim with a bunch of cruise missiles, crush the military and try not to freak out the indoctrinated population. It would take a long long time before they could become a democracy.
  2. Kill Kim, crush the military and try not to freak out the indoctrinated population. It would take a long long time before they could become a democracy.
Daniel_Marsh said:
What about the threory of self assured destruction, where the US if fired upon sets off all of our nukes at the same time to take out the whole world?
Click to expand...
I don’t know about the US but I’m pretty sure the Soviets had (have?) such a setup. There are also plenty of rumours about large “salted” nukes created to contaminate the planet with radioactivity. The Soviets also had a germs program with the aim to kill off most of humanity if they were ever overwhelmed by an attack. I’m not sure if they managed to create an effective weapon, but the existence of the program has been confirmed by scientist who worked on it.
 
vern_humphrey said:
This is the nuclear paradox – by being prepared to launch an overwhelming response, we never get attacked and thus never have to lauch such a response. And it has worked – the atomic (and hydrogen) bomb is the only weapon ever to “rust in the sheath.” They were first used more than 60 years ago, and have not been used since.

To make it work, the threat must go beyond being credible, and be certain. For that reason, we can never say officially that we will not launch an overwhelming retaliatory strike until we somehow manage to rid this planet of nuclear weapons. This is because the only thing that prevents nuclear war is the determination of all nuclear powers to destroy their enemies if they are attacked.
Click to expand...
Vern,

Excellent post. I agree that to officially renounce MAD or nuclear retaliation would be near fatal.

But suppose you’re in the hot seat, and the missiles are incoming. What do you do? In the event that the nukes are already en route, should we retaliate with a nuclear strike or not?

CC
 
consumedconvert said:
Vern,

Excellent post. I agree that to officially renounce MAD or nuclear retaliation would be near fatal.

But suppose you’re in the hot seat, and the missiles are incoming. What do you do? In the event that the nukes are already en route, should we retaliate with a nuclear strike or not?

CC
Click to expand...
One reason I favored having more nukes than we do currently is that one can then sit out a first strike to make sure you are correct about what is happening. When the first nuclear explosions are confirmed, then you can retaliate. It’s quite improbable that any attacker could eliminate all nukes, or even all command and control, with a first strike. It would mean assured destruction for them. And assured destruction keeps the peace. (I used to find SAC’s motto “Peace is Our Profession” not only ironic but instructive.
 
consumedconvert said:
Vern,

Excellent post. I agree that to officially renounce MAD or nuclear retaliation would be near fatal.

But suppose you’re in the hot seat, and the missiles are incoming. What do you do? In the event that the nukes are already en route, should we retaliate with a nuclear strike or not?

CC
Click to expand...
In order for MAD to work, retaliation must be an iron-clad, copper-bottomed, brass-bound guarentee. So there will be retaliation when incoming missiles are detected.

But because there is an iron-clad, copper-bottomed, brass-bound guarentee, the odds of any nuclear attack is almost negligible.
 
JimG said:
One reason I favored having more nukes than we do currently is that one can then sit out a first strike to make sure you are correct about what is happening. When the first nuclear explosions are confirmed, then you can retaliate. It’s quite improbable that any attacker could eliminate all nukes, or even all command and control, with a first strike. It would mean assured destruction for them. And assured destruction keeps the peace. (I used to find SAC’s motto “Peace is Our Profession” not only ironic but instructive.
Click to expand...
A couple years back I read in TIME that the U.S. has eight thousand nukes, and Russia has ten thousand, with somewhat inferior delivery systems.

Isn’t eight thousand enough? We could already destroy earth, by ourselves, many times over.
 
JimG said:
One reason I favored having more nukes than we do currently is that one can then sit out a first strike to make sure you are correct about what is happening. When the first nuclear explosions are confirmed, then you can retaliate.
Click to expand...
That’s not possible, for several reasons:
  1. A massive first strike is not survivable.
  2. Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) would make post-strike communications impossible.
  3. The post-strike radiation would cause most unlaunched warheads to pre-initiate.
 
vern_humphrey said:
In order for MAD to work, retaliation must be an iron-clad, copper-bottomed, brass-bound guarentee. So there will be retaliation when incoming missiles are detected.

But because there is an iron-clad, copper-bottomed, brass-bound guarentee, the odds of any nuclear attack is almost negligible.
Click to expand...
Perhaps that is true; but you still did not answer my question. 😉

Should there be retaliation when incoming missiles are detected?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top