Mutually Assured Destruction

[vern_humphrey]

Perhaps that is true; but you still did not answer my question.

Should there be retaliation when incoming missiles are detected?

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.

What part of this did you not understand?

 

[consumedconvert]

What part of this did you not understand?

So there will be retaliation when incoming missiles are detected.

That part.

By saying there will be [nuclear] retaliation, are you saying that there should be nuclear retaliation in said scenarios?

 

[vern_humphrey]

That part.

By saying there will be [nuclear] retaliation, are you saying that there should be nuclear retaliation in said scenarios?

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.

Now do you say we should abandon the strategy that has prevented nuclear war for more than 60 years? With what will you replace it?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

And, what about blowing the nukes out of the air with nukes before they reach our shores?

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

(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

At this point, I think we have polices that will happen no matter what out of our control as citizens. Nukes will go off to either Russia or North Korea no matter what. There is an internal thirst for blood at times like this and off the missiles will go.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

And, what about blowing the nukes out of the air with nukes before they reach our shores?

This is the multi-trillion dollar “Missile Defense System”, which has only worked when rigged by transmitters on the dummy rocket. Otherwise there are enough dummy warheads that would fool the system as it now stands, even if it attempts to hit at supersonic speed.

It is not operational today and is not expected to be operational anytime in the near future.

 

[vern_humphrey]

When you say things like this:

This is the multi-trillion dollar “Missile Defense System”, which has only worked when rigged by transmitters on the dummy rocket. Otherwise there are enough dummy warheads that would fool the system as it now stands, even if it attempts to hit at supersonic speed.

It makes me doubt the conclusion.

It is not operational today and is not expected to be operational anytime in the near future.

 

[consumedconvert]

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.

Now do you say we should abandon the strategy that has prevented nuclear war for more than 60 years? With what will you replace it?

Actually, I don’t think we should abandon the strategy that has prevented war for more than 60 years. MAD is that strategy. It is the implication (or stated policy) that we will retaliate with nuclear weapons when attacked with nuclear weapons.

However, nuclear retaliation has, of course, never been necessary from any country’s perspective (except for Japan, where it was not available). While the threat of nuclear retaliation may certainly have prevented wars, I have mixed feelings as to whether actual nuclear retaliation could ever be justified.

 

[pnewton]

Now for something totally different.

We fire. Period.

Don’t get me wrong. I do not believe in targeting cities, just military installations and command and control. I do this for two reasons. First, I find it improbable that even and all out nuclear attack will kill everyone. We should do our best to protect those that remain against such an insane aggresor. Second, we have a global obligation. The last thing the world needs would be an aggressor nation willing to commit an action that would make Hitler look like a choir boy. We should do everything to make sure that such a nation never has any power left to commit such an atrocity.

 

[consumedconvert]

All these considerations compel us to undertake an evaluation of war with an entirely new attitude.(1) The men of our time must realize that they will have to give a somber reckoning of their deeds of war for the course of the future will depend greatly on the decisions they make today.

With these truths in mind, this most holy synod makes its own the condemnations of total war already pronounced by recent popes,(2) and issues the following declaration.

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.

[Emphasis Mine]

Second Vatican Council
GAUDIUM ET SPES #80
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

Taking this document into account, I must conclude that while the threat of nuclear retaliation may be a useful political tool, actual nuclear retaliation, as long it is indiscriminate (as almost any nuclear attack of any size must be) is unjustifiable.

I could not justify a retaliatory launch.

 

[consumedconvert]

This is the multi-trillion dollar “Missile Defense System”, which has only worked when rigged by transmitters on the dummy rocket. Otherwise there are enough dummy warheads that would fool the system as it now stands, even if it attempts to hit at supersonic speed.

It is not operational today and is not expected to be operational anytime in the near future.

We cannot know for sure what capabilities our military does or does not have. But I would assert that SDI is not beyond our reach. Our aerospace programs make amazing progress every year.

I like Bush’s original idea for SDI–after it’s operating, find a way to share it with the Russians. Ideally, some day we could find a way to share an advanced Global SDI system with every nation on earth. That would significantly reduce the risk of terrorist-state launches, decimate international nuclear strike capabilities, and destroy the incentive for having or developing nukes.I think the vast majority of Americans–and Russian citizens, too–would gladly give up their first-strike capabilities and the old MAD nightmare scenarios for the development of such a system.

 

[pnewton]

With these truths in mind, this most holy synod makes its own the condemnations of total war already pronounced by recent popes,(2) and issues the following declaration.

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.

This is a condemnation of a total war. That is, war aimed not just at the military and infrastructure, but at decimating the moral of the people by killing as many people as possible and inflicting as much damage as possible on all levels. An couple of such example of unrestricted warfare would be Hitler’s bombing of Britain and Sherman’s March to the Sea. This would not preclude nuking a military base, as the aim is to destroy weapons of war and the soldiers based there. Such an attack would not be indiscriminate, not aimed “at the destruction of entire cities of extensive areas along with their population.” Now there is also a principle where the collateral damage can not be greater evil than the evil being fought. That is why nuclear weapons should never be used except in the most dire of circumstances.

 

[consumedconvert]

This is a condemnation of a total war. That is, war aimed not just at the military and infrastructure, but at decimating the moral of the people by killing as many people as possible and inflicting as much damage as possible on all levels. An couple of such example of unrestricted warfare would be Hitler’s bombing of Britain and Sherman’s March to the Sea. This would not preclude nuking a military base, as the aim is to destroy weapons of war and the soldiers based there. Such an attack would not be indiscriminate, not aimed “at the destruction of entire cities of extensive areas along with their population.” Now there is also a principle where the collateral damage can not be greater evil than the evil being fought. That is why nuclear weapons should never be used except in the most dire of circumstances.

Except in the case of battlefield micronukes, I fail to see how nuclear attacks could be discriminate. Some (and I don’t think you would assert this) would say going after Kim Jong Il’s mansion by nuking the center of Pyongyang would be justifed–which is, considering the loss of innocent life, rediculous. There are almost no conceivable scenarios where use of a nuke would be discriminate enough to be at all justifiable. After all, destruction of life is not limited to the blast radius, and where the deadly radiation after the blast travels pretty much depends on the weather.

In any case, the first scenario–where Russia launches first-- would likely be a total-war-or-nothing proposition, since it is doubtful we would have time to be discriminate.

Good, thoughtful post.

 

[pnewton]

Except in the case of battlefield micronukes, I fail to see how nuclear attacks could be discriminate. Some (and I don’t think you would assert this) would say going after Kim Jong Il’s mansion by nuking the center of Pyongyang would be justifed

As much as I don’t like it, I agree. One could never hit a population area to wipe out command and control. However, hitting a missle base, naval yard or air field, even though civilians would be present, would be fair game (again, only in extreme situations). The bottom line is that such a great evil would have to be stopped.

I do not know what kind of yield current nukes have. I do know that we have gone to multiple, independently-targeted warheads. These put small bombs in more precise location. One more thought. It is not like we can not take some time and hit more precise targets later. Communications may be difficult, but we have enormous resources apart from intercontinental land-based missles. Our biggest deterent is one that can not be knocked out so easily, sub-based systems. This is to say nothing of the overseas forces.

Now if Russia or China sent nukes into dozens of countries just to hit all our military bases, it would only deepen the need to eliminate their military might as a threat against humanity.

 

[roanoker]

If we detect nukes coming in, we HAVE to retaliate immediately because we don’t know how many more are on their launching pads ready to follow the first salvo. We have to defend ourselves. Under the rules of war we are allowed to defend ourselves. Under our own laws, we are obligated to do so, although liberals would disagree. As far as using nukes of our own to knock theirs out of the sky, I don’t think we have that capability yet.

 

[consumedconvert]

“It would be our policy to use nuclear weapons wherever we felt it necessary to protect our forces and achieve our objectives.”
Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, Testimony to House Appropriations Committee, 1961

“From now on it is only through a conscious choice and through a deliberate policy that humanity can survive.”
Pope John Paul II, Address in Hiroshima, 1981

“it is not morally acceptable to intend to kill the innocent as part of a strategy of deterring nuclear war.”
U.S. Catholic Bishops’ Pastoral Letter on War and Peace, 1983

“There are some people that will be deterred by the fact that we have nuclear weapons…But those people are the folks we can deal with anyway.”
General Charles Horner, Commander of U.S. Space Command, 15 July 1994

“I just don’t think nuclear weapons are usable…I’m not saying that we military disarm. I’m saying that I have a nuclear weapons, and you’re North Korea and you have a nuclear weapon. You can use yours. I can’t use mine. What am I going to use it on? What are nuclear weapons good for? Busting cities. What president of the United States is going to take out Pyongyang?”
General Charles Horner, Commander of U.S. Space Command, 15 July 1994

“The survivors would envy the dead.”
Nikita Khrushchev, Pravda, 20 July 1963

cdi.org/nuclear/nukequo.html

Food for thought.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Allow me to point out that nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945.

Never before in human history has an effective weapon been allowed to rust in the sheath. There has to be a reason this weapon has been left unused. The reason is Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD.)

What is the morality of tampering with a system that has kept the peace for more than 60 years?

 

[consumedconvert]

Allow me to point out that nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945.

Never before in human history has an effective weapon been allowed to rust in the sheath. There has to be a reason this weapon has been left unused. The reason is Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD.)

What is the morality of tampering with a system that has kept the peace for more than 60 years?

(A) The realization that the peace kept by MAD has been precarious, and (B) skepticism that in a world without the Soviet Union MAD can keep the peace for the next 60 years.

 

[vern_humphrey]

(A) The realization that the peace kept by MAD has been precarious, and (B) skepticism that in a world without the Soviet Union MAD can keep the peace for the next 60 years.

And with what will you replace it?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

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.

Now do you say we should abandon the strategy that has prevented nuclear war for more than 60 years? With what will you replace it?

For the system to work, there has to be a belief by the other side that we will retaliate. We have to have a policy of retaliation. The more believable we are, the better.

So, it would be wrong of us to say here that we should claim we will retaliate, but not actually retaliate. Because by saying such a thing, it makes our retaliation policy sound like a bluff, and make the other side more willing to respond.

So, we have to claim we will retaliate, and be convincing. But, if there ever is a first strike on the way, … We can’t discuss it because we have to maintain the bluff for security reasons.