MAD?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Well, the situation is kinda like in Dune where you have a Grand Convention. Use of atomics invites retaliation by all the Great Houses of the Imperium.

Sames goes for the Earth.

[K. A. Pital]

If we reverse the roles - if Israel wipes out all 68 million people in Iran - is a rogue Iranian officer justified in glassing Tel Aviv?

Yes, obviously.

Sometimes people just don't understand what "nuclear weapons" mean. It means something you don't fucking use - since the 1970 - or you will be levelled to the ground, period.

[Seggybop]

I'm afraid I don't understand how the actions of an insane few justifies the slaughter of 65 million blameless people? That these people happen to live within Iran's borders is completely arbitrary. They are not responsible. Killing them is no more justified than the initial attack. It's fine to discuss deterrence and hope that it prevents an incident from ever happening, but when it comes down to it, there is never any excuse to exterminate millions of innocent human beings.

[Spyder]

Use of chemical, biological, or radiological weapons invites, nay, demands a response in kind. Moral considerations do not apply at the nation state level.

Why not?

Any other response is insufficient. The biggest deterrent to a nuclear attack is the fear of nuclear retailation. Lack of said retailation invites more such attacks.

In the OP there's already a multinational task force converging on Iran ready to take out the people actually responsible for the attack and in this scenario we've already established that 92% of the population abhor the attacks in the first place.

Other countries aren't going to see this as a huge success story for Iranian government. They destroyed Isreal yes, then they got their asses invaded by everyone else and on top of that their own people turned on them.

[Mr Bean]

That is what Nuclear War MEANS Seggybop. The instant you use nuclear weapons to annihilate another nation, you have forfeited your country right to EXIST.

It is what we the "civilized nations" have decided is the price for nuclear war. The instant you use a nuke anywhere, and especially if your nukes are targeting as the OP suggests, the major population centers of the country. The only response is the annihilation in kind.

So forget the millions of "innocent" people, they don't matter. The two thousand or so people who built, tested, designed and launched those nuclear weapons are all that matters, and the madmen who fired them. Nuclear weapons are not precision weapons, they are weapons of annihilation, of devastation and of complete and total war.

[K. A. Pital]

Other countries aren't going to see this as a huge success story for Iranian government. They destroyed Isreal yes, then they got their asses invaded by everyone else and on top of that their own people turned on them.

So? This won't mean much, since it would prove that your country could get off easy with nuclear weapons. And there are far more governments which could risk their own lifes as opposed to the lives of all their citizenry.

The current rule is, you (as a government) use nukes, you fortfeit the lives of _your_ citizens, not just your rule and your own life.

[KrauserKrauser]

I'm afraid I don't understand how the actions of an insane few justifies the slaughter of 65 million blameless people? That these people happen to live within Iran's borders is completely arbitrary. They are not responsible. Killing them is no more justified than the initial attack. It's fine to discuss deterrence and hope that it prevents an incident from ever happening, but when it comes down to it, there is never any excuse to exterminate millions of innocent human beings.

I agree. Iran should not have nuked Israel. Too bad the world will see to it that they get the same treatment, which is the reality of joining the nuclear player's club.

[darthbob88]

I foresee major changes in the world's geography. Iraq will suddenly have a border with Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Turkey will border Turkmenistan. Use of nuclear weapons means you forfeit your right to continued existence. Ahwaz goes up, any Iranian military sites go bye-bye, port cities vanish, and after that I just go down the list of major cities in Iran I haven't already hit. Sorry about the "innocent" Iranians who decried the decision to glass Israel, but the only way to keep a peace is to start dropping nukes. A few in Iran, or the many over the world.

[Spyder]

So? This won't mean much, since it would prove that your country could get off easy with nuclear weapons. And there are far more governments which could risk their own lifes as opposed to the lives of all their citizenry.

The current rule is, you (as a government) use nukes, you fortfeit the lives of _your_ citizens, not just your rule and your own life.

Groupthink makes it easy to justify a lot of things with arbitrary rules. It would prove that individuals within your county might not die if you let off a nuke, it doesn't prove that your country will continue to exist in its current form.

Also, nuclear retaliation was clearly not the only option here. Now, obviously there won't be enough manpower to launch a conventional response if a whole bunch of other rogue states decide to fling nukes so then the nuclear response becomes the only option, thus we still have a deterrent. Thus, the need for the sub commander to launch is questionable at best.

[K. A. Pital]

Groupthink makes it easy to justify a lot of things with arbitrary rules.

This arbitrary rule has a very good logical basement for it's existence. It's the guarantee that no country risks to use it's nuclear weapons against another. If nuclear retaliation policy regarding such acts is scrapped, then nuclear weapons become a part of the game, just another fair-use weapon.

Also, nuclear retaliation was clearly not the only option here.

Of course, but it's the only _logical_ method of retaliating against a pre-planned mass nuclear attack, since otherwise the whole nuclear deterrent will be simply scrapped.

Now, obviously there won't be enough manpower to launch a conventional response if a whole bunch of other rogue states decide to fling nukes so then the nuclear response becomes the only option, thus we still have a deterrent.

A deterrent of what? What if one state after the said incident with Iran nukes another one? Then another one nukes one more? Do we invade country after country?

[Seggybop]

That is what Nuclear War MEANS Seggybop. The instant you use nuclear weapons to annihilate another nation, you have forfeited your country right to EXIST.

The leaders of the country are not the country itself. It is not their nation to forfeit.

It is what we the "civilized nations" have decided is the price for nuclear war. The instant you use a nuke anywhere, and especially if your nukes are targeting as the OP suggests, the major population centers of the country. The only response is the annihilation in kind.

This kind of rhetoric is good for scaring leaders away from attacking first, but once that's already happened, it's meaningless and needs to be abandoned and we need to do what's actually right for humanity.

So forget the millions of "innocent" people, they don't matter. The two thousand or so people who built, tested, designed and launched those nuclear weapons are all that matters, and the madmen who fired them. Nuclear weapons are not precision weapons, they are weapons of annihilation, of devastation and of complete and total war.

Exactly, which is why they're totally inappropriate for this purpose.

This kind of policy makes as much sense as killing you because of what Bush has done.

[Morilore]

The leaders of the country are not the country itself. It is not their nation to forfeit.

Too bad. We live in a world of consequences, not a world of rights. Universal condemnation and a multilateral invasion might deter weaker countries from using nukes, but it will not deter countries with enough military/nuclear might to think they can hold off the rest of the world. That's why MAD must be maintained; imagine the consequences if the U.S. decided to start nuclear warring its enemy of the day.

Exactly, which is why they're totally inappropriate for this purpose.

This kind of policy makes as much sense as killing you because of what Bush has done.

If the alternative is an era of weapons-free nuclear war, yes, please, kill me.

[Seggybop]

So, if hypothetically an American president you did not support launched a nuclear first strike on another nation, you would urge the remnants or allies of that nation to kill you, your family, and your friends? That's pretty harsh.

Contemplating the OP further, Iran even attacking in the first place demonstrates that the idea of deterrence has already failed. Nuclear weapons were used first, despite the threat of MAD. That Iran would have attacked under these circumstances only makes sense if perhaps they WANTED to be destroyed, likely as part of some apocalyptic prophecy. Doing so would only fulfill their wishes.

[Jadeite]

This kind of rhetoric is good for scaring leaders away from attacking first, but once that's already happened, it's meaningless and needs to be abandoned and we need to do what's actually right for humanity.

If fear wasn't enough to stop someone from starting the scenario in question, then their actions demand retribution to provide an example for anyone who might think of doing the same in the future.

[Seggybop]

How does it deter an insane leader who is already committed to intentional national suicide, as the Iranian leader in the OP scenario probably is?

[K. A. Pital]

How does it deter an insane leader

It deters those who can follow him, but don't have the guts to because they fear nuclear destruction of their country. And if you show that nuclear retribution is fiction, those will be plenty.

[Spyder]

Groupthink makes it easy to justify a lot of things with arbitrary rules.

This arbitrary rule has a very good logical basement for it's existence. It's the guarantee that no country risks to use it's nuclear weapons against another. If nuclear retaliation policy regarding such acts is scrapped, then nuclear weapons become a part of the game, just another fair-use weapon.

There wouldn't have been a subsequent invasion followed with the populace turning on the Iranian government and what would likely lead to the subsequent execution of every person responsible if it was now a "fair-use" weapon.

Also, nuclear retaliation was clearly not the only option here.

Of course, but it's the only _logical_ method of retaliating against a pre-planned mass nuclear attack, since otherwise the whole nuclear deterrent will be simply scrapped.

This scenario already differs from the standard MAD scenario in that a conventional response is already underway. Traditional MAD scenarios wouldn't have this, in a traditional scenario Isreal and quite likely the US would be turning launch keys within moments of Iranian nukes leaving their silos. Getting a huge multinational military force sweeping through Iran isn't something that could possibly be organised in time nor could the Iranians turning on their government be counted on. In the traditional MAD scenario the ability to resolve the situation without massive civilian casualties isn't there, however in this scenario the possibility is there and is already under way.

The captain launching his nukes amounts to nothing more then an act of vengeance. It's not 'we must kill these hundreds of thousands or we'll lose hundreds of millions" it's "that guy killed a bunch of us, now I'm going to kill a bunch of people that share his nationality."

Now, obviously there won't be enough manpower to launch a conventional response if a whole bunch of other rogue states decide to fling nukes so then the nuclear response becomes the only option, thus we still have a deterrent.

A deterrent of what? What if one state after the said incident with Iran nukes another one? Then another one nukes one more? Do we invade country after country?

Did I not just say that the nuclear response would be the only option in that very scenario? Yes, yes I did.

We're obviously not going to have the same scenario for every country that wants to launch nukes now are we?

[SWPIGWANG]

There is no requirement for MAD to occur with nukes. All the needs to be made sure is complete and absolute destruction of all that is responsbile and maintain the ability to do so.

Whether it is with NBC, the end of a rifle or violently tearing apart, limb by limb those people with physical force, it would all work.

In this case, a more accurate and effective response is possible and should be perfered. Even if you nuke the enemy nation, those responsible could evade. Conventional force applied carefully to extract the maximum suffering possible would probably be perferable.

[K. A. Pital]

There wouldn't have been a subsequent invasion followed with the populace turning on the Iranian government and what would likely lead to the subsequent execution of every person responsible if it was now a "fair-use" weapon.

Did World War II or Gulf War evade you? There was a "subsequent invasion" in retaliation for conventional attacks, and in case of Germany it was "subsequent execution". If the same is applied to nukes, what's the reason not to use them? Oh, and even if you're overwhelmed you can always nuke the invading force to have the maximum number of infidels killed.

[SWPIGWANG]

Did World War II or Gulf War evade you? There was a "subsequent invasion" in retaliation for conventional attacks, and in case of Germany it was "subsequent execution". If the same is applied to nukes, what's the reason not to use them? Oh, and even if you're overwhelmed you can always nuke the invading force to have the maximum number of infidels killed.

Whats the difference between a nuke and a sword thrust through the heart? Both kills you very dead. A nuke is just cheaper and more effective.

If Iran in this case uses nukes tactially and if this makes conventional invasion unfesible/uneconomic, than one can justifiablely use nukes in this case.

MAD is maintained by the ability to destroy the enemy, not by the type of weapon use.

[Spyder]

There wouldn't have been a subsequent invasion followed with the populace turning on the Iranian government and what would likely lead to the subsequent execution of every person responsible if it was now a "fair-use" weapon.

Did World War II or Gulf War evade you? There was a "subsequent invasion" in retaliation for conventional attacks, and in case of Germany it was "subsequent execution". If the same is applied to nukes, what's the reason not to use them?

You snipped the part where I said nukes will obviously be used when there is no other choice.

Oh, and even if you're overwhelmed you can always nuke the invading force to have the maximum number of infidels killed.

If they still have nukes left then that's different, but given that a rediculous number of countries have given the order to move in according to the scenario in the OP, this is highly unlikely.

[K. A. Pital]

MAD is maintained by the ability to destroy the enemy, not by the type of weapon use.

MAD relates to all total-annihilation weapons, like bio-, chem- and nuclear warfare. This is why indeed it doesn't matter what is used, what is important is the retaliatory destruction concept.

You can chem Iran or kill them all through an artificial pandemia.

Nukes are simply more handy here, so I don't see why the person in the U-boat should not do it.

The concept of "limited retaliation", by which I mean retaliating nuclear annihilation with a conventional invasion, destroys the authority of nuclear deterrent and all WMD-related deterrents, because it means you can use WMDs with little consequences for your population, not much different from conventional warfare.

If Unconventional warfare has the exact same consequences as a conventional attack, unconventional warfare becomes conventional. End of story.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The problem with WMDs is that you immediately embark on a slippery slope. You back the animal to the corner and you invoke a struggle to the death where only one survives. WWII eventually became not a war of conquest but a war of survival. Peace was impossible because you know the other side will strive for a position of strength and you in turn have to. At the end of the war, Germany was in shambles, Japan heavily firebombed (including 2 nukes) and her economy in tatters, with no navy to speak of. It became a duel to the death.

The problem with unconventional weapons is that you drive down that slippery slope much faster and nuking someone and if no one retaliates, the perpetrator of the assault is going to go rebuild his arsenal and do the same thing again because he knows that he can get away unpunished. Anyone who embarks on something this crazy would likely have placed safeguards to ensure that his position is strong enough to make anyone risk a fair bit in order to punish that said person. Sure economic sanctions will bite, but how much?

[Mr Bean]

Whats the difference between a nuke and a sword thrust through the heart? Both kills you very dead. A nuke is just cheaper and more effective.

Bzzt WRONG. Swords don't cause radiation, long term ground poisoning, and a host of other nasty side effects. Made even worse if Iran used Boron jackets or any of the half dozen other things you can wrap around a nuke to poison the target area for a century or more later.

That sir is the difference between a sword and a nuclear weapon, the fact you even made the comparison shows your clear lack of a sense of the situation.


Back to the OP, that's the difference in this situation. Iran has just made a couple hundred square miles of territory unlivable for anywhere from ten years to a few century's (If using the aforementioned nuke jackets of poisons heavy metals), that's not war it's Genocide on a scale never seen in any war since them.

The only response to such genocide is sad to say MORE genocide. Once you've proven your countries ability to build, wage and start nuclear war, you can not be allowed to exist, for the good of this planet if nothing else.



@Fingolfin_Noldor
In this situation use of WMD is not a slippery slope. It's an end, with instant sunshine over the country of Israel were is the slippery slope? There is none for use on this scale of nuclear weapons ensures there is no slope to slip down. You know why? Because everyone's dead, the army has ceased to be except this one nuclear sub. And if the sub responds in kind, there will be no slope again for there is no one military left alive to slide down it.

[KrauserKrauser]

So, if hypothetically an American president you did not support launched a nuclear first strike on another nation, you would urge the remnants or allies of that nation to kill you, your family, and your friends? That's pretty harsh.

Contemplating the OP further, Iran even attacking in the first place demonstrates that the idea of deterrence has already failed. Nuclear weapons were used first, despite the threat of MAD. That Iran would have attacked under these circumstances only makes sense if perhaps they WANTED to be destroyed, likely as part of some apocalyptic prophecy. Doing so would only fulfill their wishes.

Would I urge it? Hell, no! I would go up to any international poller as per the OP and say how much I was against being vaporized. Too bad that shouldn't mean jack shit, as the nukes should be flying if I let someone as psychotic as that get into power.

No, them attacking is an invitiation for retaliation, an invitation that must be met or others will see that there will not be far reaching consequences for engaging in nuclear war. Who gives a shit if I am fulfilling their wishes, their lives are forfeit at that point, the best they can serve is as an example of why you have to be very certain who has control of the nukes.

How does it deter an insane leader who is already committed to intentional national suicide, as the Iranian leader in the OP scenario probably is?

It doesn't deter the insane people, because they are insane. What it does is provide a shining example to the rest of the rational people that you need to make sure that mister insano crackpot leader doesn't have access to nukes, which in most of the world is not a concern as everyone understand that there are consequences for the use of nukes and acts accordingly.

There wouldn't have been a subsequent invasion followed with the populace turning on the Iranian government and what would likely lead to the subsequent execution of every person responsible if it was now a "fair-use" weapon.

Echoing the words of Stas, ok, sure they invade Iran, kill the leaders. Then North Korea does it to South Korea and Pakistan decides it wants a piece of India and wipes them off the face of the planet. Are you going to invade them as well?

Obviously you are unwilling to stand by your stated policy of using nukes in the conflict, so the leaders can die happy knowing that they served their people and that they will not feel any major impacts from their actions. In Iran especially within a generation these executed leaders would become martyrs spawning another generation of fucking lunatics.

Why would you nuke India or China if they used their nukes, but only if they used them after Iran's example. Sounds like a bit of inconsistency.

The captain launching his nukes amounts to nothing more then an act of vengeance. It's not 'we must kill these hundreds of thousands or we'll lose hundreds of millions" it's "that guy killed a bunch of us, now I'm going to kill a bunch of people that share his nationality."

No, this is the captain going "Appearantly the rest of the world has gone insane or is under some sort of spell that has made them abandon rational thought and forget the international agreements and policies that they have put in place. Obviously the only way that I can be sure that this will never happen again is to follow whatever my stated orders are in this circumstance, which will more than likely be turn the majority of the offending country, Iran in this case, into a nuclear wasteland.

Oh, and don't forget, they didn't kill "a bunch" as you so generously downplayed Iran's actions. They killed ALL of them, family, friends, everyone, so don't try and sweep that shit under the rug. He would more than likely have orders that he can fall under, and those orders won't be coming from the CIA, MI5, Mickey Mouse Club, Justice League or anything that isn't from the remaining Israeli government.

We're obviously not going to have the same scenario for every country that wants to launch nukes now are we?

And why would there be different scenarios again? Because the idiocy of the OP says so?

Those are the rules of MAD, you use nukes, you get nuked, so don't use nukes.

In this case, a more accurate and effective response is possible and should be perfered. Even if you nuke the enemy nation, those responsible could evade. Conventional force applied carefully to extract the maximum suffering possible would probably be perferable.

Maximum suffering possible? lol Yeah, that'll fly . No one is going to be uber pissed that this happened, except the 7 million dead Israelis and Arabs.

As per the OP, we know where all the people responsible are currently located. And if you think that the time between getting that intel and launching the nukes will take longer than organizing a coalition invasion force from the ground up you are a fucking idiot. Giving them time after the strike only allows theose responsible more time to escape and leave the country.

A quick nuclear strike with multiple hits on their location has a much better chance of killing them all with the same impersonality that they showed their victims.

If they still have nukes left then that's different, but given that a rediculous number of countries have given the order to move in according to the scenario in the OP, this is highly unlikely.

Even if they are out of nukes, is it really worth the life of any of the thousands of soldiers that will die in the invasion? The leaders are obviously insane and will resort to anything to keep themselves in power, Chem, Bio, Dirty Bombs. Is it worth guessing whether or not they blew their load on their strike on Israel?

Can you justify the lives lost when they launch ther last nuke against the staging area of the invasion force? Please tell me how that makes any fucking sense. Think about the public response on that one when the investigations begin "You mean to tell me, Mr. President, that there was a nuclear sub capable of retaliating within in striking distance of Iran and you told them to stand down? And you haven't shot yourself now knowing that that decision cost the destruction of the coalition forces mounting the invasion where 100,000+ (whatever number, depending on when the nuke is sent) military personnel were killed? Here's a gun sir, do your country a favor."

Iran would have to be nuked, not necessarily to the kill 100% of the populaton as they did to the Israelis, but a full scale nuclear response would have to be levied against them.