Threshold for US use of nuclear option aka Russians in Paris

[Stravo]

There was an old saying back during the Reagan era of the Cold War. One day a president would have to make the choice - use your nuclear umbrella and get involved in a massive nuclear exchange with the Soviets or Live with having Russians in Paris. In other words the president may one day be called to make the hard choice of nuclear annhilation or losing Europe to the Red Menace.

What sort of threshold question are current US presidents looking at? What sort of scenarios would demand the US using nuclear weapons?

[SirNitram]

The Chinese unveiling bulk matter teleporters and sending their entire army onto the West Coast?

I honestly don't think any more scenarios exist that demand the use of a nuclear weapon, except for those of a non-military nature. IE, a supervirus that's taken out an entire town and will spread if you don't nuke the site.

[MKSheppard]

What sort of threshold question are current US presidents looking at? What sort of scenarios would demand the US using nuclear weapons?

WMD attack on US population center. Massive retalitation on whoever
sponsored it.

[Stormbringer]

What sort of threshold question are current US presidents looking at? What sort of scenarios would demand the US using nuclear weapons?

Short of a WMD attack on the US, a major ally, or our forces. It just won't happen otherwise.

[Trytostaydead]

From what I got from reading the Chuck Yeager autobiography, during the early days of the Cold War, things near the Eastern Bloc were incredibly tense. Their planes were always being attached with nukes and being rolled out and waiting on the tarmacs with up to date target information. Now, would they ever authorize use of nukes? Probably against large formations..

[phongn]

From what I got from reading the Chuck Yeager autobiography, during the early days of the Cold War, things near the Eastern Bloc were incredibly tense. Their planes were always being attached with nukes and being rolled out and waiting on the tarmacs with up to date target information.

During the Eisenhower era the doctrine was that a unit facing destruction by the advancing Red Army should be able to fight back with nuclear weapons without release from the President.

Of course, there was the minor tidbit that the US Army divisions of the time were deliberately structured so that they had to use nuclear weapons to avoid being destroyed ...

[RedX]

Understandable. There was no way that the US Army, during almost all of the long years of the Cold War, could've stopped the entire Red Army if it came boiling over into Western Germany. We simply lacked enough troops- we couldn't afford them, not and still sustain a viable civilian economy AND deal with all the other stuff we were into all over the world.

Thus, the nuclear option- the stated position that, if the Red Army attacked, we would defend Western Europe with tactical nuclear weapons.

To answer the question: these days the only real justification for using a nuke would be a known WMD site, after a major WMD attack on the US or its allies. Personally, I tend to think that going nuclear would happen only if either target is both too strong for UC Conventional forces or the target is a known bioweapons site. That's about the only case I can think of.

[Stravo]

Many folks here have pointed out a nuclear option for an attack against US population centers with WMD's. The problem here would be a simple one. Many of the terrorist organizations that could or would carry out such a strike would have connections to some of the shittiest third world nations in the ME.

Would we have nuked Afghanistan if the attacks on 9/11 had dirty bombs or chemical wepaons in the planes that went on to kill many more people in NYC and Washington? That raises the question WHAT would you nuke in Afghanistan? Civilian population centers?

How about if there is a strike from Hammas connected organizations that lead back to PLO and Yasser Arafat? Do we nuke the Palestinian territories? I think Israel would be more than a little miffed if we did that and what exactly would we accomplish nuking shanty towns and mudhuts killing thousands of innocent women and children?

I think we're going to find this option of overwhelming force in response to WMD attacks to be very limited in the future.

[Illuminatus Primus]

We could've really sterilized/cleaned-out Tora Bora and those fucking caves.

Thermobarics, bunker busters, and Daisy Cutters are not match for the thermonuclear bomb.

[Stormbringer]

Would we have nuked Afghanistan if the attacks on 9/11 had dirty bombs or chemical wepaons in the planes that went on to kill many more people in NYC and Washington?

Quite probably. It would depend on just how many more but it could easily happen. The US policy on nukes more or less amounts to eyes for an eye. In other words, retribution fast and hard.

That raises the question WHAT would you nuke in Afghanistan? Civilian population centers?

I don't know. Probably use on anything you can put a pie cutter over.

How about if there is a strike from Hammas connected organizations that lead back to PLO and Yasser Arafat? Do we nuke the Palestinian territories? I think Israel would be more than a little miffed if we did that and what exactly would we accomplish nuking shanty towns and mudhuts killing thousands of innocent women and children?

We probably use chemical weapons against them instead. Either that or just line up a bunch of B-52s and carpet bomb the place flat time and again.

Revenge would be the only thing really accomplished. But if the US got nuked then that's going to be the only thing on most people's minds.

[Symmetry]

Everybody knows that Seoul is the capitol of South Korea, and many people know that its hugely built up, with some sizeable percentage of the population living there.

One of the nice things about Seoul is the picturesque mountians* to the north, and the reason the look so nice is that they're undeveloped. And the reason that they're undeveloped is that they're owned by North Korea.

Most of the NK border with SK has a lot of fortifications on it, and these mountains are no exception. Luckily for people looking at them, the artillery mounted on them isn't actually on the surface of the south face of the mountains. Instead the North Koreans cleverly dug tunnels from the north faces of the mountains until they got to just underneath the surface of the south face, preventing the mountain form being spoiled by unsightly batteries and incidentally not letting the SK or US air forces know where to shoot to take them out.

These artillery tunnels have some explosives in them to burst through the ground and let the NK crews get their pieces out and start firing should a war ever occur, and their are believed to be a lot of these things in the mountans. In fact, current estimates are that they can put a half million artillery shells into downtown Seoul in the first half hour of the conflict, and they've had a long time to stockpile shells.

This brings us to the Pentagons nuclear bunker buster program. Obviously a normal nuclear strike wouldn't be a good idea so close to the capitol, even if the wind is blowing north, and the bunkers could probably survive a near miss anyways, but yes, if we had these and got into a war with NK I think we'd probably use these.

*No, I don't really know if these mountains are actually visable from downtown Seoul or if they really look nice. Thats not the point.

[Trytostaydead]

Yeah, but in Korea.. all it'll take is for N. Korea to launch one Nuke at Seoul to do plenty of damage to Korea.

[Beowulf]

Yeah, but in Korea.. all it'll take is for N. Korea to launch one Nuke at Seoul to do plenty of damage to Korea.

Kim probably has a fairly good clue that if he sets one off, all bets are off. We can trust him to be somewhat sane. The mullahs in Iran on the other hand...

[Bob the Gunslinger]

What about enforced Shari'a in Paris? Suppose shit gets really bad in the ME and Europe and the US doesn't have the manpower to stop it? Do we let our allies down or turn to nukes?

[Trytostaydead]

Yeah, but in Korea.. all it'll take is for N. Korea to launch one Nuke at Seoul to do plenty of damage to Korea.

Kim probably has a fairly good clue that if he sets one off, all bets are off. We can trust him to be somewhat sane. The mullahs in Iran on the other hand...

Kim probably already knows if the US comes for him, all bets are off.

[dragon]

Maybe we should cancel the ban we have with Russia on devloping Neutron bombs

[Ma Deuce]

Maybe we should cancel the ban we have with Russia on devloping Neutron bombs

Compared to conventional nukes, Neutron bombs (properly known as Enhanced Radiation bombs) are only more useful as tactical weapons against hardened battlefiled targets like tanks and bunkers, because their more intense radiation pulse will penetrate armor and hardened concrete better. Unless of coure that's exactly what you were thinking of using them for...

[Jean Paul]

The threshold is probably actually lower now than it was during the cold war, since nuke use no longer means getting annhialated in retaliation.

[salm]

Maybe we should cancel the ban we have with Russia on devloping Neutron bombs

Compared to conventional nukes, Neutron bombs (properly known as Enhanced Radiation bombs) are only more useful as tactical weapons against hardened battlefiled targets like tanks and bunkers, because their more intense radiation pulse will penetrate armor and hardened concrete better. Unless of coure that's exactly what you were thinking of using them for...

sounds as if neutron bombs are not as destructive as regular nukes then. why exactly are they banned then?

[Crayz9000]

sounds as if neutron bombs are not as destructive as regular nukes then. why exactly are they banned then?

They kill people efficiently.

[Ma Deuce]

sounds as if neutron bombs are not as destructive as regular nukes then. why exactly are they banned then?

Because neutron bombs are only really useful as tactical weapons (they are much more useful than conventional nukes against tanks and hardened targets due to the fact that their more intence radiation will penetrate steel and concrete better, doing bad things to the crew), and under the START treaties, the US and Russia have been trying to reduce or eliminate their stocks of tactical nukes since the end of the Cold War...

[Ma Deuce]

and under the START treaties, the US and Russia have been trying to reduce or eliminate their stocks of tactical nukes since the end of the Cold War...

Correction: START and later SORT only cover strategic weapons. I forget what treaty covered tactical weapons...

[The Kernel]

and under the START treaties, the US and Russia have been trying to reduce or eliminate their stocks of tactical nukes since the end of the Cold War...

Correction: START and later SORT only cover strategic weapons. I forget what treaty covered tactical weapons...

I don't believe there was ANY treaty that covered tactical munitions; Russia still has a great deal of active tactical nuclear weapons that they have threatened to field again if NATO continues inroads into Eastern Europe.

The closest I know of is the INF Treaty which covers medium to short range nuclear weapons, but does not cover tactical nukes AFAIK.

[salm]

sounds as if neutron bombs are not as destructive as regular nukes then. why exactly are they banned then?

Because neutron bombs are only really useful as tactical weapons (they are much more useful than conventional nukes against tanks and hardened targets due to the fact that their more intence radiation will penetrate steel and concrete better, doing bad things to the crew), and under the START treaties, the US and Russia have been trying to reduce or eliminate their stocks of tactical nukes since the end of the Cold War...

ok, so why are weapons banned that are mainly useful against military targest and other weapons which can destroy entire cities not?

how is "they´re tactical weapons" an argument for that?

[Beowulf]

sounds as if neutron bombs are not as destructive as regular nukes then. why exactly are they banned then?

Because neutron bombs are only really useful as tactical weapons (they are much more useful than conventional nukes against tanks and hardened targets due to the fact that their more intence radiation will penetrate steel and concrete better, doing bad things to the crew), and under the START treaties, the US and Russia have been trying to reduce or eliminate their stocks of tactical nukes since the end of the Cold War...

ok, so why are weapons banned that are mainly useful against military targest and other weapons which can destroy entire cities not?

how is "they´re tactical weapons" an argument for that?

I believe the argument is that tactical weapons reduce the preceived threshold of when you could use it. So it would be more likely for another nuke to be initiated in anger.