MAD?

[R. U. Serious]

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.

What? Can you point me to any kind of support for this claim? Specifically: "It is what we the "civilized nations" have decided is the price for nuclear war". Thank you.

[Lancer]

It's the MAD doctrine. This was why the Cuban missile crisis was such a big deal. If the USSR gained the capability to launch a first-strike and at the same time wipe out the USA's ability to retaliate in kind, then there would have been precious little to stop them from doing so.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

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.

What? Can you point me to any kind of support for this claim? Specifically: "It is what we the "civilized nations" have decided is the price for nuclear war". Thank you.

The point of nukes is to act as a counterweight. If you nuke some country, you will definitely get a response, else exterminating humans is not without penalty.

Either way, nukes or no nukes, the end result is the same, albeit perhaps slower without nukes.

[wolveraptor]

So when Ahmadinejad nukes Israel, we retaliate by executing him and his victims? Why the hell are all the people he happens to be near responsible for the destruction of Israel? Iran's government isn't respresentative; the people therefore bear no responsibility for the government's actions.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

So when Ahmadinejad nukes Israel, we retaliate by executing him and his victims? Why the hell are all the people he happens to be near responsible for the destruction of Israel? Iran's government isn't respresentative; the people therefore bear no responsibility for the government's actions.

Ahmadinejad is unlikely to be able to nuke Israel without the consent of the clerics who in turn command significant influence over the population and also without the consent of the military. Moreover, a decision like this if it is carried out and not without widespread support and instead stokes a revolt.

[R. U. Serious]

I know what MAD is. Most of all it's a theory peddled by a group of people. AFAIK it has never been the public doctrine of any country. Hence why I asked for support for this statement:

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.

[R. U. Serious]

Let me add another twist to the topic: If a reigious wacko in the US military nuked Holland and all of it's ~ 16 Million inhabitants were dead, would all "civilzed countries" agree that the US would have to be utterly nuked and destroyed for the sake of future deterrence?

[K. A. Pital]

Let me add another twist to the topic: If a reigious wacko in the US military nuked Holland and all of it's ~ 16 Million inhabitants were dead, would all "civilzed countries" agree that the US would have to be utterly nuked and destroyed for the sake of future deterrence?

Nuclear war would break out even before any "considerations".

[SWPIGWANG]

Bzzt WRONG. Swords don't cause radiation, long term ground poisoning

The purpose of war in this case is to destroy and punish the people responsible. There is no value in punishing geology. It merely denies perfectly usable land to everyone else.

Swords are perfectly capable of depopulating entire nations. If they are dead, there is no difference on the conditions of the now depopulated land.

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.

I'm glad that thoughless dogma is so well recieved.

Who is this "you" that you are refering to? Is it a group of people or a piece of geology?

While there is good reason for using nuclear retailation at times, it is not always the best option. The requirement for deterrance is simply the destruction of all that is responsible, and if that can be done without wasting perfectly good land(together with wind blowing radiation far and wide), large amounts of collateral damage, and costing too much, it would be a reasonable option to choose.

Maximum suffering possible? lol Yeah, that'll fly....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.

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?

Now we are talking. Like I said, there is a good reason why nuclear retaliation is good at times.

The condition of the op seems to imply that the world is indeed pissed and that near perfect conventional lockdown is possible. That may not be realistic.

Basically, there needs to be consideration of the scenario before simplying wipping an entire place out.

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?

Alliance system, if the system holds. If it does not, then nuclear retaliation is justified.

Nuclear war would break out even before any "considerations".

I'm unaware of Netherland's nuclear deterrance. This probably means its EU allies would have to carry out that attack, where the US have to respond by nuking the entire EU under the MAD doctrine.

GREAT. We've just depopulated the entire western world by chain reaction from a few people. I'm sure you realize the stupidity in this case.

It is not too dissimiliar to responding to terrorist nuclear attack to depopulating the entire middle east.
-------------------------------------------------------------
If the objective is to limit destruction in the long run, than mindless escalation is one way to fail it.

[SWPIGWANG]

grrr, someone fix the quotes.....

so it is double quotes >_>

[K. A. Pital]

GREAT. We've just depopulated the entire western world by chain reaction from a few people. I'm sure you realize the stupidity in this case.

In other times you could depopulate the entire world (without the "Western" prefix) by a misplaced reaction of one or few men.

[Redleader34]

Stas theis has happend so many times, its not funny, I think that the Wikipedia* has a list of near End of humanity colapses... The Link MAD would have (In the fact of the 1983 and 1985 incidents nearly did) brought the world to a devistated state.

[glass]

I'd carry out my standing orders, which I imagine would involve turning significant areas of Iran into radioactive glass. I wouldn't pay any attention to the FBI or MI5 (or even Mossad) trying to talk me out of it.

Of course, in real life I would have a real problem with launching a boat full of nukes. But in real life I am not in command of a nuclear sub, and I hope whoever commands the British deterent is less squeamish than I am (although not as much as I hope never to find out).


glass.

[glass]

Ghetto edit: That should be 'hope noone ever finds out'. If the squeamishness or otherwise of British sub crews ever becomes an issue then I am already dust so I won't find out either way.


glass.

[K. A. Pital]

If the squeamishness or otherwise of British sub crews ever becomes an issue then I am already dust so I won't find out either way.

Projected casualties of immediate nuclear strikes aren't 100% even in the worst scenario. It's the fallout that gives additional casualties. But humans will live on - perhaps including you. Would you want it, however, is a another question.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

So, the argument many of you are putting forth is that the only valid response for one nation commiting genocide with nukes, is to nuke it to sub-atomic pieces in response. At face value, and even looking at it with cold, emotionless logic, I understand that the best deterent against using nukes is to nuke the offender.

But lets lower the scales a bit. Say that a single man killed your entire family by shooting them in the face. Is the only justified response to kill him, AND his entire family also? I know some people would probably go that far. I wouldn't.

In that situation, I couldn't bring myself to give that order. 7 million people would already be dead, and I couldn't find it in myself to have the blood of millions of other innocent people on my hands just for revenge, or to "act as a deterent". It's not the only deterent, just the most effective one. But if we always looked for the more effective deterent, then every person convicted of murder would be killed in the way their victim was, I suppose.

Eh, just my opinion. Oh, btw, this threat is a bit more than a week old... I'm not sure if this counts as thread necromancy. I've been lurking on the forums for about a month now, but this is my first post. Don't want to break any rules so soon, but I kinda felt strongly about this issue.