nuclear weapons

[Crown]

Simple insult of Queeb since he's parroted Moore's rants from time to time.

So it was just one more opportunity for you to bash Moore, and flame Queeb.

[Stormbringer]

Simple insult of Queeb since he's parroted Moore's rants from time to time.

So it was just one more opportunity for you to bash Moore, and flame Queeb.

Mostly bash Queeb for being a idiot just to get attention and stir up trouble.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I dont think he needs Congress to retaliate against inbound missiles.

Now, what happens if a country, say North Korea, launched a single missile at the US and we shoot that missile down. No more missiles are coming.

At that point should he need authorization to fire back?

[Stormbringer]

Techincally no. In all practicality, probably. No president would use nuclear weapons lightly, especially if the threat is over.

[Queeb Salaron]

Seriously, you post stupid crap solely to provoke a reaction what do you expect?

I wanted to see if anyone else had heard the same thing. Jesus. Let it go. This wasn't a statement as to my dislike for our President. I might have said something more poignant if that were the case.

A) I'm sorry you take these things so personally, but you don't need to flame me for them. I was putting up information that I had heard. Hell, it was in the form of a question! I wasn't even convicted on it!

B) I wasn't trying to provoke any kind of reaction at all. But thanks for giving one anyway. I appreciate it. Next time you decide to act on that grudge, though, try and hold it in and just let it go. Or otherwise, say, "I hadn't heard anything like that."

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Techincally no. In all practicality, probably. No president would use nuclear weapons lightly, especially if the threat is over.

That assumes we have the capability to shoot it down. Right now we don't, and so a single launch from the DPRK would require a full retaliatory response.

[Illuminatus Primus]

In which case the DPRK dissippears off the face of the planet.

[Sokar]

If I remember correctly , the two man rule is for real, in the instance of a hostile launch , a response is guaranteed. To use nuclear weapons offensivly, without an imminent threat to the US is entirely diffrent matter. US Strategic doctrine declares the nukes are a defensive/deterrant weapon only. In the event of a rouge or emotionaly unstable President, the Commander of SAC has the authority to override a President who he believes is acting irrationaly and countermand an order to employ strategic weapons. While the President can order a launch or bomber strike, it must be authorized by the Commander SAC, or in the case of a Sub launch , by the respective Fleet Commanders. Without an imminent threat to the US none of these men are likely to release a nuclear weapon strike.
They would be forced to declare that they felt the President was issuing an unlawful order, and are not bound by the chain of command to obey it or pass it along to their subordinates. With luck then the menbers of the Cabinent, could force the President to step down in favor of the Vice President by having the White House physicial rule him 'unfit to hold office' this is essentially a governmental mutiny, and after ward they will all have to testify at a Congressional hearing as to the nature and reason for their actions, lest they be charged with treason. Its never even come close to happening, but the measure are in place to (hopefully) prevent such a thing from ever happening.

[Stormbringer]

Techincally no. In all practicality, probably. No president would use nuclear weapons lightly, especially if the threat is over.

That assumes we have the capability to shoot it down. Right now we don't, and so a single launch from the DPRK would require a full retaliatory response.

Of course, but it's a hypothetical situation we're talking about anyway.

[theski]

Also the guys in silos, have to turn the Keys. And yes they do have orders to use sidearms in case of a valid launch code and rufusal to turn on countdown.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

I dont think he needs Congress to retaliate against inbound missiles.

Now, what happens if a country, say North Korea, launched a single missile at the US and we shoot that missile down. No more missiles are coming.

At that point should he need authorization to fire back?

No. It doesn't matter if the missles are intecepted or slam into Washington. The point is they were fired! And there's only 1 responce to a nuclear attack.

[Beowulf]

I dont think he needs Congress to retaliate against inbound missiles.

Now, what happens if a country, say North Korea, launched a single missile at the US and we shoot that missile down. No more missiles are coming.

At that point should he need authorization to fire back?

No. It doesn't matter if the missles are intecepted or slam into Washington. The point is they were fired! And there's only 1 responce to a nuclear attack.

Usage of WMD against the US or US troops dictates use of nuclear weapons against the people who started it. The counterattack would likely be out of the silos before the original attack was intercepted.

[Sea Skimmer]

Usage of WMD against the US or US troops dictates use of nuclear weapons against the people who started it. The counterattack would likely be out of the silos before the original attack was intercepted.

That would depend on whom it came from and in what strength. ICBM's from China will get the same in return 10 minutes later, while an artillery delivered mustard gas attack from Libya would be more likely dealt with using cruise missiles or gravity bombs several hours later.

Because of the poor state of Russian early warning systems, especially the radars which could tell them if they where going to be hit or not, the US would seek to avoid using ballistic weapons.

Really the US should developed a nuclear version of the Army Tactical Missile or something like that, allowing for a very rapid reply in small conflicts without making Russia or China extremely paranoid.

[Master of Ossus]

should the president need congressional authorization to use them?

I don't see any practical method of allowing this, or any constitutional legitimacy behind this.

[Enforcer Talen]

division of power?

[Tsyroc]

Really the US should developed a nuclear version of the Army Tactical Missile or something like that, allowing for a very rapid reply in small conflicts without making Russia or China extremely paranoid.

There were nuclear versions of Tomahawks, wouldn't something like that
be enough? I know our surface ships aren't supposed to carry them
anymore but they could be on submarines that are in support of small
conflicts.

[Shinova]

Really the US should developed a nuclear version of the Army Tactical Missile or something like that, allowing for a very rapid reply in small conflicts without making Russia or China extremely paranoid.

Maybe we should get something like CnC: Generals' Ion Cannon


Course, that'd get every other nation's heads and pants on fire.

[MKSheppard]

You wanna play rough, boy? I can play rough.

You don't know rough, you little Michael Moore pissant. Go back and help
Moore with his liposuction treatment by personally sucking every last
fucking POUND of flab in moore's 300 pound ass out with your own
lips, so he can save the cost of liposuction.

[phongn]

Really the US should developed a nuclear version of the Army Tactical Missile or something like that, allowing for a very rapid reply in small conflicts without making Russia or China extremely paranoid.

There were nuclear versions of Tomahawks, wouldn't something like that
be enough? I know our surface ships aren't supposed to carry them
anymore but they could be on submarines that are in support of small
conflicts.

TLAM-N is history. GHWB stripped the armed forces of most of their nuclear weapons (ALCM and TLAM-N were converted into CALCM and TLAM-C/TLAM-D, respectively).

Their reaction time is not as fast as something like a hypothetical ATACM-N, either.

[Sea Skimmer]

Really the US should developed a nuclear version of the Army Tactical Missile or something like that, allowing for a very rapid reply in small conflicts without making Russia or China extremely paranoid.

There were nuclear versions of Tomahawks, wouldn't something like that
be enough? I know our surface ships aren't supposed to carry them
anymore but they could be on submarines that are in support of small
conflicts.

Problems with that

1, weapon yield is 150 kilotons, far too large for many targets
2, it takes up space needed for conventional weapons
3, they have to be loaded at a secure port, that doesn't allow for rapid reactions unless the whole fleet carries them all the time
4, Tomahawk isn't very fast and can't be used against battlefield targets
5, I like Army Tactical Missile and want more of them

On the other hand my idea could be flown in on a C-130 and kept with a HIMARS or MLRS firing unit that could perform other missions until needed. Loading the weapon would take 15 minutes or so and the time of flight is short enough to wipe out a missile site or other battlefield targets that would make our point while requiring only a small burst away from civilians.