This is not a thread about political possibilities and/or military capabilities. This is the thread about values and moral choices only. One of the classic questions "Is the life of one person more valuable than the life of another?"
Let's play the game. With continuing blockade of Hormuz strait and skyrocketing oil prices, Western Europe, especially France is destabilising. There is more or less peaceful Red-Green Revolution in France, with radical Socialist and Islamists coming in power (but officially France is still a NATO member and ally of America). Those guys believe that the only obstacle on the way to peace is Israel, and, allied with certain Arab states in the Middle East region, they decided to, at least, coerce Israel into Europe-Arab acceptable peace. They do some escalation and after few tactical nuclear skirmishes, France decided to eliminate Israeli strategic nuclear forces (commit counter-force strike) and Israel decided to follow "Samson protocol" - massive counter-value strike against most populated Arab cities in the region. French counter-force strike was partly successful, so only twenty million of mostly civilian Arabs and half of million of civilian Frenchies are killed. It's not enough to win a war, but it's pretty enough to make people really angry, and France nuked Israel's cities in return, killing one third of its population - 3 mln of Jews (also mostly civilian). Local Arabs, now are quite determined to genocide all Jewish survivors - 6 mln of them.
All three French strategic nuclear submarines are in the ocean, they don't make preparations to attack the USA, but, in the case of US attack on France - they are ready to nuke American cities, too, causing, as they believe, "unacceptable damage".
So, now it's the time for your moral choice, as the decision maker of the USA.
1) You can do nothing. In this case Arabs will kill six millions of Jews and end existence of Israel. They are quite determined to do exactly this. Then, you'll be able to settle the things down and re-establish some political and economic ties.
2) You can try to attack French nuclear submarines to prevent their retaliation on the USA and use the threat of really massive nuclear attack on French and Arab cities (with their virtually total annihilation) to prevent their already ongoing attack on Israel. But if you attack French nuclear submarines - they will definitely try to attack US cities and kill some Americans.
So, here is the question - how many Americans are "acceptable losses" to prevent the death of six millions of Jews?
I think that if US Navy has a good plan to eliminate French submarines before they could launch their missiles and US ABD is good enough to intercept some launched missiles, with, finally, 5% risk of death of no more than 1 mln of Americans - it may worth it.
If there is no good plan to attack and simultaneously eliminate them, and if French SLBMs are extremely good and US ABD and civil defence are extremely poor, and final estimation is 95% risk of the death of half of the US population - it definitely doesn't worth it.
But what is your opinion? Explain why.
Let's play the game. With continuing blockade of Hormuz strait and skyrocketing oil prices, Western Europe, especially France is destabilising. There is more or less peaceful Red-Green Revolution in France, with radical Socialist and Islamists coming in power (but officially France is still a NATO member and ally of America). Those guys believe that the only obstacle on the way to peace is Israel, and, allied with certain Arab states in the Middle East region, they decided to, at least, coerce Israel into Europe-Arab acceptable peace. They do some escalation and after few tactical nuclear skirmishes, France decided to eliminate Israeli strategic nuclear forces (commit counter-force strike) and Israel decided to follow "Samson protocol" - massive counter-value strike against most populated Arab cities in the region. French counter-force strike was partly successful, so only twenty million of mostly civilian Arabs and half of million of civilian Frenchies are killed. It's not enough to win a war, but it's pretty enough to make people really angry, and France nuked Israel's cities in return, killing one third of its population - 3 mln of Jews (also mostly civilian). Local Arabs, now are quite determined to genocide all Jewish survivors - 6 mln of them.
All three French strategic nuclear submarines are in the ocean, they don't make preparations to attack the USA, but, in the case of US attack on France - they are ready to nuke American cities, too, causing, as they believe, "unacceptable damage".
So, now it's the time for your moral choice, as the decision maker of the USA.
1) You can do nothing. In this case Arabs will kill six millions of Jews and end existence of Israel. They are quite determined to do exactly this. Then, you'll be able to settle the things down and re-establish some political and economic ties.
2) You can try to attack French nuclear submarines to prevent their retaliation on the USA and use the threat of really massive nuclear attack on French and Arab cities (with their virtually total annihilation) to prevent their already ongoing attack on Israel. But if you attack French nuclear submarines - they will definitely try to attack US cities and kill some Americans.
So, here is the question - how many Americans are "acceptable losses" to prevent the death of six millions of Jews?
I think that if US Navy has a good plan to eliminate French submarines before they could launch their missiles and US ABD is good enough to intercept some launched missiles, with, finally, 5% risk of death of no more than 1 mln of Americans - it may worth it.
If there is no good plan to attack and simultaneously eliminate them, and if French SLBMs are extremely good and US ABD and civil defence are extremely poor, and final estimation is 95% risk of the death of half of the US population - it definitely doesn't worth it.
But what is your opinion? Explain why.
