Pentagon’s Strategy Won’t Rule Out Nuclear Use Against Non-Nuclear Threats

[Godboy]

Leaving such Russia's move without an answer can green light similar actions from say Iranian or North Korea regimes.

Though, I don't think Russia nuking Ukraine will cause a nuke response from the West. More likely some conventional response.

The worlds response to Russia launching a nuke will be swift and tremendous, but they will definitely not launch a nuke at Russia.

 

[Ringo]

It shows the Russians that attacking any nation with nuclear weapons will not be tolerated.

Name the country that used nuclear weapons to destroy the enemy. I know, it will be a difficult question for you, but you can use the help of the Internet

 

[basquebromance]

The worlds response to Russia launching a nuke will be swift and tremendous, but they will definitely not launch a nuke at Russia.

 

[Mushroom]

How does Brittain benefit from throwing a nuke at Russia after Russia nukes Ukraine?

It is known as "deterrence". That taking such an action is not without consequences.

I will just post a quote, that should day all that needs to be said on the subject.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

What do you think of this? Do you think this is acceptable or not?

MSN

Lobster Clawing a Bear

Bush should have nuked Tora Bora, wiping out Al Qaida, then left the Taliban alone. But he never cared about the jihad, the main product of "the Religion of Peace." All this non-combatant during the Cold War wanted was to occupy Afghanistan as an outpost against the imaginary Russian threat. That should have been obvious when he hired an obsolete expert such as Condoleezza Rice, who knew a lot about the former Soviet Union and little about anything else.

 

[Mushroom]

Leaving such Russia's move without an answer can green light similar actions from say Iranian or North Korea regimes.

Which is why MAD has worked for over half a century.

The simply knowledge that the use of a nuke on another country would result in a similar response upon themselves. The same think has largely kept chemical and biological weapons out of play also.

For those that do not know what MAD is or understand it, I suggest they take some time and do some research into it.

Mutual assured destruction refers to the concept that two superpowers are capable of annihilating each other with nuclear weapons, regardless of whether they are attacked first.

What is mutual assured destruction?

Mutual assured destruction, often abbreviated as MAD, it is part of the military strategy of deterrence.

www.livescience.com

 

[ESay]

Which is why MAD has worked for over half a century.

The simply knowledge that the use of a nuke on another country would result in a similar response upon themselves. The same think has largely kept chemical and biological weapons out of play also.

For those that do not know what MAD is or understand it, I suggest they take some time and do some research into it.

What is mutual assured destruction?

Mutual assured destruction, often abbreviated as MAD, it is part of the military strategy of deterrence.

www.livescience.com

MAD is some form of a guarantee that your enemy won't use nuclear weapons against you. Basically, nukes exist to prevent a nuclear war. Despite the fact how absurd this may sound.

The Russians are running their mouth about nukes with the only goal to intimidate. And bowing down to their intimidation is a way to nowhere.

Are they really ready to use nukes? I don't know, but I think they aren't. Because kickback will outweigh benefits. They will try to pressure with conventional weapons.

 

[Dayton3]

Name the country that used nuclear weapons to destroy the enemy. I know, it will be a difficult question for you, but you can use the help of the Internet

.
If you are referring to Hiroshima and Nagasaki the U.S. did not "destroy"" the Japanese or even a substantial portion of them with those attacks. Both cities were rebuilt in just a few years

 

[Mushroom]

MAD is some form of a guarantee that your enemy won't use nuclear weapons against you.

More than that, it helps to ensure they are not used against anybody. And there are peripheral agreements that are called the "Nuclear Umbrella".

Then of course there is the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, signed and ratified by the UN in 2017. It was largely in recognition of the failure of the non-proliferation treaty, and was written for what to do if a nation used or threatened to use them. And among the treaty are the following things:

Mindful of the risks posed by the continued existence of nuclear weapons, including from any nuclear-weapon detonation by accident, miscalculation or design, and emphasizing that these risks concern the security of all humanity, and that all States share the responsibility to prevent any use of nuclear weapons,

Basing themselves on the principles and rules of international humanitarian law, in particular the principle that the right of parties to an armed conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited, the rule of distinction, the prohibition against indiscriminate attacks, the rules on proportionality and precautions in attack, the prohibition on the use of weapons of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, and the rules for the protection of the natural environment,

1. Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances to:
(d) Use or threaten to use nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;
(f) Seek or receive any assistance, in any way, from anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Treaty;

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2017/07/20170707%2003-42%20PM/Ch_XXVI_9.pdf

Of course, feel free to read the entire treaty. But what stands out to me quite clearly is the phrase "all States share the responsibility to prevent any use of nuclear weapons". That means not just the nation that uses or threatens to use them, or the country they are used or threatened against. That means all nations.

In other words, it is also the responsibility to prevent any nation from their use, and by implication the use of their own to punish such a nation that does use them, as a show that such will not be tolerated.

 

[Mushroom]

.
If you are referring to Hiroshima and Nagasaki the U.S. did not "destroy"" the Japanese or even a substantial portion of them with those attacks. Both cities were rebuilt in just a few years

Hell, we had already caused a lot more death and destruction through conventional raids than both of those attacks combined.