Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What is far more likely is that these outlaw states would deal nukes to terrorist groups that would try to use the weapons against the US and its allies. If that happened, we would be justified in using nukes against every military installation possessed by the offender. Then we should invade on the ground. After locating the leaders responsible, they should be publically tried and executed. To remove all doubt, the criminals running Iran and NK should be privately informed of the fate that awaits them should we or any nation (except France) suffer nuclear attack either directly or indirectly. Well alright, we should probably even cover France.This is an easy question.
If North Korea, Iran, or any other wing nut nation nuked the United States, or any of its close allies, would we retaliate in kind?
I say yes, what say you?
This is an easy question.
If North Korea, Iran, or any other wing nut nation nuked the United States, or any of its close allies, would we retaliate in kind?
I say yes, what say you?
What is far more likely is that these outlaw states would deal nukes to terrorist groups that would try to use the weapons against the US and its allies. If that happened, we would be justified in using nukes against every military installation possessed by the offender. Then we should invade on the ground. After locating the leaders responsible, they should be publically tried and executed. To remove all doubt, the criminals running Iran and NK should be privately informed of the fate that awaits them should we or any nation (except France) suffer nuclear attack either directly or indirectly. Well alright, we should probably even cover France.
No sane person or nation is looking for an excuse to nuke anyone.Really, we are just looking for the excuse to nuke these SOB's.
Heres a related question: is a first strike with nuclear weapons ever morally justifiable? For the moment, lets assume that the end of WW2 is not part of the question. Under the conditions that currently exist in the world, is it ever morally justifiable to use nuclear weapons in a first strike? Can such weapons only be morally used in retaliation? NATO did not think so, when the Warsaw Pact and allied armies were squared off across the plains of Germany during the Cold War. If the Soviets had then rushed our defensive lines, their numerical superiority was such that after a few days of conventional combat, our only way to avoid catastrophic defeat would have been to initiate first strike nuke attacks. Was this a morally justifiable position?
Heres a related question: is a first strike with nuclear weapons ever morally justifiable? For the moment, lets assume that the end of WW2 is not part of the question. Under the conditions that currently exist in the world, is it ever morally justifiable to use nuclear weapons in a first strike? Can such weapons only be morally used in retaliation? NATO did not think so, when the Warsaw Pact and allied armies were squared off across the plains of Germany during the Cold War. If the Soviets had then rushed our defensive lines, their numerical superiority was such that after a few days of conventional combat, our only way to avoid catastrophic defeat would have been to initiate first strike nuke attacks. Was this a morally justifiable position?
I would have to say no. It doesn't seem to make sense that with the ready ability to use nukes, that a country should set them off just because they fear a conventional war and its necessary losses. Not at a point like the border between East and West Germany, not with intercontinental missiles.
It's the situation Israel lives with daily.
I'm following your thinking, but I have to disagree. We might as well dismantle all our nukes now if we do not have the resolve to use them. Sending a conventional army to certain doom when we have the means at our disposal to preserve that army, minimize our own casualties and achieve victory on the battlefield is irresponsible at it's highest level.
Moral justification should not even be an issue in this scenario. If it is, how morally justifiable is it to send one's army to certain death?
That's why I gave the example, between the Germanies. If the only way to stop the slaughter was nukes, then they would be used-much like at the end of WWII.
Also why I mentioned Israel, how many times have their conventional armies been attacked, then they were able to repel? If Egypt, Saudis, Iran, Syrians were to actually employ all their resources, Israel would have to respond in a different way today, no?
Yup the U.S should nuke that country responsible. But I wonder wether Iran,N.K or any Islamic terror group has a missiles capable of reaching the continental States. Maybe in the future....But America should retaliate IF and only IF the country targets population centres. If the country strikes U.S military installations then America has the right to blow up the offenders missiles sites ,military installation(army,air force,navy) into oblivion.
Sorry ..but I couldn't resist the comparison. If Pak attacked India in Kashmir crossed the Loc(line of control) and occupied sovereign Indian territory then we probably would attack them,drive them back and create a huge buffer zone between India and Pak with the help of our artillery. If they sent even a tiny missile into any Indian military site we would most probably destroy Kahuta(Pak's nuke complex) and screw up every Pakistani military site(army,airforce and navy). If they sent in a nuke...I don't want to say what will happen. But right now I don't think Pak will do that. That would be suicide for them:dev1:
Akshay
Israel will use nukes as a last resort only for several reasons. One, the bleeding heart left of the world would NEVER shut up about it. Two, they would have to use them in their own backyard; which, presents a real danger to the user via after-effects (fallout -- unusable land).
I could see the use of tactical battlefield nukes under such circumstances though. However, if Israel remains true to form, even the hint of an attack usually gets an overwhelming preemptive strike as response, so it's hard to say. That is exactly how they beat all the Arab nations back in the 50s. They ddin't wait around to be attacked.
Which I think should also be in a different way, the US's reaction: Get 'them' conventionally, before being in a position of having to overreact.
So we agree.You'll be hard-pressed to find many military people who do NOT believe in an overwhelming preemptive strike as the best means of defense. Politics is what dictates the react-only mode. We have to maintain the illusion of holding the higher moral ground, and then there are those -- we have some right here on this board -- who think if an ICBM isn't flying right up their butts they aren't being threatened.
Due to the overwhelming numerical superiority of Warsaw Pact armored formations, NATOs position was that after a few days of conventional battle, the specter of defeat would force tactical nuclear first strikes against enemy combat forces. Given that dire circumstance, I think that a nuclear first strike is morally justifiable. However, it was not morally justifiable to permit the numerical superiority of conventional enemy forces to exist in the first place. If NATO countries had the political will to expend the resources to possess enough conventional firepower to stop a Warsaw Pact invasion, then the tactical plan to hit enemy forces with nuclear first strikes would not have been necessary. Fortunately the Soviets were not insane and they never attacked NATO. Regardless, this scenario is one of the reasons that nuclear weapons proliferation is so dangerous. Economically weak countries that possess a nuclear deterrent are less likely to have the political will to expend the resources necessary to maintain enough conventional forces to repel enemy attack. Thus the first use of nuclear weapons becomes more likely. When a country pressed for resources like India develops a nuclear deterrent, it is less likely to have the political will necessary to maintain enough forces to fend off determined conventional attack from countries such as Pakistan and China. Thus the possession of a nuclear deterrent designed for defense can actually make the first strike use of such weapons more likely. Will China and Pakistan always show the same restraint as did the Soviets during the Cold War? Maybe. Maybe not.I would have to say no. It doesn't seem to make sense that with the ready ability to use nukes, that a country should set them off just because they fear a conventional war and its necessary losses. Not at a point like the border between East and West Germany, not with intercontinental missiles.
It's the situation Israel lives with daily.
Heres a related question: is a first strike with nuclear weapons ever morally justifiable? For the moment, lets assume that the end of WW2 is not part of the question. Under the conditions that currently exist in the world, is it ever morally justifiable to use nuclear weapons in a first strike? Can such weapons only be morally used in retaliation? NATO did not think so, when the Warsaw Pact and allied armies were squared off across the plains of Germany during the Cold War. If the Soviets had then rushed our defensive lines, their numerical superiority was such that after a few days of conventional combat, our only way to avoid catastrophic defeat would have been to initiate first strike nuke attacks. Was this a morally justifiable position?
