[Seeker8]

If your country was completely destroyed by nuclear weapons would you want that country retaliated against? (say with nuclear weapons based on subs).
I mean, there's no point in it other than revenge and millions of innocent people will die.

[quetzalcoatl]

No, that would be too kind. First I would poison every acre of their cropland with radioactive dust...what, a few hundred low yield dirty bombs? They're probably not in the arsenal, though, more's the pity. Of course I'd nuke the capital to cripple disaster response. If other naval assets survive, I'd direct Tomahawks to all major power stations. Nuclear missile subs could remain under the ice indefinitely, to surface and finish off the survivors should they make a comeback.

In a war nobody's innocent. Not the farmers in the path of Sherman's army, not the residents of Dresden or Tokyo, not the civilians caught up in the Kronstadt Rebellion. You can come back from war, but you can't come back from zero. If you zero me, then I have to zero you. This is justice.

[Seeker8]

So even the children aren't innocent?
You would make a whole country of children suffer a horrific death just so you can get revenge on a foreign government?
Surely that is immoral.

[snapdragon]

If your country was completely destroyed by nuclear weapons would you want that country retaliated against? (say with nuclear weapons based on subs).
I mean, there's no point in it other than revenge and millions of innocent people will die.

What are we supposed retaliate with? Our country is completely destroyed and we're all dead.

[layman]

I mean, there's no point in it other than revenge and millions of innocent people will die.

Well this is an interesting question.

Regarding corbyn -our new british labour leader - he says no. However, game theory requires you dont let your intentions be known. You need to at least make you think you would use them, as a deterent.

If it comes to the this outcome though, it is fairly rational to not bother with the revenge at this point.

[Truth To Power]

If your country was completely destroyed by nuclear weapons would you want that country retaliated against? (say with nuclear weapons based on subs).
I mean, there's no point in it other than revenge and millions of innocent people will die.

Wrong. It's not revenge, and they are not innocent. It's to stop them from doing the same to someone else, and to delete the genes that allow someone to commit such evil from the gene pool.

A populace that does not overthrow such a government also carries genes of subservience to evil that would best be deleted from the pool. People need to understand that when they let their governments get away with blatant evil, their own personal survival is jeopardized.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

I'd probably nuke three or four of their major cities and spare the rest hoping to destabilise the ruling regime at least.

[Seeker8]

Wrong. It's not revenge, and they are not innocent. It's to stop them from doing the same to someone else, and to delete the genes that allow someone to commit such evil from the gene pool.

A populace that does not overthrow such a government also carries genes of subservience to evil that would best be deleted from the pool. People need to understand that when they let their governments get away with blatant evil, their own personal survival is jeopardized.

So the children aren't innocent either?

and to delete the genes that allow someone to commit such evil from the gene pool.

By that logic it should be morally right to kill the children of serial killers.

[Zamuel]

If your country was completely destroyed by nuclear weapons would you want that country retaliated against? (say with nuclear weapons based on subs). I mean, there's no point in it other than revenge and millions of innocent people will die.

Nuke em ... There's lots of good reasons not to, but a regime, culture, society, that would launch a massive pre-emptive nuclear attack cannot be allowed to dictate the future. They must be eradicated.

Zam

[ThirdTerm]

This debate about MAD is now old-fashioned but the authors of this FA article argued that the US now achieved the first strike capability that can destroy Russia and China without inflicting any damage on itself. Nevertheless, winning a nuclear war by launching a preemptive strike that would destroy an enemy's nuclear forces still seems to be an impossible goal and deterring a nuclear attack in the first place is what's really needed to look at.

[youtube]fmtNJdX0Q44[/youtube]

This debate may now seem like ancient history, but it is actually more relevant than ever -- because the age of MAD is nearing an end. Today, for the first time in almost 50 years, the United States stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy. It will probably soon be possible for the United States to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike. This dramatic shift in the nuclear balance of power stems from a series of improvements in the United States' nuclear systems, the precipitous decline of Russia's arsenal, and the glacial pace of modernization of China's nuclear forces. Unless Washington's policies change or Moscow and Beijing take steps to increase the size and readiness of their forces, Russia and China -- and the rest of the world -- will live in the shadow of U.S. nuclear primacy for many years to come. One's views on the implications of this change will depend on one's theoretical perspective. Hawks, who believe that the United States is a benevolent force in the world, will welcome the new nuclear era because they trust that U.S. dominance in both conventional and nuclear weapons will help deter aggression by other countries. For example, as U.S. nuclear primacy grows, China's leaders may act more cautiously on issues such as Taiwan, realizing that their vulnerable nuclear forces will not deter U.S. intervention -- and that Chinese nuclear threats could invite a U.S. strike on Beijing's arsenal. But doves, who oppose using nuclear threats to coerce other states and fear an emboldened and unconstrained United States, will worry. Nuclear primacy might lure Washington into more aggressive behavior, they argue, especially when combined with U.S. dominance in so many other dimensions of national power. Finally, a third group -- owls, who worry about the possibility of inadvertent conflict -- will fret that U.S. nuclear primacy could prompt other nuclear powers to adopt strategic postures, such as by giving control of nuclear weapons to lower-level commanders, that would make an unauthorized nuclear strike more likely -- thereby creating what strategic theorists call "crisis instability."
http://www.cfr.org/world/rise-us-nuclear-primacy/p10147

[Truth To Power]

Wrong. It's not revenge, and they are not innocent. It's to stop them from doing the same to someone else, and to delete the genes that allow someone to commit such evil from the gene pool.

A populace that does not overthrow such a government also carries genes of subservience to evil that would best be deleted from the pool. People need to understand that when they let their governments get away with blatant evil, their own personal survival is jeopardized.

So the children aren't innocent either?

As individuals, they should certainly be innocent; but we are talking about innocence and guilt, and what is right and wrong, between societies, not individuals. We can't fastidiously spare the children of a society we are at war with any more than we could spare the children when we were bombing Japanese and German cities in WW II.

and to delete the genes that allow someone to commit such evil from the gene pool.

By that logic it should be morally right to kill the children of serial killers.

Again, societies vs individuals. Different rules for different kinds of entities.

[Zamuel]

This debate about MAD is now old-fashioned but the authors of this FA article argued that the US now achieved the first strike capability that can destroy Russia and China without inflicting any damage on itself.

This is BS, Propaganda ... Cruise Missile and Sub based ICBMs can strike quickly, but not that quickly. Russian and Chinese inventories are quite sufficient to wipe out the US and Europe. And our missile defense capacity is under 30%.

MAD is still a very effective deterrent. It's been resting quietly and it would be nice to let sleeping dogs lie. Probably we will, Putin is the only idiot out there that could resurrect it.

Zam

[Harmattan]

This is BS, Propaganda ... Cruise Missile and Sub based ICBMs can strike quickly, but not that quickly. Russian and Chinese inventories are quite sufficient to wipe out the US and Europe. And our missile defense capacity is under 30%.

The US first strike strategy never relied on the cruise missiles' speed, which is indeed insufficient (*). It relies on stealth planes and bunker busters. While it may have been viable, this would be a very dangerous bet as stealth technologies are not reliable enough. And they are less and less reliable. However it is true that Russian detection capacities are in a sad state but probably not that much.

The missile defense system itself would only be there for the few missiles left undestroyed, especially the ones launched from submarines. And I am pretty sure that its accuracy has greatly improved in the recent years: the 30% accuracy is an old figure but the computing power aboard missiles and the satellite observations have greatly improved.

This still smells like a hell of bet, though, especially as the stealth bombers are less and less stealth.


(*) If we consider that the longest distance between a US airbase and a Russian silo is 4000 km and it must be traveled in less than 10 minutes, then one would need a mach 20 speed! While the X-37B (spatial drone) claims a peak at mach 21, the earlier flight stages are slower and easily detected, and the USA would have to store atlas launchers in Eastern Europe and Japan. More "optimistic" scenarios may be possible if the USA could just target a few political and military heads.

[snapdragon]

Corbyn is right. Trident costs a fortune and does absolutely nothing to protect our country from attack.

However, game theory requires you dont let your intentions be known. You need to at least make you think you would use them, as a deterent.

Our opponents, whoever they may be, probably know damned well we won't use them.

To be honest,I'm glad about that; just in case they think of getting in first.

[Typhoon]

What a question. Nuclear deterrence depends to a large extent on the willingness to press the switch, since I believe in nuclear deterrence as a positive force in world affairs I suppose I would have to say yes and then hope I never get put in that situation. Nuclear planners in the real world certainly worried about this, with some amusing consequences.

http://russianforces.org/blog/2006/04/d ... lity.shtml

This debate about MAD is now old-fashioned but the authors of this FA article argued that the US now achieved the first strike capability that can destroy Russia and China without inflicting any damage on itself.

The Lieber & Press article is headline grabbing stuff, today it is easy to debunk but its unlikely the US ever achieved nuclear primacy, even in 2006.

http://russianforces.org/podvig/2006/09 ... tion.shtml

However it is true that Russian detection capacities are in a sad state but probably not that much....And I am pretty sure that its accuracy has greatly improved in the recent years:

Russian early warning systems have received significant investment in recent years, with at least ten new radar under construction or completed, the only gap today is in satellite coverage (less vital in the case of Russia due to the principal threat coming from SLBM). The new Tundra early warning satellites may start launching next month.

GMD currently has a success rate of ~50%, with simplifications in the test procedure and known faults in the interceptors. Its a bit naff really.

[Ganeshas Rat]

If your country was completely destroyed by nuclear weapons would you want that country retaliated against? (say with nuclear weapons based on subs).
I mean, there's no point in it other than revenge and millions of innocent people will die.

Yes, the country that was attacked by nuclear weapons must (by possibilities) to take revenge and kill millions of innocent people in the aggressor state, destroy as much infrastructure as possible, make life in the attacker's country hell and turn its land into glass. It will be a good act. Refusal to launch a counter nuclear strike because of ethical ideas goes to the point of opening new possibilities for people who do not care about ethics in context of using nuclear weapons, including a possibility to kill those ones who refused. In other words, while accepting an idea of refusal, you help directly opposite and it is evil. Only a guarantee of immediate revengeful counterstrike can contain threat of using nuclear weapons and/or going to great wars.