It's an interesting question - these days I think there is a great deal of resistance to go down the nuclear route by any developed nation, simply because there are other options - through 'coalition' invasion and suchlike which are far more preferable than indiscriminate nuking especially given the vastly superior military capabilities of the developed nations to any of the potential 'rogue' states.
Nuclear retaliation
- Thread starter Grrrrr
- Start date
nah getting nuked is the acceptable provocation for nuking the enemy.
I don't think politically we would have any choice but to use a nuclear attack back. Not doing so would set an even worse precedent.
I'd go with this. We could do a LOT of damage with conventional weapons, and we would presumably have a lot of international support (until we used nukes back of course).
I think I would probably have a different opinion if I'd lost family or close friends though. I'd like to think I could rise above the hate, but in all honesty I'm not sure I could.
I haven't seen the Sum of All Fears so I am not sure what sort of weapon is used in it but I would question the feasibility of detonating a nuclear weapon in a container ship or one hidden in a building.
Don't nuclear weapons need to be detonated at a certain height above their targets to cause the level of destruction we usually associate with them? My main point is that's it highly improbable that such an event will occur - if we're going to get nuked it's going to be by another nuclear power.
Anyway I'm babbling
There wouldn't be any point in launching a retaliatory nuclear strike on country without a nuclear weapons programme as they would no longer pose a nuclear threat, however, military action would most definitely be in order.
Don't nuclear weapons need to be detonated at a certain height above their targets to cause the level of destruction we usually associate with them? My main point is that's it highly improbable that such an event will occur - if we're going to get nuked it's going to be by another nuclear power.
Anyway I'm babbling
There wouldn't be any point in launching a retaliatory nuclear strike on country without a nuclear weapons programme as they would no longer pose a nuclear threat, however, military action would most definitely be in order.
Last edited:
Of course not...
More likely package into a chest freezer and bung it in a shipping container!
A viable nuke would be of more use to a rogue state as a bargaining chip or for posturing to neighbouring countries.
If however they did do it they would be subject to 'regime change' by conventional Allied forces so it would be a largely pointless exercise.
Nuclear weapons would only ever be used by the West in a 'world war' scenario IMO.
If however they did do it they would be subject to 'regime change' by conventional Allied forces so it would be a largely pointless exercise.
Nuclear weapons would only ever be used by the West in a 'world war' scenario IMO.
For maximum effectiveness, a nuclear weapon should be detonated in the atmosphere, yes. However even a very small strategic nuke (~50Kt) detonated at sea level, would completely obliterate a city.
As for the second statement, an established nuclear power would have just as much to lose from attacking us (c.f. MAD). The most likely scenario for a nuclear attack would be a small nation-independent organisation (like Islamic Jihad or similar) getting hold of an ex-Soviet nuke.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,936
- Location
- Manchester.
It depends who, any semi democratic nation would be nuked back no worries. Terrorists or a reigiem would be attacked like afganistan, but if they have 1 nuke it is likely they have another, invasion takes time. As harsh as it is I would nuke them back asap just incase.
You can justify it on a human scale as the uk is more densly populated.
You can justify it on a human scale as the uk is more densly populated.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,936
- Location
- Manchester.
Sorry on iPhone, power cut. Posibly terrorists!
Last edited:
To get the most destructive force out of a nuclear weapon an airburst is preferable. However detonating at ground level would still do massive amounts of damage and would also create more fallout making it even longer lasting.
I think in that situation they would more than likely use is to blackmail and instill panic into the population as once they have detonated it what would or could they do next? They would likely lose support from all but the most extreme as well as legitimising any retailatory actions from the relevant govts. You only have to look at 911 to see the ultimate futility of 'big' terror attacks.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,316
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
If Russia/China were found to be involved it would be an act of war and as a member of NATO would lead to the outbreak of WW3.
If it were a “rogue” state and it was possible to target those responsible then I'm sure the UK would retaliate with every weapon at its disposal.
Whatever happened, it would be extremely messy and lots of people would die one way or another. It certainly wouldn't achieve any of the objectives set out by the people responsible.
Last edited:
Assassinate the leaders of the "rogue nation" instead and anyone else involved. Nukes would be excessive and indiscriminate. Kill the people responsible, try to avoid killing anyone else. Publicise the killings and say that (a) you ordered them and (b) you would do it again. Don't euphemise or prevaricate - state clearly that you gave an explicit order for these people to be killed.
That would be iffy on the international politics scene, who frowns on assassination, but not like dropping nukes would. It would probably not arouse widespread public condemnation abroad, other than from those who are our enemies and hate us anyway regardless of what we do.
It would be a clear retaliation to avoid the problem Strife212 pointed out.
Least bad course of action, in my opinion.
That would be iffy on the international politics scene, who frowns on assassination, but not like dropping nukes would. It would probably not arouse widespread public condemnation abroad, other than from those who are our enemies and hate us anyway regardless of what we do.
It would be a clear retaliation to avoid the problem Strife212 pointed out.
Least bad course of action, in my opinion.
Do nuclear weapons with an equivalent force of 50 kilotons that can be detonated at ground level actually exist? Unless we're talking tactical nukes then the possiblity of a small group obtaining a weapon and detonating it, to me at least, seems so remote that it's not even worth considering.