Nuclear retaliation

[Grrrrr]

Firstly to set the scene. Suppose a rogue nation managed to obtain a nuclear weapon, lets say; stolen from a poorly protected stock pile in another country. They only have this single nuclear weapon and have no nuclear program of their own.

They detonate this acquired nuclear weapon in a major UK city.

Would you want our country to retaliate in kind and detonate a nuclear weapon killing ten of thousands of innocent people?

 

[GingerNinja1989]

Well, they didn't see any problems in doing it, so why not?

 

[.Sean]

No.

 

[wozencl]

They would need the technology to mount and fire the weapon as well as a missile capable of reaching the UK.

It seems highly improbable that a nation without a weapons programme would possess such technology or the expertise required to utilise it.

 

[Strife212]

In kind? No way!

We would need to flatten them with loads of nukes.

 

[meghatronic]

I do worry about people on here. Even as a hypothetical question it's innately flawed.

Britains nuclear deterrant is not to protect against rogue states. It's to protect against MAD, and a bargaining piece (Falklands).

 

[Beerbaron]

If its detonated up north some where im sure they will thank them

 

[Settleddown]

We have defences to shoot down a nuclear missile so how would it go off? Jemal transporting it half way round the world in a car?

 

[SB118]

They would need the technology to mount and fire the weapon as well as a missile capable of reaching the UK.

Like a container ship, you mean?

 

[JBuk]

No, why punish thousands of innocents for the actions of a few?

 

[petriodet]

If its detonated up north some where im sure they will thank them

***gets coat and shotgun***

 

[Strife212]

We have defences to shoot down a nuclear missile so how would it go off? Jemal transporting it half way round the world in a car?

We don't to be honest

 

[Grrrrr]

I feel i should state my view...

No we absolutely should not. A targeted conventional attack at those responsible would be a more appropriate course of action.

 

[RDM]

It seems a highly improbable scenario.

However if it was a state that did it and ordered it and there was proof of such then I don't think we would have all that much choice but to launch a retaliatory strike. For it to act as a future deterent you would have to pretty much make an example out of the state that did it. Otherwise what you are basically saying to the world is "We have these nuclear weapons but are not going to actually use them."

 

[Strife212]

Not retaliating would open the door for constant attacks on the UK. "They won't do anything back."

 

[Grrrrr]

We have defences to shoot down a nuclear missile so how would it go off? Jemal transporting it half way round the world in a car?

I knew this would happen when i posted, but why exactly do people feel the need to pick out details like this? The hypothetical question i am asking is very clear...

 

[Cosimo]

Britains nuclear deterrant is not to protect against rogue states. It's to protect against MAD, and a bargaining piece (Falklands).

That doesn’t say that it wouldn’t be used against a rouge state as in this “scenario”. 

 

[Tefal]

tbh the only way they'd get one is being given it by a state no one has "poorly protected stock piles".


If by some miracle they stole one no.

If they were given one by a state that is like iran/nk with poor missile technology yes.

If it was Russia that gave it them **** it we'll be all dead either way as once that gets out it's ww3.

 

[D1ngd0ng]

Not retaliating would open the door for constant attacks on the UK. "They won't do anything back."

A real dammned either way scenario. If we did retaliate with nuclear weapons then no doubt we would end up social pariahs on the International scene and yes if we didn't then would be labeled soft.

MAD relies on the world pretty much ending, the point is nuclear war should not be 'winnable'

 

[godinman]

Not retaliating would open the door for constant attacks on the UK. "They won't do anything back."

Wouldn't want to use nukes tho, that's a fairly bad precedent to set. Just a good nasty conventional attack to completely wipe out those responsible methinks.