Nuclear Hypothetical

Something I wondered while I was out.

If China (or Russia, or pick any other country you could imagine) would launch a first strike on the US, and you were in charge, would you launch a retaliatory strike to assure mutual destruction?

Would you follow the M.A.D. doctrine?

My first thought is, no, I would not care a rat's ass about if the US got nuked, esp not if it was Japan, that would be friggin hillarious, after all they owe two to you.

But then I realized that it would have other consequences than just a lot of so called Americans dying. Other countries going to war and whatnot, fucking up the peace. But then again...that would mean a lot of technological advancements, so maybe it would be worth it.

Thirdly, if China/Russa actually decided to nuke my country and I was indeed in charge, I'd probably whine, then sigh over the fact that the former government cancelled our nuclear program back in 68'

I don't know.

Declaring that I wouldn't retaliate would make such an attack more likely.

On the other hand, I see no reason to bring the human race to extinction because they hit us first. That smacks of three-year-old logic.

The whole idea that the president of any country could just push a button and launch all the missiles is erroneous. Very likely if they even tried to do so their own guards would kill them. The US alone has something like 8 times as many nuclear weapons as it would take to destroy the entire world and only a small fraction would be enough to start a nuclear winter. Because of that there's a whole system in place for countries to slowly engage each other so they'll have time to work out a solution before it ever gets that far. For a better idea of what it would be like I recommend the movie, "By Dawn's Early Light".

Depends on how many they launched and where they hit. War would definitely be declared, possibly with conventional weapons.

Not because "they hit us, let's hit them back!" but because if they are allowed to launch with impunity, who knows who will be shot at next. They can't go around blowing up everyone they take a disliking to.

So for me it would be a retaliation to protect other countries from having it done to them. Nobody should want to use a nuke.

I would. You mess with my country, and I mess with you! Muahahahahahahahah!
But seriously, yes. (P.S. I really don't have a good reason, I just want to shoot a big wad of dumb into this conversation! :P)

Nuclear won't happen. It's too much fireworks too little gain. @wuliheron is right.

Originally Posted by Sheppard

If China (or Russia, or pick any other country you could imagine) would launch a first strike on the US, and you were in charge, would you launch a retaliatory strike to assure mutual destruction?

Would you follow the M.A.D. doctrine?

I wouldn't put myself into such a situation, because either choice is wrong.

I think the lesser of the two evils is to not launch back. You sacrifice your military strength, population, and whatever else for the sake of an ethereal greater good that doesn't necessarily save the lives of your countrymen.

I would rely on the good karma created from that to defeat the opposition.

There's something I'm beginning to understand after witnessing the Arab Spring. Peaceful opposition wins wars faster than armed opposition. If you send your military against another military you're at war, which is a perfectly respectable thing. If you send your military to massacre civilians, you're a butcher. Whatever has awakened in the souls of modern man doesn't accept massacres as noble or justifiable. Will your military continue to support you, will your local population feel good that they're winning, when internet media streams to them the women lying bloody on the streets and defenseless people dying?

Imagine this... we say to China, no we won't fight you. Pull back our militaries and if they decide to invade, let them. The US government surrenders, let's say. Will they then occupy us? Can you imagine how well that would go? It would tie up their military and they'd be forced to leave due to civil unrest, guerrilla movements, and protests that opposed them.

I'm not saying that it's the decision I would choose, but it's just something to realize. Rather than having every city decimated and millions die, not fighting back could win the war in the long run.

As a general rule, evilness implodes upon itself because it's unsustainable.

Now down to all seriousness, I believe there is a divine element which decides the outcomes of wars. The most virtuous side wins, and lessons are learned from the carnage. Take the civil war. We had one of the greatest generals ever, Lee, who on the day he lost became one of the worst generals ever. Why? History isn't sure, but some speculate he was under the weather. Yet his mental state on that one day finalized the outcome when on several occasions the South was very close to forcing a surrender.

In war there's always an element of luck at play, and in all major wars the United States has fought, luck generally seemed to be on our side. Washington's escape from Long Island. The D-Day attack on Normandy just happened to occur when key decision makers were on leave. And well, there's countless others. Highly critical moments that were influenced by "luck". From everything I've witnessed in life, when God manifests his influence, it is perceived by man to be luck or coincidence.

God sides with those who have a higher moral cause, deplore violence, and seek to resolve things peacefully.

That all said, I believe we'll be at war with China if we have the economic collapse as discussed in the other post. It will probably be many years from now because economic conditions need to change from where they're at, but they're swiftly moving in that direction. I imagine such a war will be nuclear, but who knows... maybe both sides will be too scared to launch the first nuke? A traditional war might then ensue, with sort of an unspoken gentleman's agreement not to use them. But then obviously, when China begins to lose, I would suspect they would use it.

But then also, it might be as everyone expects and the cities are all destroyed in both countries.

Originally Posted by Sheppard

Something I wondered while I was out.

If China (or Russia, or pick any other country you could imagine) would launch a first strike on the US, and you were in charge, would you launch a retaliatory strike to assure mutual destruction?

Would you follow the M.A.D. doctrine?

The Mutually Assured Destruction rule will come into effect the second they hit the fire button, once those missiles are in the air it's all over, red rover.

All you can do is cause them pain in return, so yes i'd fire missiles at thier largest population centres and largest air bases and military facilities

@Razare

The real point of a war is not occupation. That almost always turns out to be crap. The real point is the terms of the 'peace' after it.

Like in the American Civil War. The south wanted to be its own nation. The north wasn't having it. The south said "If you don't recognize us as an independent nation, we will force you to do so." and they tried. They started the war. The surrender of the south didn't just mean that the war was over, it also meant that the south wasn't going to get its way and had to accept that.