The Nuclear question

[Strike For The South]

Hypothetical sutiation alert

..... If Iran was to luanch a nuke agianst the USA or an ally in the middle east would US nuclear retailation be accetpble?

[Watchman]

Can we drop the first part ? That's not even hypothetical, it's bad science fiction. While I'm no expert on Irani carrier rockets, it is my strong impression they're still waaaaaaay far off from the intercontinental range club.

[Incongruous]

Uuuuhh It will be a cold day in hell when Iran lauches a Nuke.
If they do then its obviously going to get alot worse for Iran.

[Louis VI the Fat]

No, why nuke a million Iranians? The US has enough conventional firepower available to utterly detroy everybody involved. There is no need to kill innocent civilians.

[BHCWarman88]

No, why nuke a million Iranians? The US has enough conventional firepower available to utterly detroy everybody involved. There is no need to kill innocent civilians.

Why? Hmmmm, Three Letter Word. War. another 4 Letter Word, Nukes. Nukes+War = Millions of Deaths

in Every War to date,there been Innocent Civilians Killed. that how War is played, no matter how "careful" you are, Civilians will die,rather you like it or not

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Even a reactionary neanderthal like myself realizes there should be some thought put into a nuclear strike to reduce civilian losses.

Why? Hmmmm, Three Letter Word. War. another 4 Letter Word, Nukes. Nukes+War = Millions of Deaths

in Every War to date,there been Innocent Civilians Killed. that how War is played, no matter how "careful" you are, Civilians will die,rather you like it or not

You, sir, worry me.

[lancelot]

Hypothetical sutiation alert

..... If Iran was to luanch a nuke agianst the USA or an ally in the middle east would US nuclear retailation be accetpble?

Well, Id say the only real ally the US has in the middle east is Israel anyway... and they are more than capable of retaliating on their own.

And as already stated, the US could flatten Iran without resorting to nukes.

As to justification/acceptability of armed response with nuclear weapons in a theoretical sense...if Iran declared war on USA and launched a nuclear strike (yea right...but I digress) then of course the USA would have legitimacy to respond under the conventional 'jus ad bellum' laws of war.

[Rodion Romanovich]

oops i voted wrong, i didn't read the question and assumed it was something else... Gah! I meant option 1 of course. Justified, but maybe not necessary. What would be best for the situation should be chosen. But justified if necessary, assuming they were nuked first, that's the very important key of the question that I didn't see at first, when I voted as I did. However not justified in any other case.

[Watchman]

I've serious doubts about European willingness to try to invade a country infamous for its defensive terrain advantage in a politically extremely unstable region. Not that they had the means, anyway.

The chief candidates to be able to do something (besides the US natch) would probably be Turkey (a NATO member, I seem to recall) and Pakistan. The willingness and ability of either to do much, given the geography and geopolitics involved plus in the hypothesis a demonstrated Irani willingness to deploy nukes, seems somewhat suspect though ('course, Pakistan has its own nuke...). Just as a little reminder, the Ottomans and Persia warred for centuries and the former was ever stumped largely by the absolutely horrible geography they had to campaign through... I don't think the frontiers between the two have actually changed too much since then, either.

Israel can presumably send airstrikes plus some nukes if it comes down to it, but other than that they're kind of... far off.

[BigTex]

Hypothetical sutiation alert

..... If Iran was to luanch a nuke agianst the USA or an ally in the middle east would US nuclear retailation be accetpble?

It depends, if the nuke actually hit the USA shores then possibly. I would prefer we immediatly scrambled B-2's fully stocked with nukes and have them prepare to drop on Iran. But I think we should royally bitch slap them back to the dark ages first. If they were to hit us a second time, or if they started using chemical weapons also. Then we should steralize Iran, let no inch go uncovered by nukes.

[rory_20_uk]

So... one commander with a grudge causes the death of 100,000 Americans (after all the Iranian bombs would start off small).

You think America should then "bitch slap them". Killing what? 1 million, possibly more. America hasn't got the troops for another major war right at the moment without massive alterations to world priorities. So, dislocate everything to destroy an entire country, mostly innocent people?

How and who does that help?

And haeven forbid there are two scared jingoistic people in Iran. You'd then kill millions more, with who knows how many dying due to fall out, and destroying the world as we know it to boot...

The diabolical evil genius can't compete with the average person.

[solypsist]

sorry. if the u.s. gets nuked then everybody cries. i would expect massive retaliation on all involved parties, guilty or otherwise, lest any other "rogue" countries get any funny ideas.

that said, if if the u.s. does any "nuclear first strike" monkey business then this works both ways and i wouldn't cry over getting dogpiled by every capable nation who could take us out. that's real politik and it sometimes sucks to be on the losing team.

[yesdachi]

Hypothetically, if they were to attack the US with a nuke I would consider the civilians just as guilty as the decision makers of their country.

If the US were to want to make a nuclear strike against another country our leaders would have to get the people to agree (or at least the people who represent the people). Therefore we (the citizens of the US) would be as guilty as our decision makers. If we did not want the decision makers to make a nuclear strike against another country but they said they were going to anyway or just did anyway I think the US citizens would freak and run those decision makers out on their rumps. If the citizens go along with it they are as guilty as those who push the button.

That said I would have no qualms about using a nuclear retaliation. Nukes like a dog are best used as a deterrent but if no one is deterred anymore by them perhaps it is time to let the dog bite those that would trespass to show that we still have teeth and are not just a bunch of hug offering burocrates.

[Watchman]

Okay, what is it with Americans and this "get tough" machobullshit mentality anyway ? It's starting to stick out like sore thumb now.

[rory_20_uk]

So: although a president can rule with 40% people voting for him, which can drop further in his term of office (what is Bush's? 34%) everyone is to blame. Sure, no one alive chose your method of proportional representation, but ALL are to blame if the President nuked someone?

In other countries there may be even less (difficult to imagine I know) correlation between the people and the leader. And there is likely to be less checks and sophistication in firing the weapon.

You appear to be tarring all with the brush to assauge guilt when they are all reduced to cinders. "You're dead - but it's your own fault..."

[yesdachi]

So: although a president can rule with 40% people voting for him, which can drop further in his term of office (what is Bush's? 34%) everyone is to blame. Sure, no one alive chose your method of proportional representation, but ALL are to blame if the President nuked someone?

In other countries there may be even less (difficult to imagine I know) correlation between the people and the leader. And there is likely to be less checks and sophistication in firing the weapon.

You appear to be tarring all with the brush to assauge guilt when they are all reduced to cinders. "You're dead - but it's your own fault..."

Well, the president doesn’t rule, approval ratings don’t really mean much except on Election Day and IMO if our president makes a decision to nuke anyone it is as much my fault as anyone else’s.

The “Your dead but it is your fault “ comment is reasonable to me. The US has clearly posted “beware of Dog” signs and if another country comes into our yard and gets his leg chewed off it is their own fault.

[Kommodus]

Most of us are probably thinking that a nuclear retaliation would consist of tactical nuclear strikes against military installations, particularly nuclear sites. I doubt anyone here would support massive nuclear attacks against civilian targets. Of course there would still be collateral damage, but when has that ever not been the case in war?

Let's just hope it doesn't come anywhere near that.

[Reenk Roink]

Hypothetically, if they were to attack the US with a nuke I would consider the civilians just as guilty as the decision makers of their country.

Ahh...

Draw parallels, my fellow Organians, to the rhetoric of Osama bin Laden and his justification against US citizens...

[Banquo's Ghost]

Draw parallels, my fellow Organians, to the rhetoric of Osama bin Laden and his justification against US citizens...

!!Crazy Tangent Alert!!

Weren't the Organians the energy beings (posing as peasant villagers) that stopped Kirk and the Federation, and the Klingons starting a massive intergalactic war over their 'backwater' planet? There's a lovely scene in the episode where Kirk and the Klingon commander both get furious with the mild Organian mayor for simply shutting off their weaponry - "How dare you interfere...We have a right to make war...Legitimate claims..."

Maybe not as off-topic as it seems...

[yesdachi]

Ahh...

Draw parallels, my fellow Organians, to the rhetoric of Osama bin Laden and his justification against US citizens...

Its all just a matter of perspective, and who’s is more widely accepted.

[Upxl]

Hypothetically, if they were to attack the US with a nuke I would consider the civilians just as guilty as the decision makers of their country.

If the US were to want to make a nuclear strike against another country our leaders would have to get the people to agree (or at least the people who represent the people). Therefore we (the citizens of the US) would be as guilty as our decision makers. If we did not want the decision makers to make a nuclear strike against another country but they said they were going to anyway or just did anyway I think the US citizens would freak and run those decision makers out on their rumps. If the citizens go along with it they are as guilty as those who push the button.

That said I would have no qualms about using a nuclear retaliation. Nukes like a dog are best used as a deterrent but if no one is deterred anymore by them perhaps it is time to let the dog bite those that would trespass to show that we still have teeth and are not just a bunch of hug offering burocrates.

Honestly, that is one of the dumbest things I ever heard.

[yesdachi]

Honestly, that is one of the dumbest things I ever heard.

What did I write that is the dumbest thing you have ever heard? Do you think that an elected official doing the biding of the people negates the people’s responsibility of the official doings? Or that nukes are not best used as a deterrent? Or maybe you think we are a bunch of hug offering burocrates?

Seriously, if you are going to call what I have written dumb at least try and point out why. Besides, if you are convincing enough I may just change my mind.