mshah2k

THis was posted on www.livejournal.com/community/debate. I would like to get your opinions:

"You are the president of the US. You are told that another nation has just launched a full nuclear strike against the US of the type the USSR was capable of at the height of the cold war. You know for a fact that it is has really been launched (no computer glitches or anything else like that). You also know for a fact what country launched it and that they did so on purpose. The US is going to cease to exist in 30 minutes and there is nothing you can do about it. Do you launch a retaliatory strike?
"

Here is what I would do:

1) Get my ass on Air Force One and be safe over the Atlantic
2) I would launch every single nuclear weapon that we have available on the enemy homeland that launched the attack upon us. I would also take this opportunity to luanch an attack on any other enemies we might have, even if they werent involved in this attack. Reason is that after the US is gone, we want to put our allies or any US population left in a favorable situation politically. After this, I would nuke their allies and their allies's allies. Then I would nuke everyoen that symphathizes with the enemy, sympathizes with the enemies allies or sympathizes with the enemie's allies' allies.

Most of the US population would be dead, but some that MAY survive should not have to worry about an invasion from another country, even if that country did not launch nukes on us, it would probably sieze the opportunity.


Also assuming that our allies are not dead with us, it would give them a superior position in the world.


I would position the nukes to generate maximum body count (both innocent and military) while at the same time destroying their retaliatory capability. An ideal situation would be to cover every inch of the enemy homeland using our nukes (even the sparly inhavitaded ones)...and using the most powerful nukes on military/industrial/government/civilian centers.

I would also give orders to all submarines/ships/bases not on US soil to launch nuclear attacks on the enemy if after our initial strikes, the enemy still exists in any way, shape or form.


If our allies go down with us, and assuming only neutral countries or no countries are left...then the orders would be to all military personell (especially those semi-immune like submarine forces) to start building a stable government again based on the current US laws. Although such a government would be unlikely to be able to exist, as most liekly it would be dacades before any semblance of order is restored...but at least they can try.

Zar

Nice "plan", General Turgidson.

yaktldg

You're nuts.

elwoodblues

Semi-random death-throes leave us in a 'favorable situation politically'? How does that magic work?

As for the question, the only way to 'win' a situation like that is to prevent it from happening, either through diplomacy or technology. But if it did happen, on my watch, I'd obliterate the military of the enemy. Entirely. And that's all. Eliminate their war-waging capability. Not the countries that we've had trouble with before, not entirely unrelated countries that didn't launch on us, just the military of the enemy that did.

Even if the enemy launched on population centers with decidedly questionable military value like New York and LA, I would not order likewise retaliation against enemy population centers.

Optional

Um...

If there was a full scale USSR size nuke strike on the US, everybody on this side of the world dies. Period. It's remotely possible that people on the opposite side of the world might be able to keep a civilization together long enough to get through the worst years.

If the US retaliated with a full scale strike of its own...

I believe that is known in some circles as an extinction level event.

That scenario isn't even interesting to me, as the moral answer is so obvious.

A more interesting question might be: say some random country like, oh, say, to pick a random name out of the hat, North Korea for example, were to lob one single nuke at us and manage to hit one of our major cities... What would be the appropriate response?

-me

elwoodblues

Oh, the reasoning behind my response. Loyalty to race (human) trumps my loyalty to nationality (American) every damned time. If the US is going to not exist tomorrow, I think mankind will be better off if the nation that did that at least does not have the capablitiy to wage further war.

But lashing out at anyone and everyone we don't like doesn't make any sense. It conveys the idea "If Americans and our allies can't have this world, no one can!", which is rather stomach-turning.

Optional

elwood,

Really? I assume by this you mean an extremely limited nuke strike on military targets only, but ... if your country is about to cease to exist ... what would be the point? That many nukes is going to make things SERIOUSLY challenging for the human race, why add to the challenges?

-me

Zar

You know, you think sometimes that people in places of power are dangerous. But maybe that's not the whole story. Sure, they may be diabolical, but what is really striking is there are plenty of "men on the street" who would gladly take destruction orders of magnitude further than their leaders do without a second thought.

Maybe the lack of moral and mental discipline on matters so grave is because they know no one will really take them seriously. They know they're not presenting a plan to the Joint Chiefs of Staff or to the President. So, let apocalyptic imaginations fly, I guess. They know that if their real thoughts get out, it won't amount to a hill of beans, whereas such thoughts from on high could cause a real crisis. Maybe if I look at it this way, it won't seem so sinister.

elwoodblues

A few more radiated areas and a neutered military power will be easier to deal with than a country with a fully equiped military that has already shown willingness to use it in frightening extremes on the drop of a hat.

Marduk

I wouldn't do anything, 1/2 the world is going to be uninhabitable, why make the other half?