Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes, definitely.

84 (53.8%)

Probably.

32 (20.5%)

Maybe, maybe not.

15 (9.6%)

Probably not.

14 (9%)

No, definitely not.

6 (3.8%)

Don't know.

5 (3.2%)

Total Members Voted: 155

[RedKing]

If I was looking at a bunch of soviet (or Chinese) missiles coming my country's way, I'd damn well retaliate.

Then I present to you the question: Why? Why would you ensure the destruction of others because your destruction is ensured? You might manage to kill the people in China who ordered the strike (although that's acutally less likely, given that they would have a bunker), but you'd certainly kill more people innocent of ordering any nuclear strikes against the USA.

War is all about killing lots of people who don't really have any responsibility for whatever triggered the war in the first place. If wars only killed the guilty, most would have a death toll in the double digits, tops.

[Lagslayer]

Most people would not, even fewer if it means it would end in MAD. However, there a few people that are willing to do it, and will in a heartbeat if they ever get the chance.

[redacted123]

I voted "yes, definitely" purely on the semantics of the question. Are we capable? Very much so, the warheads and missiles are all ready to go. Will we? You know I think in these days of terrorism and rogue agents there won't be much use for nuclear war anyway. You can't target Al Qaeda with a nuke and Russia and China aren't stupid or ideologically fanatical, they aren't looking to start anything. Smaller nuclear wars between, say, India and Pakistan are somewhat more possible but likely won't escalate into Global nuclear war. The tension would build up for weeks if not months and so the rest of the nuclear powers would have a pretty clear idea as to what was really going on if a warhead was actually launched. They wouldn't just assume it was a pre-emptive strike against themselves and that WWIII had begun.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I voted "yes, definitely" purely on the semantics of the question. Are we capable? Very much so, the warheads and missiles are all ready to go. Will we?

The second one was the question. Obviously we can, the question is intended to be viewed in a "Do we have it in us to kill humanity?" manner. Sort of like "Are you a killer?"*7,000,000,000.

[Zangi]

Most people would not, even fewer if it means it would end in MAD. However, there a few people that are willing to do it, and will in a heartbeat if they ever get the chance.

I am MAD.  I for a fact, will 'push the button' in retaliation.  For the very reason listed below.

If you don't bomb back after you have been bombed, then what can stop them from bombing you again?

Knowing that you and others capable, won't 'push the button' in retaliation... means that the aggressors preemptively pushing the button have taken over the world by murdering billions of people and cowing them into not fighting back...

[redacted123]

The irony is that if a pre-emptive strike actually occurred then MAD as a concept would already have been proven to be flawed. Whether or not the other side decides to fire back would be somewhat irrelevant. However, there is so much protocol surrounding the situation that a response would likely occur without much conscious decision at all. The OP mentioned no one wanting to be "that guy". Well who want to be "that guy" who breaks protocol and potentially risks the success of his entire nation's nuclear response? In the case of Petrov there were clearly questions as to the accuracy of the early warning system (why would a pre-emptive strike only involve five missiles?) Besides, I genuinely think that during the Cold War if an attack begun, very few people would consider the idea that better the other side survive than humanity wiped out, such was the propaganda and hatred that had built up. Not to mention all the in built fail safes to ensure a response, the nuclear submarines that were commanded to launch if they stopped receiving a signal from Washington for example.

[Strife26]

If you don't bomb back after you have been bombed, then what can stop them from bombing you again?

The better question is
If you don't bomb back after your have been bombed, then what's to stop them from bombing you in the first place?

For MAD to function properly, there must be the "assured" portion.

Can I see GTW starting, damn straight, but I'd think that an escalative process would be much more likely. Little nuclear war (Iran-Israel, and India-Pakistan all have or are close to nukes and hate each others guts), messy intervention, intervention type forces nuked, they nuke back. Nuclear Winter. Thanks for playing humanity! Right now, I don't think that anyone except the US really has the C&C to do the "wipe out everyone" game.

[Zrk2]

@ OP: Obviously, since humans are bastards.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

@ OP: Obviously, since humans are bastards.

Tropes are not Political Arguments.

[Nikov]

Most countries have a "no first use" policy, particularly those secure in their conventional means to defend their country. Ultimately, a nuclear armed state can never be annexed or forced from the outside into a question of national survival. I recognized a few years back that even with a conventional war invading the US or China or Russia or any other state, the ultimate bargaining power at the peace negotiations was an otherwise defeated state's remaining nuclear arsenal. And of course, any attempt to endanger this arsenal by conventional attack or capture throws the state into crisis.

Ultimately, we will never see a nuclear armed state sign another Versailles treaty unless it is disarmed from within, yet at the same time we will never see total warfare on the scale of the second world war between nuclear armed states again. Nuclear-armed states can be pushed but they cannot be shoved, and the king can only be tipped, never captured.

I, for one, look forward to a century of limited war.

[Montague]

Probably, but maybe not on purpose. One idea goes, that say the USA uses a tactical low-yield nuke against, say, a Russian tank formation, Russia would pop a small nuke against a US military base in turn. Until progressively, larger and larger weapons are used with more frequency and casualness. It would just be nuclear Armageddon taking place over a longer timespan, so it's said.

Another idea would be if a nuclear power adopted a MAD approach to a terrorist organization. So if a terrorist nuke went off in Paris, the French doctrine might be an immediate strike against say, Mecca. That might only provoke more nuclear attacks, which causes more retaliations.

After the cold war, the idea of a "limited nuclear war" seems more likely. Like an exchange between Pakistan and India, but a lot of theorists think that limited wars would soon turn into full-scale wars in the future, as butt-hurt participates will try to exact revenge for previous uses of the nuclear bomb.

Anyways, yeah, I think people could do it, but they would'nt be brazen about it, they would set into motion events that lead up to Global Nuclear War only because of simple hubris and short-sightedness in the heat of the moment and not with the full understanding of the consequences.

Everyone knew well what would happen in the USSR and USA tried to annihilate one another, so they never did. Nobody would be sure of the later consequences of say, nuking Mecca would be after a terrorist nuclear bombing.

[Nikov]

I don't think blowing up Mecca serves any strategic goal whatsoever. I also understand the concern of escalation, but since the US has superiority over Russia in any conceivable scenario and China has a minimum deterrant arsenal, I don't particularly worry about tactical weapon escalation. US troops won't even use tear gas in conventional fighting for fear of generating reports of US chemical weapons and prompting retaliation in kind. Nuclear weapons to destroy tank formations, especially after we devastated whole battalions of T-72's in 1991, seems overkill. We're not in the 50's and 60's era European deployment with ground forces in Europe so thin and comparatively weak they amount to little more than a nuclear-armed trip wire (something obscene like 5000 meter fronts for 100 man companies, iirc). First use simply doesn't benefit us, and with our superior biological and particularly chemical survivability we don't even need to reply to nukes with nukes.

[Montague]

I don't think blowing up Mecca serves any strategic goal whatsoever. I also understand the concern of escalation, but since the US has superiority over Russia in any conceivable scenario and China has a minimum deterrant arsenal, I don't particularly worry about tactical weapon escalation. US troops won't even use tear gas in conventional fighting for fear of generating reports of US chemical weapons and prompting retaliation in kind. Nuclear weapons to destroy tank formations, especially after we devastated whole battalions of T-72's in 1991, seems overkill. We're not in the 50's and 60's era European deployment with ground forces in Europe so thin and comparatively weak they amount to little more than a nuclear-armed trip wire (something obscene like 5000 meter fronts for 100 man companies, iirc). First use simply doesn't benefit us, and with our superior biological and particularly chemical survivability we don't even need to reply to nukes with nukes.

Yep, well theories of things like escalation after tactical nuke use were made decades ago when it was relevant. Today, that old doctrine is still on the books.

Also, there actually is/was a lot of discussion about nuking Mecca as a potential response to a terrorist nuclear attack against the west. Israel has already stated such intentions if their country is on the verge of destruction. Thing is, terrorists can't be relied on to obey the rules of MAD. The utter destruction of Islamic holy sites would have any number of unforeseen consequences, since its not just the physical destruction of a city, but the destruction of the centerpiece of culture and religious importance for millions and millions of people. One thought is that the threat of destroying Mecca is the ONLY threat that would ever deter a nuclear attack on the west by non-state Islamic fundamentalists, since its the only thing they'd care about and its postulated that the destruction of Mecca would put serious doubts on the legitimacy of the religion, since they believe God will protect and preserve the city forever. The idea goes that if you vaporized Mecca the entire religion would be effectively debunked.

Anyways, yeah, weapons of mass destruction will probably not be used by any actor looking for its own survival, since they will be certain retaliation in kind. These days? Nuclear bombs are no longer solely possessed by logical governments looking out for their own. North Korea, Iran are afflicted with bat-shit insane apocalyptic-minded leaders that believe in fairy tales like the morality of communism and martyrdom. Considering how utterly dysfunctional Pakistan and Russia are, it is not outside the realm of possibility these countries might be the start of a nuclear war. An imploded Pakistan could allow terrorists to obtain nuclear weapons, or a faulty signal from Russia's aging early warning system could prompt them to launch against the USA or other countries. (the latter nearly happened)

Any number of events could spark a nuclear war, but not from any sane or legitimate government or person.

[thobal]

Russia is more into the Dead Hand these days. There is literally no way of mistaking a nuclear first strike for anything else. Early warning satellites are pretty good at spotting a single rocket taking off anywhere in the world, and you can bet that the Soviets Russians have a few floating around out there. Plus, a first strike isn't matter of launching five or twenty missiles at your enemy. Hundreds would be going in simultaneously. Plus, with the Dead Hand in place, even a quick decapitation strike on Moscow or a FOBS attack would do little or nothing to inhibit Red retaliation.

I've heard talk that the PRC doesn't even keep their ICBMs armed with nuclear weapons, much less on standby alert.

The real danger is, as other posters have pointed out, that a regional conflict could, and almost certainly would, widen to include a Big Five nation and force another into the fray as their opposite. Think: Britain and/or USA/India v China/Pakistan or USA/Israel v Russia/Iran.

Lets not forget the rumors that continue to swirl out of Bangladesh.

Worst of all is advances in ABM weapons that could lead to doubts about the credibility of national deterrents. Use It or Lose It, anyone?

Though I suppose past animosity resurfacing atomically between Britain and France would make for the best cable viewing. Actually, that is a heck of an idea for a TV show or novel.

Power mad King deposes Parliament to please disillusioned populace, pledges to reclaim Burgundy for the British Crown

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Or just anything re: nuclear war britain v france

in....


The Channel War
The Nuclear Channel
The Nuclear Chunnel
The Uranium Throne
The Plutonium Throne
The Hydrogen Throne
The Hydrogen King
Nuclear Knights
The Royal Submarine
Bombs over Brest
The Fusion of Europe
The Western Kings

Any suggestions re Title?

[RedKing]

The Hundred Minutes' War.