Nuclear War: Go Ahead Justify It

[Anthony W.]

A while back, I got the chance to write a justification for nuclear war. Now, since I am horrible at getting to the point, I horribly failed in an effort not to write a book.

Now, I'm not looking for people who say there is no justification.

So - what would make YOU push the button?

I'm curious.

[Stealhead]

The only thing that would warrant such a reaction would be another nation launching a nuclear attack on my own nation as it was during the Cold War.That is the only way and it would have be a confirmed attack coming in on Radar waring.

Perhaps if a war was in effect and my nation was losing and facing annihilation(Israel comes to mind here) of course every nation that has a viable nuclear arsenal is countering a possible foe that also has nuclear capabilities of course the whole issue with two or more nations at war and both having nuclear arsenals is the likely hood that a conflict would go nuclear of hours if not minutes.

That was the job of SAC and the the US Navy boomers they where there to let the Soviets and Chinese know that if they launched a nuclear attack SAC and the boomers would destroy that nation and no one had any doubt that Curtis LeMay would carry out his orders and his mind set stayed with SAC until it was disbanded.

[Molon Labe]

We're kind of spoiled here in the US, being the world's only superpower (for now) and having been involved in several wars after WWII, none of which threatened our survival and most of which could be called "optional." That isn't normal.

For most states throughout history, survival is at stake, and when you go to war, you do so with every capability you have. Anything less and you are taking an irresponsible risk. As such, I think the more interesting question is how do you NOT justify nuclear war, or, how do you keep a conflict from going nuclear?

Going back to the original question, it's actually pretty simple. For tactical use, the justification need not be any more complex than that it's a bigger boom--more efficient and effective use of ordnance. For strategic use, where civilian casualties are a concern, just remember that in our last total war effort, WWII, cities were legitimate targets.... the factories because they produced war material... and the residences because hitting them would create "absenteeism in the workforce." It's ugly, but it's true, and even if you don't want to intentionally kill the workers it's not likely a government in total war will avoid nuking an industrial center to avoid collateral casualties. This is the reality of strategic bombing as a strategy, with or without nukes; nukes just make it happen faster.

[Lord_magerius]

There's no such thing as nuclear war, now nuclear holocaust on the other hand... :O:

[MH]

:DHearing Allah voices.

[Skybird]

Define "nuclear war" please: scale and dimension of the exchange, nuclear-versus-nuclear or nuclear-versus-non-nuclear faction, was Nagasaki and Hirioshima a nuclear war in your meaning?

From a certain scaling on, the question of whether or not to retaliate against a nuclear full strike by full own strike, becomes pointless. That is when the longterm consequences of a nuclear war - that effect all the globe due to their range and dimension - will cast doom on everybody, no matter where, no matter whgom, no matter whether neutral or having taken sides. The question then turns from justification for nuclear war to justification for ruining the rest so far as well.

[Oberon]

Nuclear war is the only justifiable option in dealing with the threat of international communism!

In all seriousness though, tactical nuclear warfare is perhaps an option in a extreme environment, for example during a Soviet overrun of West Germany and France. I believe there was a particular line past which if overrun would prompt the use of tactical nukes, and I think that the West German government would be clamouring for something to stop the Soviet advance if they crossed the Rhine.
Also, the warplan 'Seven days to the River Rhine' called for widespread first use of tactical nuclear weapons to destroy airbases after a NATO nuclear first strike.
The beautiful (and scary) part of the Cold War is that both sides spent most of it under the impression that the other side would launch a first strike, which meant that neither side actually did, although they came close on several occasions.

Of course, the problem with tactical nuclear warfare is that eventually one warhead is going to land near a city, since a lot of airfields and bases are near populated areas, which means that a city on the other side would receive a nuke in retaliation...and then it's the bombing campaign of the Luftwaffe and RAF all over again but with nuclear weapons.

There can be no moral justification for the use of nuclear weapons, just as there can be no real moral justification for the use of violence. There are plenty of strategic and tactical justifications for the use of nuclear weapons, chief among which is retaliation. Once upon a time the fear of MAD stopped the need for retaliation. However in the age of fanatics and radicalism...I'm not so sure that fear of MAD is still around in some nations. :hmmm:

[Armistead]

It would put an end to marriage, where th bomb hit anyway...

[ReFaN]

pretty explosions!

[Growler]

Aliens. In case the seven canisters of CN20 had no effect. Just take off, and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

[Bakkels]

pretty explosions!

:rotfl2:

But come to think of it; I think the best thing to do when a nuclear missile is fired at your country is not to retaliate by shooting one yourself. This way, you probably get almost the entire world on your side. They'll come down hard on the aggressor.
Having said that; when my country would be attacked I'd probably call out for retaliation too (If I'm still alive then). It's hard not to think emotional in a situation like that.

Aliens. In case the seven canisters of CN20 had no effect. Just take off, and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Haven't you seen War of the Worlds? They'll die from the flu anyway! And if that doesn't work, than let's hope Jeff Goldblum is still alive. He'll put a computer virus in their mothership :rotfl2:

[Rockstar]

To push the button it would have to be serious. I mean if someone cut in front of me while I was waiting in line for my popcorn, I'd nuke'em. Then I'd nuke their relatives just in case they were all natural born arsewipes in order to rid the world of a genetic defect.

[Growler]

Haven't you seen War of the Worlds? They'll die from the flu anyway! And if that doesn't work, than let's hope Jeff Goldblum is still alive. He'll put a computer virus in their mothership :rotfl2:

Well, yeah, I've seen those, but I'm thinking specifically of the ones that "gestate inside a living human host... and have concentrated acid for blood."

[Jimbuna]

I believe and I hope my countries government does that nuclear weapons should only be used in retalliation to a nuclear attack from an aggressor.

[Growler]

More on topic: Interesting discussion, but I have to fall back on another movie quote:

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"

[Gerald]

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/8034/iranpreparingnuclearwar.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/822/iranpreparingnuclearwar.jpg/)

[Jimbuna]

More on topic: Interesting discussion, but I have to fall back on another movie quote:

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"

War Games.

[Raptor1]

Justifying nuclear war is easier than you think. It only takes comparatively little provocation for the use of tactical nuclear weapons in total war, one side only needs to believe it gives it enough of an operational advantage. During the Cold War, both NATO and the Warsaw Pact had plans that would've practically guaranteed use of tactical nuclear weapons if war broke out in West Germany (Some sources I heard hold that a Warsaw Pact offensive would've used them right from the start. If this didn't happen, Warsaw Pact use of chemical weapons would've prompted NATO to immediately counter with nukes). From there, it will likely quickly degenerate into either a limited or total strategic nuclear exchange as both sides try to crush the enemy's ability to hurt them as early as possible.

If you're looking for a moral justification for launching a strategic nuclear exchange, there isn't one. If it happens, it will not be because somebody thought it was justified, or, for that matter, because somebody "pushed the button" at all.

[Stealhead]

Nuclear war is the only justifiable option in dealing with the threat of international communism!

In all seriousness though, tactical nuclear warfare is perhaps an option in a extreme environment, for example during a Soviet overrun of West Germany and France. I believe there was a particular line past which if overrun would prompt the use of tactical nukes, and I think that the West German government would be clamouring for something to stop the Soviet advance if they crossed the Rhine.
Also, the warplan 'Seven days to the River Rhine' called for widespread first use of tactical nuclear weapons to destroy airbases after a NATO nuclear first strike.
The beautiful (and scary) part of the Cold War is that both sides spent most of it under the impression that the other side would launch a first strike, which meant that neither side actually did, although they came close on several occasions.

Of course, the problem with tactical nuclear warfare is that eventually one warhead is going to land near a city, since a lot of airfields and bases are near populated areas, which means that a city on the other side would receive a nuke in retaliation...and then it's the bombing campaign of the Luftwaffe and RAF all over again but with nuclear weapons.

There can be no moral justification for the use of nuclear weapons, just as there can be no real moral justification for the use of violence. There are plenty of strategic and tactical justifications for the use of nuclear weapons, chief among which is retaliation. Once upon a time the fear of MAD stopped the need for retaliation. However in the age of fanatics and radicalism...I'm not so sure that fear of MAD is still around in some nations. :hmmm:


You(and Raptor1) have the same idea as me pretty much they are really only good as a counter to another who has weapons and in that case you cant use them in a non-strategic manner because the other guy will likely go ahead and go full scale the moment you do.And you cant really use a nuclear bomb to kill a terror cell(or similar target) because you'd kill lots of innocent people and then you just gave the terror cell what they desired more people on their side.

[CaptainMattJ.]

shall we play a game? Let's play Global Thermonuclear war :yeah:

[Gerald]

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/584/wargames05.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/819/wargames05.jpg/)

[the_tyrant]

you know, wouldn't theaterwide tactical warfare be more entertaining the global thermal nuclear war?

[Gerald]

you know, wouldn't theaterwide tactical warfare be more entertaining the global thermal nuclear war? Yes, this was the image from the film..

[Growler]

DEFCON (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEFCON_(video_game))

Too much fun, for Armageddon.

[Randomizer]

I find it endlessly fascinating that since Nagasaki the think tanks and talking heads have worked overtime trying to develop scenarios where the use of nuclear weapons might result in a military victory. This would be followed by the generals and admirals converting these theories into deliverable weapons that would be deployed, become obsolete due to technology advances or rendered useless because of political changes and attitudes. And then the cycle begins again...

The USSR's rationale on nukes was always far more pragmatic than that of NATO. There was no place in the Soviet nuclear lexicon for "tactical" nuclear war, we didn't believe that was the case during the Cold War of course but there's plenty of evidence that limited first use by Nato would either of provoked no retaliation or massive strategic retaliation and the the "escalating threshold" held dear by NATO pundits was an illusion.

But see:

http://www.armageddononline.org/doomsday_device.php

and

http://www.slate.com/id/2173108/

Fortunately we never got to test that theory.

After completing courses in nuclear targetting and fireplanning with tactical nuclear weapons one tended to become very cynical and measure the distances between West German villages in kilotons rather than kilometres. It's amazing that we thought so glibly that nuclear release could be not only justified but necessary.

Cooler heads prevailed though.

It is said (possibly apocryphally) that when President Kennedy used the phrase "full retalitory response" in his 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis speech, (see below at about 2:00 minutes) brother Bobby asked him later if he was really willing to kill many times more people than Hitler and Stalin together ever did. If true, it would seem Kennedy wanted the threat of nuclear war so very real and unambiguous that Krushchev would know it would be carried out. This threat coupled with the secret promise to remove the obsolete Thor IRBM batteries from Turkey gave the Soviets an out although it arguably cost Krushchev his job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLxgeINIBEM

Later, once the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction took over it became anathema to NATO nuclear strategists who turned to weapons like "tactical" cruise missiles, enhanced radiation weapons (anybody else around here remember the uproar over the so-called Neutron Bomb, that killed people but saved property, at least in the popular imagination). Such weapons allowed them to create situations where nukes could be successfully employed without the end of civilization as we knew it. We should be able to see now that it was all a pipe dream.

The biggest ironey regarding nuclear weapons is that they make lousy weapons if war is a political act taken to a controlled level of violence. They were created at a time when the wholesale destruction of cities and cultures were considered acceptable and were designed solely to make that destruction easier, cheaper and with greater shock value than a thousand B-29's or Lancasters dropping incendiaries and high capacity HE. Only if the mindset where killing millions in their beds is the political price one is willing to pay will nuclear weapons first use be justified. As for retaliation, it works as a deterrent only so long as those who wish to deter believe that you will actually follow through with the threat. During the MAD years, there was never any doubt that all those well trained young men who held the keys would turn them if ordered, Hollywood's Wargames notwithstanding.

For some excellent books on the subject see Richard Rhodes Dark Sun, on early nuclear strategies and Arsenals of Folly on the latter stages of the Cold War, the nuclear arms race and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Apologies for the $0.02 wall of text.

[Torplexed]

Apologies for the $0.02 wall of text.

No apology needed. Post more often. :up:

[Bakkels]

No apology needed. Post more often. :up:

I second that! Interesting read Randomizer.

The thing that keeps fascinating me about nuclear bombs is that they're the only weapons that arguably saved more lives than they took.
I often wonder how many more wars there would have been if the a-bomb (and the immense threat that comes with it) hadn't been invented.