Chinese carrier weapon

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

One understands the value of deterrence, but one must wonder how do people justify retaliation in these scenarios when deterrence fails and they've just eaten a limited strike.

You can't justify it in deontological ethics.

You can't justify it by saving your own people, since if the other guy thinks like you, he's just going to shoot off what didn't go the first time upon seeing your counterstrike.

Even if he doesn't, or he has no more nukes, it isn't like you are going to be bringing much back - you are just kicking the table over and cheaply killing some of his guys. Does it even make you feel better? The guy who shot first arguably had better motives than you!

Once deterrence fails and you've taken a major hit, arguably the right move in the ethical and self-preservation front is to say "Ah, that was a gutsy move. I thought I put on a fierce enough face. OK, I don't like this at all but you win."

You're right in terms of what's ethical and logical.

However, I think irrational factors such as ego and revenge would come into it as well. That was what happened in the wargame I was talking about. Once a certain number of nukes were in the air, the side that was about to be on the receiving end basically said "screw you guys" and launched everything they had. It wasn't going to save them, but they weren't going to let the other guys get away with nuking them.