Nuclear War: Go Ahead Justify It

[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...

[MH]

Hearing 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]

[McCarthy] Nuclear war is the only justifiable option in dealing with the threat of international communism! [/McCarthy]

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.

[Armistead]

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

[ReFaN]

pretty explosions!

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Oberon

[McCarthy] Nuclear war is the only justifiable option in dealing with the threat of international communism! [/McCarthy]

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.

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