Because the adversary is important to the question.

Americans, what level of Chinese provocation would warrant a US nuclear strike? How about Russian?

Anglo-French, at what level of Russian provocation would you support your country independently using its nuclear capabilities?

Russians, American/Chinese provocation

Chinese, Russian/American provocation

Indians/Pakistanis, each other and for Indians, China.

Israelis, Arab world.

I have deliberately not provided casualty estimates, as A. I just had this idea for a topic, B. That's a lot of research, C. I want to see how your opinions change once I give cold hard numbers. But, I suspect you will all look it up anyway to avoid looking disproportionately hawkish/dovish. D. Because there are different attack options.

Nuclear war is stupid.

Mostly because if it's initiated by any major nuclear power on the planet, everyone pretty much loses.

ASTA said
Nuclear war is stupid. Mostly because if it's initiated by any major nuclear power on the planet, everyone pretty much loses.

This exactly.

Nobody wins the fallout war.

So Boerd said Americans, what level of Chinese provocation would warrant a US nuclear strike? How about Russian?

A nuclear strike does not end the world. Nuclear retaliation ends the world. So the only situation in which a nuclear strike is advantageous is one in which there are guarantees that there will be no retaliation. The example I use is, if North Korea were to amass an army and launch a bombardment of Seoul. As long as China gave the okay, we would almost certainly be wise to nuke their army formation, rather than trying to tackle them with conventional forces.

By the same logic, there aren't a lot of scenarios involving nuclear nations (China, Russia, Pakistan, et al) which would make nuclear weapons a smart option, because the only way to ensure zero-retaliation is to ensure that every nuclear option of the enemy is destroyed. That's not something you want to bet the world on. That's why rogue states want nuclear programs in the first place -- it's only MAD if you've got something to shoot back with.

Edit: The other justification would be, obviously, a nuclear or existential provocation. When the circumstances are such that only a nuclear strike can protect your nation and/or countrymen, the military has an obligation to nuke the living shit out of the threat. Fortunately, there's virtually no danger of such a scenario for the foreseeable future.

Brit in exile here. I wouldn't support a nuclear strike against Russia. I wouldn't support a strike against anyone.

I suppose I should add for most people here: a few nukes aren't a big deal so long as they don't hit high population density area. (Ex: American East Coast.) We've dropped over 2,000 nuclear weapons so far. The biosphere could survive a few more. The main issue is if we are talking about nations like China, Russia, or the United States: Nuclear superpowers wherein disabling their ability to retaliate with extreme force is so miniscule that no sane person would gamble their entire empire on it.

So Russia nukes Berlin, Rome, London, Paris and Madrid, but makes no preparations for a strike on the US. US strike or no?

Chapatrap said
Brit in exile here. I wouldn't support a nuclear strike against Russia. I wouldn't support a strike against anyone.

Russia nukes London. No counterstrike?

The general presumption on Nuclear Deterrence is that if one party uses their nukes then the other - presumably defending - party will be forced to do the same. Even if you're not going for a MAD scenario. So even if we don't want a strike against Russia, we probably will.

That is of course unless the nation is ran by The Boss. Then we'd probably get glassed with no retaliation so that there can be at least some power left standing to keep stability over the planet.

So Boerd said
So Russia nukes Berlin, Rome, London, Paris and Madrid, but makes no preparations for a strike on the US. US strike or no?

Understand that the scenario is virtually impossible -- Yes. Because a nuclear deterrent that doesn't react, isn't a deterrent. In this situation Russia has made the calculation that they can fire nuclear weapons with impunity, a calculation which we must prove catastrophically wrong, for the sake of every human being on the planet. In this situation, we have to destroy not only the Russian government and military, we have to destroy the concept itself that a nation can conduct such a nuclear strike and get away with it.

Brit here, I do not support the use of our nuclear weapons unless a nation launches theirs at us first.

So Boerd said
So Russia nukes Berlin, Rome, London, Paris and Madrid, but makes no preparations for a strike on the US. US strike or no?

The UK and France detect incoming nuclear missiles and return fire with their own. M.A.Dness ensues. Also why would anyone nuke Spain lol Unless somehow Russia is capable of disabling all retaliatory strike capabilities in both France and the UK--part of the beating heart of the European Union--and manages to slip nuclear devices that require no travel time to hit all important targets in both countries simultaneously without anyone at any point detecting and foiling this plan.

Also, considering at this point Russia will have gone completely insane and declared war on the world, the US would most likely strike back. Then again, this is crazy cucooland where Putin for some reason thinks he can take over all of Europe and not lose, and where the US would not step in to stop a super Soviet Union from forming.

This is why MAD works. Russia has no reason to think it could ever get away with using nukes anywhere important and win, even once, leave alone hitting every capital of every major European country and wiping out every single one of their governments with impunity. Which would imply a far stronger Russia than what presently exists.

France and UK have no incentive to nuke every Russian city. Doing so means Russia nukes every one of their cities. They have every reason to just nuke an equivalent number of Russians and hope Russia calls it quits there.

So Boerd said
France and UK have no incentive to nuke every Russian city. Doing so means Russia nukes every one of their cities. They have every reason to just nuke an equivalent number of Russians and hope Russia calls it quits there.

Russia nukes the UK and France. France and the UK nuke Russia back. Even if they don't unleash their entire arsenal, one can assume that France and UK would bitterly target the capital of Russia and one of its major industrial centres.

Regardless of whether they unleash their entire arsenal: Russia, the UK, and France are all massively weakened via the losses of their capitals and the ludicrous infrastructure damage the nukes caused, not counting the fallout that will follow in the local area. All this does is make other rivals (friendly or hostile, such as the USA and China) stronger. Even if Russia Succeeds, they still end up getting hit with retaliatory strikes, they still lose on the world stage.

That's really how it works.

So if Russia does not nuke London and Paris, but nukes the others, the Anglo-French response should be...

My purpose is that people should stop thinking every nuclear war will be a life-extinguishing global extinction event. Such that if Russia or China use tactical nuclear weapons, we should not fear a response in kind. If they and other nuclear states ever get that there is almost nothing save an impending attack on our countries to warrant a nuclear response, they are more likely to step out of line.

Someone's forgetting Article V of NATO.

"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

So Boerd said
So if Russia does not nuke London and Paris, but nukes the others, the Anglo-French response should be...My purpose is that people should stop thinking every nuclear war will be a life-extinguishing global extinction event. Such that if Russia or China use tactical nuclear weapons, we should not fear a response in kind. If they and other nuclear states ever get that there is almost nothing save an impending attack on our countries to warrant a nuclear response, they are more likely to step out of line.

We are all safer if we believe the lie that a nuclear weapon's use results in the end of the world. We don't need nuclear bombs to dismantle most rogue-state armies. Nukes don't help against ISIS. All we need are JDAMs, hellfires, and maybe a MOAB or two, just to make a point. There is no reason to pave the road for easier nuking. Nobody wins. Especially when you start talking about China or Russia -- there is *no such thing* as a good reason to nuke China, Russia, or the USA. None.

The idea that we're supposed to employ nukes to keep other nations from 'stepping out of line' is pretty Bond-villain-y. That doesn't make it wrong, per se, but I'm not crazy about it.

there is *no such thing* as a good reason to nuke China, Russia

You can't seriously believe that. Admittedly, it was a bigger concern back when the Soviets had overwhelming conventional force which we could not match. If those were the circumstances today, I would be willing to risk a Soviet retaliatory strike to prevent all Portugal to Helsinki falling under totalitarism.

This is also why we must not only maintain nuclear superiority, but conventional superiority. I want the decision to begin the cataclysmic event or face an enormous military defeat to be Putin's, not Obama's. It takes very little relative resolve to stand up to China conventionally if they invaded Japan, but much more to risk nuclear. Also, this is why I support a Japanese nuclear arsenal.

For example, Russia invades Estonia and threatens nuclear war if we resist. We should indubitably resist, and not paralytically fear the bomb. That step becomes much easier if Russia believes we are willing to pre-empt it if it starts to behave like it will go through with the threat.

If we unilaterally went to a minimum deterrence posture, like naive idiots in the vein of Carl Sagan would suggest, we risk Putin calculating (likely correctly) that we won't risk resisting him because it means the death of nearly one of us.

Dub post.