So Boerd said
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.

The calculation you're talking about here is, 'Should I kill a few hundred million people to prevent a different flag from gaining territory.' Unless that nation is literally hitler, and even in most cases when it is -- that's not a good enough reason to nuke a goddamn country. But the flipside is, these are not 'totalitarian nations.' We characterize them that way because it is politically expedient to do so. Imagine a world where people who thought the USA was imperialist were therefore justified in nuking us. That is a dreadful fucking place.

In short I am an avid believer in furious, aggressive, precise and targeted intervention. Nukes do not fit the bill, in any but the most ludicrously outlandish scenarios. 'What if Russia invades ______?' Then we failed a thousand times to stop them from invading _____, and our failure does not justify the murder of millions of Russians.

For one who carries himself as a military expert and a redblooded American, I'm surprised.

You assumed I meant a massive countervalue strike. That is precisely what I am trying to avoid. US preemption in the scenario I described would be a limited, counterforce strike aimed at Russian subs, mobile launchers, silos, etc the moment the Russians put these forces to a higher alert level, focusing on eliminating these assets far from population centers and using conventional counterforce assets where possible. This dissuades them from using the nuclear threat so casually in the future, and forces them to a minimum deterrence posture. More likely however, our having this capability to shift the balance of strategic forces enormously in our own favor irrevocably would prevent both the invasion of Estonia and the liberal use of the nuclear threat, preventing us from ever having to use that capability. But we must be WILLING to.

Assuming no country was being dicks like Russia, everyone was playing nice and sharing like good little boys and girls:

If I was the one solely in charge of the Nuclear Football, I would launch every missile at my disposal. Let the world burn.

I don't know how to discuss such a thing no matter how important it is.

But, I say if we do nuke them, we use the U.S.S Enterprise.

So Boerd said
For one who carries himself as a military expert and a redblooded American, I'm surprised.

Glad to disappoint. War is an extension of politics (that's Clauswitz, for you military experts out there). Nuclear war can therefore only arise from cataclysmic politics. The scenarios you have described consistently do not make sense -- whether that's exchanging capital cities, or nuking armies to 'dissuade them from using the nuclear threat so casually in the future.' That is the definition of using the nuclear threat casually. Weapons of annihilation are useful for only one purpose (hint: it's not construction).

Besides which, they're relics of the past, no more relevant to modern combat than a battleship. We have cooler, better, and much more terrifying weapon systems now. Even if you assume that total domination and conquest is the goal, why would you nuke anything? Totally ruins the lawn. You can drop a bomb into a champagne glass from the other side of the world, without even breaking the windows on the first floor. Anyway I've outlined the situations in which I consider a nuclear strike viable (you sorta shifted towards them, in the latest post, but don't think the purpose of the limitations really sank in). Hopefully it's been helpful.

1. That is to the almost-sole purview of the Commander-in-chief, or anyone smart enough to hardwire their way through a PALS and arm one (in which case shit has to be bad enough that such a breech in security would go unpunished).

2. America signed a 'no-first-strike' policy. Meaning we'd need to have probable cause to believe that someone is fielding non-conventional weapons. Whether these weapons are directed against other Americans or anyone in general is up for open interpretation (but in short, simply using them is usually grounds for invasion).

3. Even so, we utilize a counter-force concept of Nuclear Utilization Targeting Strategy. So quite likely a limited response in-kind. An example is developing/deploying MOAB shortly after the WTC collapse.

So Boerd said
Russia nukes London. No counterstrike?

Why would they nuke London? Relations have been chilly since the Second World War and not once have they bombed Britain. Just because we're having our generational spat with Moscow doesn't mean we're going to get turned into a Fallout gaem.

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.

Too many nukes = World turns into the Fallout series.

Anyone want to take a stroll through the Mojave Wastelands with me? I'll be waiting in the Vault.

Admittedly, the scenarios I have outlined are implausible, but they serve to illustrate a point. If we are absolutely terrified to use our nuclear weapons, we make the probability of nuclear war higher, not lower.

Chapatrap said
Why would they nuke London? Relations have been chilly since the Second World War and not once have they bombed Britain. Just because we're having our generational spat with Moscow doesn't mean we're going to get turned into a Fallout gaem.

You're right, they wouldn't.

whether that's exchanging capital cities, or nuking armies to 'dissuade them from using the nuclear threat so casually in the future.'

Did I say armies? Because I thought I said silos. Feel free to correct me

Having outlined the unrealistic scenarios, time for a realistic one.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/09/04/putins_nuclear_option_russia_weapons

Nuclear war will never happen to be honest, and even if it does it's far from the end of the world.
The fact is that Nukes are simply a deterrent, if a countries got nukes then they're aren't going to be invaded, and even if they are invaded I still doubt the use of a nuke occurring, because the invaders don't want to ruin their prize and the people getting invaded would only massacre their own people.
In terms of terrorists using a nuke, or say for instance Islamic state, they won't use a nuke if they had one simply because if they used it they might get a few thousand people, but that opens excuses for everyone else to obliterate the Middle East, and permanent bury the threat for the rest of time.
So in short, nukes are there to make people feel safe, not to be used.

Revans Exile said
Assuming no country was being dicks like Russia, everyone was playing nice and sharing like good little boys and girls:If I was the one solely in charge of the Nuclear Football, I would launch every missile at my disposal. Let the world burn.

Well aren't you just a little ray of sunshine~!

Revans Exile said
Assuming no country was being dicks like Russia, everyone was playing nice and sharing like good little boys and girls:If I was the one solely in charge of the Nuclear Football, I would launch every missile at my disposal. Let the world burn.

._.

Well, I hope that you aren't in control of any missile launch sites.

This is gonna sound mean, but you're getting bad information from some dick at FP, and it's not your fault. This response is mostly aimed at him.

So Boerd said Having outlined the unrealistic scenarios, time for a realistic one.http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/09/04/putins_nuclear_option_russia_weapons

Piontkovsky is a moron. When your calculation is 'We couldn't win a conventional war,' you don't go to war. This author is treating him like a prophet. But hell. Let's pretend there is a 'War Party' in Russia, and they manage to 'romance' the Kremlin into 'World War IV' 'for the glory of matha rasshaaaa' (that last one is lightly paraphrased -- the others literally aren't). Let's pretend that despite acknowledging an inadequate conventional military, they decide to attack anyway.

Jeffrey Taylor said Piontkovsky surmises that, in such a conflict, the nuclear-armed country with the "superior political will" to alter the geopolitical "status quo" and -- most importantly -- with the "greater indifference to values concerning human lives" would prevail.

Have you seen what even the greenest hippy liberal says, if an oil company hurts, like, a dolphin? Hilarry Goddamn Clinton voted in favor of OIF in response to 9/11. We do not lack the ability, as a nation, to fight a war. We lack the impetus. That's a really, really great thing to lack, because it means the world is pretty peachy on the whole. Russia nuking a NATO ally? That's an impetus. Everybody, even the imaginary 'War Party' in Russia, knows this.

But in principle. Let's pretend that it happens *anyway*. Antichristovsky takes over and nukes Estonia. Should we nuke them back? I would argue no, we should not. Not as a first option at least. The nuclear exchange is a russian-roulette match -- there are not winners, only survivors. No good reason to roll the dice on that, especially if we enjoy such a conventional advantage that they'd turn to nukes in the first place. De-escalate the ICBM game, and grind them into powder with our trump-card conventional military. If all else fails, we can always nuke Moscow later -- but you can't un-nuke Moscow.

Simplified: Putin, in this (still imaginary and impossible) scenario, has made the assumption that we will not trigger a nuclear apocalypse over some asshole city in Former Bloc Europe. There is no incentive to prove him wrong on that account. As long as we can make them pay for it without ending the world (which, with the US army, is all the time), that is always the better answer. Response? Of course. Nuclear response? Absolutely not.

:( Seriously, MDK?

"some asshole city in Former Bloc Europe"? You mean, those millions of real fucking people who would be the victims in this scenario? That's pretty cold.

I mean, what the hell have Estonians ever done to you? Do you really think of them that way?

Rare said
._.Well, I hope that you aren't in control of any missile launch sites.

If there was a psychological evaluation I wouldn't pass.

Imperfectionist said
:( Seriously, MDK? "some asshole city in Former Bloc Europe"? You mean, those millions of who would be the victims in this scenario? That's pretty cold.I mean, what the hell have Estonians ever done to you? Do you really think of them that way?

That's the article's presumption of the American/NATO reaction. Not mine. Piontkovsky argues that Americans are too compassionate to win a fight against Russia. Taylor (the author of the linked critique) also argues that American leaders would be unable to build consent for a prolonged engagement because we don't care enough about the former Bloc. The two don't really gel, but that doesn't stop Taylor from taking both sides.

But to answer your question, an Estonian chess champion took me down once over a stupid blunder in the endgame. Last game I ever lost. No wait, Latvian. I mean same thing. But Latvian.

A nuclear attack is always out of the question. If you're going to nuke me, go for it. End of story.

Nuclear war... like mdk said, it's like Russian Roulette. No winners, just survivors. I doubt that even a full-fledged nuclear war would be enough to wipe out the human race entirely. Probably be something like Toba at the very worst, I think.

That said, if... or if I'm to believe my pessimistic tendencies, when the nukes start flying... it's not gonna be all Let's Go Sunning on your little Pip-Boy radio while you're blowing up raiders and smashing a super mutant's skull in. It's gonna be hell on earth. Maybe not literally, if there's gonna be a nuclear winter. But if I survive, I'm gonna suffer. If you survive, you're gonna suffer. A combination of smarts, strength, and stamina might make things a bit easier, but it's still gonna be anything but easy. I'd consider myself lucky if I got vaporized in a nuclear blast. I'd probably still be lucky if I died not too long after the bombs have fallen. But to think about how drastically my life would change... think about it. No internet. No video games. No showers. No electricity. No groceries. All the shit we take for granted will be gone. Maybe not right away, but it'll be gone quicker than you'd think. And things aren't going to be as easy as breaking into your neighbour's home or a nearby gun store to take their guns. Guns and ammo are going to be as precious as anything else. More than likely, if you want a gun... you're gonna have to kill someone for that. Someone that could very well have been someone you knew and were friends with before the bombs dropped.

Fuck... if there's anything scarier than wondering what would happen to me in this sort of shit scenario, it's even scarier thinking about how sick and depraved I could probably end up becoming myself if I did survive. I already have enough issues that make it hard for me to get along with people. Even my own friends and family. The apocalypse would probably be the one thing that would make me cross the moral event horizon into some really horrifying shit that already bothers me enough right now as intrusive thoughts. It'd be a dog eat dog world, and if I survive... and become stronger as a result... I'd probably end up becoming the worst out of the worst. It's anything but pleasant to think about.

mdk said
That's the article's presumption of the American/NATO reaction. Not mine. Piontkovsky argues that Americans are too compassionate to win a fight against Russia. Taylor (the author of the linked critique) also argues that American leaders would be unable to build consent for a prolonged engagement because we don't care enough about the former Bloc. The two don't really gel, but that doesn't stop Taylor from taking both sides. No wait, Latvian. I mean same thing. But Latvian.

I see your point. What about if/when China gets conventional superiority?

So Boerd said
I see your point. What about if/when China gets conventional superiority?

Definitely changes the picture. That said, Great Britain has managed not to nuke the USA ever since we became the world's hyperpower, so I'd like to think we can manage a similar record against China. If you get deep enough into speculation-politics, there's actually a really good chance that China never takes over -- the geopolitics are not remotely in their favor (China essentially is a large body of Tibets, and you know how well that's been working out lately). By 2050 there may not be a PRC -- okay, you can say that about anyone; point is, don't lose sleep over the thought of nuclear war with a hostile China. I know that a war-scenario with them makes for great TV, but it's much more realistic to expect that we will *never* have an armed conflict against China -- if they stick around as a power, it's either going to be because their capital investments in Africa paid off big (which we don't really care about, we have little involvement), or because we're directly supporting them as a government.

Still. Hypotheticals are fun. Let's say China gets parity with the US, and they're beating us in a hot conventional war. How close do they have to get before we can nuke them?

It's a pretty easy answer for me -- I would *certainly* nuke a Chinese warfleet that crossed Midway. No risk of civilian casualties, minimal damage from fallout (we'll kill some dolphins, I guess), and strategic significance make that the most palatable nuclear scenario ever conceived. If we can't nuke that, we can't nuke anything. Of course they'd presumably take the same attitude towards *our* warfleets, which would render most conventional wars pretty futile.

Alright. Let's make it more interesting. Suppose China is going to war with Japan, and assume that we must intervene. How much would China have to do to Japan, before we're allowed to nuke the PRC on Japan's behalf?

A fucking lot. I have no qualms with fighting wars to protect America's interests abroad -- but fighting a *nuclear* war to protect our 'interests' is preeeeeeettty sketchy. It comes down to basically a Hiroshima scenario -- can you drop a Nuke in order to end a war? I'm not sure that works more than once. Shit, I'm amazed that it worked the first time. If China has committed to a total-war scenario and conventional arms have been exhausted, I guess I'm okay with nukes for emphasis. Not lightly. It's a big fucking decision to make, and obviously I want nothing to do with making it. But I'd stand behind it, if I had to, if the nuclear strike was successful in forcing a surrender.