This is why I support a Japanese nuclear weapon, btw. Very easy choice for them, who are about to be subjugated. They can have lots in a few months' time anyway, so Hirohito pt 2 could build a few hundred before anyone could stop him.

So Boerd said
This is why I support a Japanese nuclear weapon, btw. Very easy choice for them, who are about to be subjugated.

Most of the leaders in the world are opposing any policy that makes it easier for anybody to nuke anybody, and I think that's valid.

mdk said
Most of the leaders in the world are opposing any policy that makes it easier for anybody to nuke anybody, and I think that's valid.

The US nuclear umbrella is illusory. I agree Japan actually having missiles would mark a drastic reversal of US policy towards the region, but getting them as close as possible such that they can get substantial numbers of weapons can only be good.

So Boerd said
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 provocationChinese, Russian/American provocationIndians/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.

For the US, it depends.

Hundreds of tactical nuclear warheads were to be used in the event of a third world war in Europe. Both sides had plans to use said weaponry to great effectiveness in order to eliminate entire regimental sized formations and great gaps and openings to conduct offenses into.

The combined overall nuclear warhead count of NATO was smaller than Russia's however NATO had more medium/long-range ballistic missiles with better guidance packages than the Russians had. What this brings into play is that the Russians would have been unable to utilize nuclear weaponry without some kind of major event that would seriously impact not the WP, but the SFSR itself. This could be anything from NATO troops (For some dumb reason) advancing into the SFSR, or maybe NATO troops on the verge of taking a major city (St. Petersberg, Moscow, etc).

Models created about a possible nuclear exchange during the later-Cold War end up with a NATO pyrrhic victory at best.

I'm pretty sure people have jobs for this. I'm 100% sure.

Joshua15555 said
For the US, it depends.Hundreds of tactical nuclear warheads were to be used in the event of a third world war in Europe. Both sides had plans to use said weaponry to great effectiveness in order to eliminate entire regimental sized formations and great gaps and openings to conduct offenses into.The combined overall nuclear warhead count of NATO was smaller than Russia's however NATO had more medium/long-range ballistic missiles with better guidance packages than the Russians had. What this brings into play is that the Russians would have been unable to utilize nuclear weaponry without some kind of major event that would seriously impact not the WP, but the SFSR itself. This could be anything from NATO troops (For some dumb reason) advancing into the SFSR, or maybe NATO troops on the verge of taking a major city (St. Petersberg, Moscow, etc).Models created about a possible nuclear exchange during the later-Cold War end up with a NATO pyrrhic victory at best.

You do realise the SFSR shut down in 1991 right?

Vortex said
You do realise the SFSR shut down in 1991 right?

That's just what they want you to think.

As a Brit, I would never support the deployment if Trident against a foreign country unless they were using theirs on us. Besides, we wouldn't need to nuke Russia if they were just being aggressive. If NATO would pull their socks up, Russia would back down. Russia is only being aggressive because it knows the west is scared, in reality it knows that the UK, France, and US would beat them and they'd back down if it looked like NATO would actually go to war, I think

The only reasonable reason to use nuclear weapons is if they are using them or that we're going to be overrun on the homeland here in America without any chance of victory. We wouldn't bomb them unless it would save thousands if not millions of more lifes, we can't fight back at all, or we want to assured mutually assured destruction. Still an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

Vortex said
You do realise the SFSR shut down in 1991 right?

You do realize that I was speaking not from a modern standpoint?

Instead speaking from a "Cold War gone hot then nukes get tossed around" standpoint?

Its pretty obvious if you just read it again.

Joshua15555 said
You do realize that I was speaking not from a modern standpoint?Instead speaking from a "Cold War gone hot then nukes get tossed around" standpoint?Its pretty obvious if you just read it again.

No. No its not.

As a Brit, I would say never. I'm not sure how I would feel if nukes were used on Britain, but I've always imagined nukes to be anti-progressive.

"Lets defeat the enemy and take all their stuff!"

Nukes.

"Yay we won! What did we win?...Nothing!"

The problem for Russia is that all it wants from Europe is threatened more by the use of nukes than conventional warfare.