Thought Experiment (on Nuclear Retaliation)

[Javert]

Based upon MAD Doctrine, the response to this would be yes I would launch the missiles in both cases.



However if you are the country leader, you should keep it to yourself whether you would really give that order in the real situation - the requirement is that the enemy believes you will do it, not that you actually will.

[Nalaar]

Well yes, good point. So doesn't that refute your argument against it?

It's certainly an argument I acknowledge, and consider the strongest of the 'we should strike back' arguments, but I do not think it is stronger than the argument not to strike.

[Borg Refinery]

I think in both cases non-response is the correct response.



The only argument I could see for response would be by way of protecting other nations from having the same nation strike at them.

Well yes, good point. So doesn't that refute your argument against it?

[Nalaar]

I think in both cases non-response is the correct response.



The only argument I could see for response would be by way of protecting other nations from having the same nation strike at them.

[Borg Refinery]

A principle of mine is always try to take at least one with you. No second thoughts. (It reality it has meant deck the biggest one of the attackers first.)

Very good point actually.



.. but surely such things can't be extrapolated to this situation?



If you launch everything back then we are all dead, there is NO WAY the THAAD, and whatever star wars reagan holdover rubbish the Trump admin is cooking up, is going to shoot their missiles down in time.



Just saying.

[papasmurf]

So even if it's a launch of 10-20 missiles and they apologize and allow limited retaliation you'd 'kill em all' without a second thought?

A principle of mine is always try to take at least one with you. No second thoughts. (It reality it has meant deck the biggest one of the attackers first.)

[Borg Refinery]

I already have answered it.

So even if it's a launch of 10-20 missiles and they apologize and allow limited retaliation you'd 'kill em all' without a second thought?

[papasmurf]

And what is your answer to the OP questions?

I already have answered it.

[Borg Refinery]

You need a link for that alleged quote?



 Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" Arnaud Amaury (Latin: Arnoldus Amalricus; died 1225) was a Roman Catholic Cistercian abbot who played a prominent role in the Albigensian Crusade. Prior to the massacre of Béziers, it was reported that Amalric, when asked how to distinguish Cathars from Catholics, responded, "Kill them all! God will know his own.

And what is your answer to the OP questions?

[papasmurf]

Link please.

You need a link for that alleged quote?



 Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" Arnaud Amaury (Latin: Arnoldus Amalricus; died 1225) was a Roman Catholic Cistercian abbot who played a prominent role in the Albigensian Crusade. Prior to the massacre of Béziers, it was reported that Amalric, when asked how to distinguish Cathars from Catholics, responded, "Kill them all! God will know his own.

[Borg Refinery]

"Kill them all, God will know his own."

Link please.

[papasmurf]

"Kill them all, God will know his own."

[Borg Refinery]

My answer, edited to fit the censor;



Re question 2:



That delicate conundrum is rough. I have no idea...



Um. I guess it really depends on whether I've eaten my snickers, how reckless I'm feeling and how the enemy is talking to me.



Are they scared for their lives and genuinely sorry? Do I sense it's a dark deception?



Because let me tell you one thing- IF I thought those f***ers were lying to me, and going to kill millions of innocent people AND FORCE US - -NOT to retaliate - THAT would be total annihilation for them.



It's actually more likely I'd completely destroy them given part B) of my answer to your second question, as crazy as that is.



So, 2 A) It depends. B) Definitely - a big crater the shape of China or Russia.

----

I think re the 1st question, I'd try to abuse whatever executive power I had and try to force top brass to only hit government and military sites with relatively low yield nukes, but plenty of em'.



So yes to my own question in OP - but with that caveat. I realize there wouldn't be any time but I'd try my best.

[Borg Refinery]

Not sure where to put this? It is a philosophical AND geopolitical one;



I posted this on a yank forum originally and I'm reposting some of the responses too..



(Largely it was "NUKE THOSE GAHDANGED COMMIES NOW!!")

---------



Question 1:



Raw honesty filter on please.



ICBMs headed for America Britain; no idea whether the defensive rockets will destroy them.



Do you kill tens of millions of innocent women, children, possibly more, in Russia alone, or do you not put that on your conscience and hope the missiles get shot down?



Explain why also.



Question 2 (by someone else):



I have a more delicate conundrum.



What if it's a limited launch of 10-20 missiles. Enough to really ruin our day, but, not quite armageddon. The Russians or Chinese (whoever's responsible) gets on the hotline and tells us the launch is accidental or the result of rogue elements within the missile regiments. Chance of interception, maybe half the missiles.



Do we respond in kind? Impact for impact, population center for population center?



As to the question asked first: Launch. God help us, but I'd go with a launch. Why? If the American race is to end, so shall the people responsible for bringing it about.