"If Nuclear Deterrence Fails, What's The Plan?" Topic

"Military history is full of instances where leaders failed to grasp information vital to their survival. U.S. nuclear strategy may be this generation's most glaring example of failing to see the obvious.

The obvious problem is that some of the ways in which nuclear war might begin can't be deterred. An irrational adversary. An accident. A breakdown in the nuclear chain of command. A miscalculation in the midst of some regional crisis that leads to uncontrolled escalation.

You'd think that after 70 years of dealing with nuclear weapons, the U.S. government would have come up with some way of coping with such scenarios. It hasn't. U.S. strategy is focused mainly on discouraging rational actors in full control of their arsenals from contemplating nuclear use. Because the other eventualities that might lead to a nuclear exchange have not yet materialized, policymakers and the public are lulled into believing the problem is covered…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Then, millions of people will die. The planet will be covered in radioactive fallout. Millions will die later from nuclear fallout related cancers, if it isn't a full nuclear exchange. If enough nuclear weapons are used, the planet will have a radically different climate which may include nuclear winter. That is what will happen.

Well, missile bases have a force recovery team whose job was (is still?) to rearm and launch again. Every time I went to one of the meetings, my brain scampered away--very surreal. So, from the Air Force's point of view, keep shooting. That nuclear winter might just ease into nuclear ice age.

"Winning" in the Charlie Sheen definition of the world.

Mankind is not always logical.

"First Strike!", of course.

Bend over, kiss butt 'good bye'. If the glowing mushrroms are out, you can also bet on all the 'B' and 'C' will be flying about. I suspect that will be one disaster that humanity will not recover from.

Is it a moral or rational decision to destroy human civilization for probably a long time or forever, not to mention many other species, for the sake of a kamikaze defense of ANY ideology, religion, economic model, or political institution?

That's a bigger question. Does any present generation have the right to deny life to those unborn? And in what name? As a reaction against what greater evil?

Nations come and go, empires rise and fall, human constructs fade and are replaced -- but without life, there is no hope for the future.

Yeah … everybody dies one way or another …

Careful, Piper – you're making sense. Not acceptable in the context of nuclear weapons.
Better have your precious bodily fluids checked, while we're on the subject….

The "future" will go on, with or without the presence of mankind.

When it comes down to it. The 1st World Nuclear Powers understand the "reality" and seriousness of "deploying" those WMDs. So I have faith, etc., those nations won't use them anytime soon[again] or if ever.

Now some other "players" in the world, like fanatical "religious" inspired/dominated, etc., nations or "groups". Or one of the top "rogue" state on the planet – North Korea … All these types, if it came down to it. Have nothing to lose. If their religious/ideological dogmas are to be taken seriously. And they should be. As to a rational person … these types are just "mad", etc.

On one hand, if they kill those who don't believe in their god. It is justifiable to eliminate them. Or if the nation is run by a mad man like Un. There IMO, if a much higher probability of those types using nucs. Not the modern civilized world.

"So, from the Air Force's point of view, keep shooting. "

So awesome.

That makes sense to me !

I'd rather go down shootin too. "Nuclear combat, toe to toe with the Rooskies." So damn cool.

LOL !!!!