When would it warrant the US using a Nuclear Weapon?

Question

We've spent billions on nuclear programs, weapons, tanks, submarines, arsenals, missiles, etc. What would a country have to do to the US to get us to actually use (ala Hiroshima) a nuclear weapon?

Answer 1

The idea used to be - when the Soviet Union was still intact - that we would use a nuclear weapon if and only if the Soviet Union FIRST was launching a nuclear weapon at us, and if we knew that to be a fact-! Today - hopefully there should be no reason to ever use one. The Middle East-? Forget it-!! The only possibility would be - in my stretched-out opinion here - would be if North Korea does something very bad. They already admit to their having nuclear weapons. They admit to test-firing of missiles which could carry these weapons. If - God Forbid - they ever DID launch a missile in our direction, which were capable of actually reaching us, and if it truly did have a nuclear weapon, then and only then do I believe that we would ever have a real reason to launch one of our own against another country. God help us all if that were to really happen-!! We came not that far from this actually happening with Cuba back in October, 1962 - until Khrushchev of Russia pulled away his nuclear missiles which were being sent over to Cuba-! It was a very scary time-!!!

Answer 2

There are four plausible times when the US would actually envoke the use of its nuclear arsenal.

1) In the event that a celestrial object would impact the earth, it is very likely the nation, in cooperation with the world, would use some type of nuclear response in space to destroy or divert the object's trajectory from impacting the Earth.

2) We are the subject of an intended or actual nuclear attack, at which time "first strike" would be warranted if conventional measures were deemed unlikely to succeed.

3) A nuclear response to a nuclear assault on our forces or country. This would be necessary, as a proportionate response would be required - if not demanded!

4) Use of tactical nuclear weapons (small yield, between 1 to 5 kilotons) in order to prevent our front lines (in a conventional war) from being overrun and the attack could not be repulsed. This was actual doctrine in the European Cold War scenario.

Answer 3

One crude nuclear blast anywhere in US held territory and proof of the source, would be grounds for use by the US to retaliate with like force. If strong suspicions lead back to a country the US would retaliate with stategic missle strikes and not necessarily nuclear weapons.

Answer 4

Quite honestly, everything in the middle east needs a dose of our fury. Bomb the bastards back to the stone age, or to a point where they have to import gourds to drink and eat from. Let it be a lesson to the rest of the world, you kick the bully in the nuts and run, eventually he gets off the ground and comes after your ***.

Answer 5

The middle east needs to be nuked soon but first we need to develop biofuels, as soon as that is done we should pull our troops out and nuke them, you can not rebuild their schools and roads and expect peace, it will come back to haunts us. All of the islamics who say oh no we aren't terrorist are bs'ing us. they finance them, nuke the bastards and save some tax money.

Answer 6

arab incorrect information the USA of a has in no way sent atomic weapons to israel...arabs lies therefor of direction they desire to maintain the worldwide secure , from muslims what muslim united states is honest to its human beings of has a genuine democracy? none

Answer 7

God, I hope and pray never. But......

If a nuke was ever used on America and or her allies, I feel the use of nukes would be justified.

Answer 8

Well you better pray Neo Conservatives don't stay in power long or we may find out.

And we may not find their reason so easy to agree with

Answer 9

If that were to happen, kiss the world goodbye.

Answer 10

Only the "Commander-n-Chief knows.