At what point should we use Nukes or Atomic bombs to protect our nation or troops?

Question

Should we or shouldn't we. Think before you anwser please.

Answer 1

Of course, the easy answer is upon retaliation for a nuclear attack against us we would have to retaliate in-kind. The big question is whether or not we should pre-emptively strike someone, eg, NorKor or Iran.

Consider the consequences, a strategic nuke in the middle east to take out Iran would kill 200 million people with another 190 million killed from the radioactive fallout in nearby countries, their only guilt is living near the middle east.

The threshold for a nuclear winter is 100 kiloton detonation. In the case of NorKor, we've always held the tactical nukes in the bullpen to counter the overwhelming numbers of N.Koreans on the penninsula. Therefore, in response to a NorKor invasion, we'd have to resort to nukes in view of how spreadout our forces are.

Answer 2

If you are talking about using strategic nuclear weapons (the big ones which destroy cities) I would say practically never.

The only situation I could imagine which would justify using strategic nukes would be if our country had been invaded and was facing annihilation at the hands of a genocidal army. Something along the lines of what the Soviet Union faced in the winter of 1941.

Tactical nuclear weapons are a different matter, as they are less destructive and can be used against military targets. I believe they should only be used in dire circumstances, and only when a proportionally small number of civilians would be killed by the blast. A scenario like this would have been if the Warsaw Pact attacked NATO during the Cold War, and NATO had to use tactical nukes to prevent losing Europe. If they could use their tactical nuclear weapons to take out a Soviet division in a relatively unpopulated area, I think that would be acceptable.

Answer 3

We are land locked by Mexico and Canada. Two of the least likely nations that pose harm let alone defensive counteractive attack. Every other county in the world is at least 6000 miles away. With satellites and other technology we should be able to intercept any potential harm. Nukes or Atomic bombs are offensive weapons that have have nothing to do with defense.

Answer 4

We should'nt. In general at least. Both we and our foes have had nukes for decades. Knowing this, both sides had too much sanity and common sense to use them against the other. (the M.A.D. principle) Today, using a nuke would instantly condemn the user in the eyes of the world. Sadly, there are some groups, and countries who seem willing to do so. Having nuclear weapons makes it less likely they'll use them, but it's no guarantee. NOT having them, however, makes us automatic hostages to those who do.

Answer 5

I'm just going to provide a straight answer in relevance to your question.

The answer is it depends. [Before anyone says anything, please be patient for a while]

In a situation where, say, the CONUS (CONtinential United States) is under the grave and imminent threat of invasion or occupation (or any situation deemed as a national threat inflicted by a foreign or rogue power, e.g use of chemical or biological weapons), the NCA (National Command Authority, i.e. the President of the United States) has the authority to use nuclear weapons as a retaliatory means.

Now, this is a huge difference between using it as a first strike weapon. The United States has a policy of not using nuclear weapons as a first strike option (as do countries such as France, the UK, Russia etc).

However, the defence policy of the country is also such that [a chemical weapon is a biological weapon is a nuclear weapon] which in return a nuclear response will be guaranteed from the United States. Although the United States do have chemical and biological agents suitable for producing its relevant weapon type, the defence policy prohibits the use of such weapons, even in a defensive retaliatory strike, hence leaving only the nuclear option.

The chance of the United States resorting to such an option is very slim, because:

1) all armed attacks and strikes conducted by the US Armed Forces are directed at military targets, installations, and personnel, NEVER directly at civilians (in accordance with the Geneva Conventions);

2) its far more efficient to use conventional weapons to conduct surgicial (precision) strikes against such targets;

3) the political outcome may be to disastrous to handle (even if the United States was attacked first by such category of weapons;

4) if American troops are within the vicinity of the designated impact point, the nuclear option is automatically out;

Hence, as you can see, its actually very difficult to effectively employ nuclear weapons successfully. Traditional nuclear weapons are city killers, that is utilizing multiple warhead known as MIRV (Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicle) containing anywhere from 6 warheads to 24 warheads. Designed to be individually retargetable, they could be spread out to decimate a city size target of 5 million inhabitants or concentrated on the city centre or its important hubs to ensure nothing (not even reinforced concrete or underground structures less than 100ft in depth) survives.

Modern nuclear weapons consist of a newer family in the tactical category, with only a 10th (approx 1 kiloton or less) of a full blown nuclear weapon. Designed to take out smaller targets, they are also small enough that the radiation fall out is minimized to the immediate area, extended out to a maximum of 8km from the epicentre of the detonation (if its a surface-impact only burst with no ground penetration), 3km or less (if its a underground burst, at a minimum depth of 30 ft), or 18km or more (but not exceeding 22km, for an airburst at 120 ft).

By comparison, this is considered small compared to a contamination zone of 220km minimum for a conventional nuclear weapon.

Answer 6

As much as I would like to nuke all the muslims off the earth. To be honest I say you cannot. The only thing IMHO that would justify nukes is if we are fighting an force like China and we have to use the bomb or get overrun. If the enemy used nukes first would be another reason we could respond in kind.

Answer 7

Never. Atomic bombs are terrible, and the international reaction would be catastrophic. If you have never heard of nuclear holocaust, do a google search for the end of the world video, it is a bit coarse, but close to accurate.

Answer 8

To protect our troops, it is doubtful we would use nukes.. That's not to say we wouldn't do everything in our power to protect those who protect us.
Somewhere in the list of reasons there is a punch list of reasons to use nukes and it's probably etched in stone. We have had sixty years to ponder this question and I'm sure by now, those who have their finger on the button, know under what circumstances we will launch missiles.

I do believe that our reasons for launching missiles would be in a defensive posture.

Answer 9

Nukes should be a last resort,... period. Remember that we are not the only ones with nuclear capabilities, and the global ramifications could be disastrous. I simply hope that it never comes down to this.

Answer 10

Never, if we didn't invade sovereign territory all the time our troops would not be in harm's way. Using or even nukes is insane.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/americanleftparty/