Can you think of any situation in which YOU would support the use of a tactical nuclear device by US forces?

Question

If N Korea were about to launch a nuclear missile toward the US or S. Korea would you use one of our nukes to stop that?
If a large force of US troops were about to be overrun by a huge horde of enemy troops would you allow the ground commander to use a small tacrical nuke to prevent the loss of his men?
Would you support the use of a nuke to stop Iran from developing its nuclear program if you knew for certain they were developing an offensive nuclear capability?
If another country used a nuke (or even attempted to) to take out a US city or a US Navy fleet would you support using a nuke(s) in rertailiation?
Is there any circumstance under which you would support the use of nuclear weapons?
I'm just trying to find out where people stand on this question, because I believe our leaders have made decisions about some circumstances already......

Answer 1

2 or 3 situations, attack by NorKor on Seoul, attack by Russian divisions thru the Fulda Gap and attack by China on Taiwan/Japan. Most war games and think tank studies, however, resulted in escalation to full-scale nuclear exchanges involving strategic nukes. It'd be very hard to contain the war to tactical nukes. Our use of tactical nukes would be necessary to counter over-whelming conventional forces.

Answer 2

My answer would be, in general, if the US was under imminent attack and the attack could not be stopped any other way, then nukes would be justified. I don't consider retaliation to fall under that category unless it were to prevent a second attack.
The Iran scenario is too hypothetical. They are 5-10 years away from having enough uranium to build a bomb. Even if they had one I don't think nukes would be required to take out their capacity. Israel destroyed an Iraqi nuclear facility in an air strike using conventional weapons.

Answer 3

In certain situations I would say yes use them. In others, I would not. Remember, the use of the last 2 killed about 300,000 people and those were tiny compared to what we have now. Any use of a nuclear weapon has its dangers that we have to seriously consider before we use them.

The North Korea and the Iran issues, I agree we blow them up and make a really BIG parking lot...

Answer 4

In all those situations. I would have also supported the use of tactical nukes in Iraq. By using these weapons, and upon seeing the devastation, I believe the war would not be in the stalemate it is right now. I believe the factions fighting against us would be thinking twice about continuing the fight knowing we would be willing to destroy whole towns in this manner. Of course, this is a moot point. Our liberal controlled government would never allow us to use a weapon that might actually allow us to WIN a war.

Answer 5

We do have anti-missle capability here in the US. So as far as the 48 contiguous is considered, we are safe from that type of threat. Not with standing a smuggled device that is. There are other systems as well, like ASAT's and the ABL, that are deployed to theatres for just that threat. In the military, every act is considered under LOAC. One of LOAC's principles, is that of proportionality. The threat of that use is simply not enough for us to respond in that fashion. Though we may do so for political pressure. Really, the only way we would even be justified to use our devices, is that one has allready been detonated. And even then, we are hard pressed to use one, since LOAC means we can only identify military targets with little collateral damage.

Answer 6

It varies on the situation at hand, but I think this sums it up for me:

If they can use more conventional means to acheive the same goal without any added loses, greater risk, or increased chance of failure, than no. If they can't, then yes.

Answer 7

yes to all......