The "other" options in a Nuclear warfare

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

In the event of a preemptive nuclear strike I(from a layman's perspective) see 4 options for the host nation(the nation on which the nuke was dropped) to respond:

1.The Obvious! Retaliate by nuking the enemy i.e full-scale nuclear war.

2.Limited Nuclear conflict i.e bomb those targets of strategic importance.

3.Obliterate the enemy's civilian population with biological weapons and occupy their land,so as to compensate for the loss endured in the preemptive strike.

Nuclear weapons are meaningless in a world where a virus can kill an entire population and leave its wealth intact
- V for Vendetta

4.The Moral way! Engage in a conventional war with enemy and remove/punish the Govt responsible for the preemptive nuke strike also destroy the enemy stockpiles and make them incapable of developing nukes in the future.

I know the above options depend upon the intensity of damage done in the preemptive strike,So lets assume Hiroshima like Scenario.


So whats your option and why?

Mine is the fourth,as the population shouldn't bear the suffering for the decisions of its Govt.




PS:Something interesting for all the "we can nuke you" junkies here.
Viewer discretion

 

[inddef]

nuclear strategy is a whole lot more complicated than that. i remember someone posting links to someone privy to how nuclear strategy was designed during the cold war. very insightful.

 

[Bhairava]

If I am going down,I am damn well taking those who are responsible for me going down ,with me.

So guess my choice.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

I chose "limited nuclear retaliation".

I agree with Bombensturm, you should not punish innocent civilians for the mistakes of their government.

So basically: Limited nuclear retaliation, but NO targeting of civilian populations.

 

[Kompromat]

Pakistan has Anti oxygen weapons which absorb or burn out the quantity of oxygen in the atmosphere in a few KM radius , leaving every single living being dead behind while no or little damage to the infrastructure.

I would prefer to use them in Retaliation and in Massive quantities which would target the most populated cities in the enemy territory as well as against Enemy Infantry Units.This weapon has no countermeasures not even a gas mask , moreover it does not cause a massive explosion.

Even if there is no Preemptive nuclear attack on us - still we can use it against Enemy Infantry and Annihilate them before they invade our borders.These weapons can be fired from Multiple platforms which comes in handy

 

[Developereo]

If attacked, any government would be under tremendous perssure to respond disproportionately.

The other alternatives are only academic.

 

[inddef]

what do you mean by pre-emptive nuclear strike?

 

[inddef]

Pakistan has Anti oxygen weapons which absorb or burn out the quantity of oxygen in the atmosphere in a few KM radius , leaving every single living being dead behind while no or little damage to the infrastructure.

I would prefer to use them in Retaliation and in Massive quantities which would target the most populated cities in the enemy territory as well as against Enemy Infantry Units.This weapon has no countermeasures not even a gas mask , moreover it does not cause a massive explosion.

Even if there is no Preemptive nuclear attack on us - still we can use it against Enemy Infantry and Annihilate them before they invade our borders.These weapons can be fired from Multiple platforms which comes in handy

the only way in a which pre-emptive nuking makes any sense at all is if its done on a sufficiently wide scale to give a total tactical victory and the country doing the nuking has sufficient backup infrastructure to minimize the impact of second strike strategic nukes in case there is a failure to destroy these. (emergency evac with backup infra / dense missile defenses etc)

neither india nor pak can or will ever be able to do this. china probably might be able to at some point, with sufficiently dense missle defenses and enough of a backup plan against strategic nukes that land.

but nothing on the whole wide earth can justify these costs. not kashmir, not anything.

 

[FreekiN]

Full scale retaliation.

Limited nuclear retaliation would just lead to more and more and just end up escalating into a full scale.

The biological warfare could leak into your own country and screw shiznit up.

Conventional war would mean more nukes heading toward you.

 

[Kompromat]

the only way in a which pre-emptive nuking makes any sense at all is if its done on a sufficiently wide scale to give a total tactical victory and the country doing the nuking has sufficient backup infrastructure to minimize the impact of second strike strategic nukes in case there is a failure to destroy these. (emergency evac with backup infra / dense missile defenses etc)

neither india nor pak can or will ever be able to do this. china probably might be able to at some point, with sufficiently dense missle defenses and enough of a backup plan against strategic nukes that land.

but nothing on the whole wide earth can justify these costs. not kashmir, not anything.

Its just a hypothetical scenario my friend - there is no justification for Nuking a country.

 

[Kompromat]

Full scale retaliation.

Limited nuclear retaliation would just lead to more and more and just end up escalating into a full scale.

The biological warfare could leak into your own country and screw shiznit up.

Conventional war would mean more nukes heading toward you.

Radiation does the same-in IndoPak scenario where both are located close to each other - Nuking one country means both are gone.

 

[Developereo]

Full scale retaliation.

Limited nuclear retaliation would just lead to more and more and just end up escalating into a full scale.

The biological warfare could leak into your own country and screw shiznit up.

Conventional war would mean more nukes heading toward you.

That's a good point. There are too many factors to take into account: geography, relative strength, etc.

Let's take a hypothetical nuclear strike on US by just about any country except China/Russia. The US can use bio or conventional weapons to end the war quickly without resorting to nuclear retaliation.

The same equations don't apply if the combatants are geographically close, or have parity in nuclear capability.

PS. However, given the US track record in war (Dresden, Hiroshima, Iraq Highway of Death), it is a certainty the US would respond with nuclear weapons.

 

[FreekiN]

Radiation does the same-in IndoPak scenario where both are located close to each other - Nuking one country means both are gone.

Yes, in IndoPak scenario that is a negative aspect. Hypothetically, if India nukes Lahore, that would mean the death of agriculture in Indian Punjab and Indian Punjab is the 'breadbasket' of India.

That's a good point. There are too many factors to take into account: geography, relative strength, etc.

Let's take a hypothetical nuclear strike on US by just about any country except China/Russia. The US can use bio or conventional weapons to end the war quickly without resorting to nuclear retaliation.

The same equations don't apply if the combatants are geographically close, or have parity in nuclear capability.

I'm not sure if bio-weapons are kept on submarines but, if they are launched from mainland USA, and some kind of technical fault destroys it, hypothetically, 5 seconds after launch, USA is screwed right? On the other hand, nukes can be fired from submarines far, far away from homeland.

 

[inddef]

That's a good point. There are too many factors to take into account: geography, relative strength, etc.

Let's take a hypothetical nuclear strike on US by just about any country except China/Russia. The US can use bio or conventional weapons to end the war quickly without resorting to nuclear retaliation.

The same equations don't apply if the combatants are geographically close, or have parity in nuclear capability.

PS. However, given the US track record in war (Dresden, Hiroshima, Iraq Highway of Death), it is a certainty the US would respond with nuclear weapons.

if the NK nuke falls on a US population center, NK can pretty much say good bye to every soldier and leader it has and a good chunk of its population.

 

[inddef]

Yes, in IndoPak scenario that is a negative aspect. Hypothetically, if India nukes Lahore, that would mean the death of agriculture in Indian Punjab and Indian Punjab is the 'breadbasket' of India.

there is no point to striking population centers. all the focus of the attacking party has to be to take out second strike and military installations.

this can be done with a low fallout policy with a sufficiently developed capability. india doesn't have an arsenal of clean tactical nukes and thermobarics to ever do this.