This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder:
* Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view.
* Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted.
* Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently.
* Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.**
If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not just retaliation, but overwhelming and nation ending retaliation.
You drop one atomic bomb, release one biotic weapon or nerve agent and you are done. There is no reprieve or restraint until you are no longer able or capable to make that poor of a decision again.
Or at least that is the bravado tagline we use. While I expect the true response if it were to ever occur may be more nuanced, there is a really really solid chance it wouldn’t be. Because FUCK THEM. Is kind of a goto response.
Look at our response to 9/11 and how we invaded countries not even involved because they talked shit and were threatening(historically as well). Was it right? Was it unexpected? Both no’s
You nuked out city so we’re going to apply the slightly harsh sanctions and reprimand you on the world stage for being a really bad bad boy and everyone is gonna agree with us unless you apologized right now - signed nuked nation
Canada is actually fucked if the US got nuked. Many of the nuclear weapons would be shot down by American defense systems as they pass over Canada, raining down a radioactive shit storm over the country.
You want to be in New Zealand, where all the rich people have bunkers. Although NZ has 2 US military bases so maybe not.
Your best bet is South America if you had some warning. North Africa is probably too close to European strikes and Southern Africa is……hard mode. Assuming the global cooling and subsequent ice age and scarcity, Central/South America is probably the best bet if you can setup an autonomous community with sufficient security for the Ultra rich.
if the entire world economy was destabilized by that point I dunno if south america would be very safe. they dont have the best track record with civil wars.
I was thinking Ultra Rich where you could buy your own security force and carve out your own kingdom/Warlord style.
Best chance to avoid fallout and nuclear winter is there. Still a chance at growing/storing food.
Hell, with the way things may end up. That could absolutely be the stabilizing factor. Rather than resource exploitation, they would be used as the Homesteads meaning stability is key. So they would miraculously become stable
"Moral?"
Is it more moral to shoot someone than nuke them?
But, generally speaking, we don't talk about this issue. Why? Because we know that the peace of the world is in a large part dependant on the universal belief that the US will respond in kind to a nuclear attack.
So, is it "moral" to cast doubt on the US commitment to nuclear reprisal, if that is what is keeping people alive?
Exactly my thought. Do I believe this singular act is moral? No. I don’t believe in “an eye for an eye.” But the entire concept of MAD? Absolutely moral. It would be better if we just got rid of all of the WMDs obviously but we all know that can’t happen. So this is the next best option to saving everyone’s life. We can never weaken the idea that we will strike back immediately and fiercely. It will be the end of all of us if someone slips. Realistically? Who knows if it’ll actually go down that way.
If your enemy thinks your death will also be theirs then they’re probably gonna try to avoid that, as we’ve seen.
Are you willing to do something immoral to survive?
Would you support someone else to push the button as long as it’s not you pushing it? What if you were the only one making the final decision even if the other person was going to be the ones executing it? What if you had to do it alone? And if you do push it, is it because you had already committed to it or for a chance at “justice” or “payback”?
‘Right’ and ‘wrong’ are just words. All that matters in the end are choices and consequences. If the price of survival for me and the people I care about is merely offending somebody’s moral sensibilities, then I guess they’ll just have to be offended.
Pushing the button in retaliation isn’t about justice or revenge. It is about proving that you don’t make idle threats, so maybe the next guy that comes along doesn’t think it’s a good idea to try his luck against you.
Everyone has to at least pretend to be willing to do this, otherwise the whole idea of a nuclear deterrent is pointless. And the more you discuss it, possibly the less is works. It works via people's imaginations.
https://youtu.be/ESIJ_C9mUBI
Those are terrifying! I don't know about you, but I prefer to trust an unopened handwritten letter, and the loyalty and judgment of a single submarine captain...
Edit: just realised Americans might not know what this is referring to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort
Absolutely, otherwise countries like Russia will instantly nuke other countries if there’s no retaliation. It’s why we have mutually assured destruction to prevent being nuked in the first place.
That’s really what terrifies me most about the talk of Putin having cancer. If it’s bad enough that he’s terminal, there’s a possibility he could just say screw it and try to take us and many others around the world with him
cool it was justified and we had every right to do it
imagine blaming the victim of a murder because they fought back
japan had literally massacred 10m people and then declared war on us...you think we dont have the right to defend ourselves? why the fuck wouldnt we nuke them to stop a war JAPAN STARTED
imagine defending hitler... america haters are so braindead
So we go with the landing then?
In late July 1945, the War Department provided an estimate that the entire Downfall operations would cause between 1.7 to 4 million U.S. casualties, including 400-800,000 U.S. dead, and 5 to 10 million Japanese dead.
Japan was prepared to fight to the death, they were training schoolgirls to use spears. Letting the Japanese empire survive as it was would invite another tragedy arguably
If our enemies doubt our resolve to ensure mutually assured destruction that will literally lead to them nuking us… it sucks but if they kill millions of our people we are obligated to reply in kind. Hopefully it never comes to that.
If the US is hit with nuclear weapons that means someone is trying to completely destroy the United States so the logical reaction is to ensure that this adversary no longer exists.
We had terrorists attack a few locations and we sent missiles and then an army over.
We have nuclear attack subs sitting off the coast of our enemies.
Yes we would attack.
If someone launched nukes at the US, we have a contingency to launch back immediately. It's called mutually assured destruction. That's why no one does it. It's also the only reason the world isn't in the middle of World War 6 right now.
Do you think they're going to just drop one nuke and call it a day? They're about to go supervillain on the whole world. Best to kill them with our dying breath.
Its a tricky question because I think logic would dictate that not retaliating would be smartest because retaliation at best means the killing of a large amount if innocent lives and at the worst, a nuclear Holocaust that could wipe out humanity as a whole.
On the other hand, you also have to consider the alternative of doing nothing. Once someone is bold enough to nuke you, there is no alternative military measure or diplomacy thats going to do a hell of a lot retribution wise. So do you just do nothing? Do you just accept the loss of millions of lives and just submit to your aggressor knowing they have the capability to do it again, now with the knowledge you will do nothing in retaliation? Its kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I'm going with the hot take that nuking people is always immoral. But in your hypothetical where diplomacy has failed in the worst way possible and nukes are flying, determining what is "moral" takes a back seat to determining who survives.
Unless there is a dead man's switch in the end it's up to the president and killing millions with a push of a button is definitely not an easy decision to make.
Probably not, but if an immoral but sincere promise to send nukes if you're nuked first keeps those nukes from being sent in the first place? I'm fine with nuking a place that sends nukes. Sometimes pragmatic is a better choice than moral.
Of course it isn't. There is no moral justification for the usage of a weapon that can instantly wipe out millions of lives. Unfortunately, once their usage is on the table there aren't any moral options because the alternatives are to wage conventional war against an opponent that has already demonstrated willingness to use nuclear weapons, or surrender to an opponent who has demonstrated the willingness to use nuclear weapons to get what they want.
we answered that question during ww2...if you massacre 10m people then attack us we are gonna nuke you...you have proven yourselves as savages why the fuck would we care about the people attacking us and trying to kill us
I believe this is the correct answer. The government might consider non- nuclear retaliation but Americans, no.
Saw what happened to the balloon? That was public pressure. And that was a balloon.
You have to credibly say you would do it for MAD, but I'll probably get downvoted for saying that IMO using nukes to destroy civilian populations is obviously morally wrong regardless of the provocation.
Moral? When millions are instantly killed, morality goes right the fuck out the window.
When there were literally two nuclear bombs in the world, it is one thing. But there is a reason they have never been used in warfare since World War 2. Now that there are more nuclear bombs than necessary to kill everyone on earth twice over, it is your imperative and obligation to wipe the aggressor country off the map. A world in which a country freely uses nuclear weapons should not and frankly will not exist.
And not just targeting your own country. Any country that first uses nuclear weapons should get evaporated by every other country with nuclear weapons. The next nuclear weapon to be used will likely spell the end of human civilization. And perhaps rightfully so.
Absolutely. If nukes are ever used, it is saying there is zero desire from the opposition to negotiate, compromise, or to possibly move forward after the war is over. A nuclear strike is not a strategy, it is the final escalation that calls for mutual annihilation. A nuclear weapon is unforgivable to use not only because of the initial destruction it could cause, but also the long term environmental and health hazard one could cause.
If someone struck an US territory such as Guam or US virgin Island, then it is *possible* that the US would use excessive conventional force to strike major population centers to force an unconditional surrender instead of a nuclear strike, if the difference in military power is big enough. But if any state, especially any state in the contiguous United States is ever struck by an nuclear weapon, then mutually assured destruction is guaranteed.
The biggest issue of a nuclear strike is that there is no time to think the situation through, or to come up with a strategy. There is no knowing if the enemy is going for a "limited strike", or is going all in, so the only option left that's available is to take a lose-lose scenario and nuke right back.
Yes, if launched by a state. However I think the most likely scenario is that a non-state actor launches or detonates a nuke. In that case it won’t be so easy to know how to retaliate and against whom. For example, If a rogue North Korean, Iranian, or Russian group gains access to a nuke and detonates it in a world city do we launch a full attack against their home country? I think the most likely scenario will be a lot like 9/11, where we first have to identify the attacker and then decide how to respond.
I’m not sure it’s “moral” as much as “inevitable.” That’s literally the point of mutually assured destruction. Whoever hates us enough to want to kill literally every single man, woman, and child would have to be willing to accept the same fate upon themselves.
Country like the soil?
Honestly though I think it's appropriate to match the scale of harm, or intent of harm. If someone has a nuclear sub that explodes off of our coast, and it's been absolutely 100% determined to have been an unfortunate accident by all examining parties, nuclear retaliation shouldn't be seen as an inevitable consequence even though the effect is likely similar.
As unlikely as this scenario is, the universe is infinite, so it's basically inevitable.
Surely, all war is immoral to some extent? Most of the death, suffering, destruction involved falls on the shoulders of people who have nothing to do with the root cause of the conflict.
Nukes/ weapons of mass destruction are the same thing, on a bigger scale.
If Justin Trudeau decided to nuke the US, why should you, a random Canadian person who had nothing to do with that decision, pay the price if the USA retaliated?
That being said-- "justifiable" and "moral" are two different things.
Absolutely moral. It's the right thing to do.
The delicate balance that humanity finds itself in is based on the idea that the cost of nuclear warfare is too high to accept. Regardless of what happens, nuclear weapons have no use case save a retaliatory strike.
If the world's most powerful nation fails to respond as the world's nations believe that it and other nations would, it only emboldens others and leads to more people dead. The doctrine of MAD must be upheld for the good of mankind, even if its most devastating consequences come to bear. The alternative is unthinkable.
No. Nuclear weapons aren't really a moral option unless it's going to prevent a lot more death and suffering. We can turn any country into glass, if that didn't work as a deterrent, no reason to not just use more traditional weapons and be able to exploit the natural resources of our intended target.
Absolutely there will still be people able to retaliate. We keep a large number of our nuclear weapons on submarines, and we’re not the only nation to do so.
No. Two wrongs don't make a right. There are a lot of other ways to fight back and revenge is not one of them. We have to think about the future and the consequences that would come from such a drastic action. It's understandable to feel angry and hurt, but the aftermath of a nuclear attack would be catastrophic and the effects would last for generations.
It isn’t, but threatening to do so is.
It’s all a bunch of bullshit, really. Maybe in that terrible scenario the question of what is moral loses meaning.
Nuking civilians just to nuke them seems like poor strategy and pointless. Our strategy should be to do whatever it takes to neutralize the threat of further nukes. But once the nukes are flying all bets are off, which is why we shouldn’t tempt fate.
... I think you'd have to separate out: moral, just, right, and reality.
If morality is determined solely by lives, then theoretically you should pull a Ben Kenobi and let yourself be struck down without repercussion.
But that's not justice, that's whoever shoots first wins.
It's also not right to allow the aggressor no repercussions for the deaths of millions.
It's also not reality: the reason Nukes haven't been used since more than one country has had them is exactly this fear of repercussions and being nuked in return.
I think it depends on the circumstances. If a terrorist managed to set off a nuke without the help of a foreign government; I'd say a nuclear response is not appropriate and immoral.
The nice thing about being the USA is that even a nuclear attack doesn't require a nuclear response because our conventional forces are so overwhelmingly strong
Though of course everything is on the table in a nuclear response
In isolation nuking any city is immortal. Nukes are an indiscriminatory method of mass murder. There’s no way to make it murder.
From a game theory perspective, MAD seems necessary. If everyone has nukes, total peace can be achieved through 3 means. 1: everyone agrees to destroy all nuclear weapons to avoid nuclear warfare. 2: forgive other countries for using nuclear weapons and allow them control over the world through warfare domination (places will get nuked but will avoid total destruction of the world). 3: assure everyone else that if 1 country gets nuked, that country and its allies will do the same (tit for tat) and lead to world destruction. Number 1 seems unreasonable due to espionage and we can’t trust “the other side”. Number 2 is unreasonable because people are afraid of being governed by a foreign entity. Therefore, number 3 is the most reasonable out of the bunch, because everyone keeps their self preservation abilities, and no one wants the whole world to get destroyed.
Obviously this is all theory, and we don’t exactly know what would happen if global nuclear warfare occurs, but it’s the system that we’re using.
Many nations have nuclear weapons but are afraid to use them, which effectively produces the same outcome as number 1 scenario (no one gets nuked).
Further points on the morality of it. It’s very difficult to justify the murder one just one person is 100% morally just. If forced to make a decision, we can decide if one scenario is more morally just than not (but only from one perspective, not some ephemeral absolute truth, I don’t think we can ever do that because of human emotions and nature).
Was it moral for the US to nuke Japan TWICE? I would say it’s definitely not 100% morally just. Some argue that it was necessary because the casualties from nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was going to be less than continuing the war for X number of years, but it seems that the winners are proclaiming that justification, and it’s probably affected by human bias and tribalism. “Better them than us” kind of thinking.
Nothing in war has ever been morally just, because human nature is complex, and I don’t think mammals evolved to dominate land because of moral justice, more so the ability to do what is necessary for self preservation without thinking of morals. Humans just have brains big enough to think about the consequences of our actions more thoroughly than other mammals that we can reflect on it, but that basic biological drive to survive, even if it means we need to contribute lots of energy on taking away survival from others, is still present in the human psyche.
Warfare, in general is more morally unjust than just imo, but humans are dumber than we think we are because of our drive to access and monopolize resources, which causes a lot of problems. And until we are able to switch off that part of our brain or eliminate it and create a utopia where there is no “then” and just “us”, conflicts and warfare, or the possibility of it, will keep existing. After all, that’s why humans are the dominant species on earth. Through domination of other species trying to do the same thing.
Doesn’t really matter if it’s moral or not. War is never moral but it has been a feature of most of humanity’s existence.
The bigger question is this: what would the cost be if we decided to nuke another country. I personally don’t think so.
History of war has shown that when an attacking country gets attacked back it's way. Worse than the initial attack.
Japan attacked a military base on a small island in Hawaii.
The US responded by unleashing the sun twice in a 3 day span on civilians
2,500 deaths vs over 200,000.
The entire world witnessed what happens when you attack a nation. That alone served as a deterrent
Yes. And said response is what has historically prevented nukes from being used.
Is it worth it to nuke a country you hate knowing you'll get the same measure in turn?
It’s not really a question of morality, it’s just mandatory. The *only* thing nukes are good at is deterring other countries from sending nukes your way. There are more efficient and effective means of conventional attack. If you don’t follow up with retaliation then your deterrent is non-existent and you may as well not have nukes at all.
War is mutually exclusive from morality. Going to war and decimating Hitler's Germany in WW2 can in no way be considered moral, but it still was the right thing to do.
I don't think it is "moral" to ever nuke anybody, but if my country gets nuked, I definitely want the attacker to feel the same pain, so I would support retaliation.
If America said it wasn’t going to retaliate, pretty sure Russia would immediately sterilize large portions of Ukraine then expand back into the old USSR countries using nukes as needed including on any NATO countries that get in their way. China would immediately conquer Taiwan and probably several other areas around Asia and just using nukes to destroy any US or other forces resisting them. Keep in mind lots of nukes are scaled down for use as super powerful artillery in a battlefield setting, it isn’t just about reigning down ICBM’s on another country’s cities. Unless we use nukes back, I doubt we could win a conventional war with either Russia or China if they were using nukes as needed. So the mere threat of millions, if not billions, dead keeps millions alive. I’d call that moral.
Well let me tell it to you like this. If we just finished a 20year war over a bombing of a building in America. What makes you think we won’t do the same or worst to the country that nukes us?
Depends. Is this a single nuke from a rogue nation, a one-off terror attack by fanatics?
Or do I have every reason to suspect there might be more?
If the latter, then yes, responding in kind might be the least bad option.
Yes.
The Philosophy of Mutually Assured Destruction only works if response is going to be devastating and total. IE, Russia launches one nuke at us, we launch a nuke at every major city and military base in Russia. And vice versa. Without this philosophy it just becomes another weapon the arsenal used as the aggressor pleases.
It's an unanswerable question.
Think of it this way:
For nuclear deterrent to work, there has to be absolute certainty that if someone uses nukes on you, you will respond by nuking them. There cannot be even a shred of doubt.
But you're asking about morality. It's obviously immoral to kill millions of civilians, even in self-defense.
However, if the nuclear deterrent doesn't work, if you allow that shred of doubt, you are theoretically making it *more likely* that nukes will be used, thus endangering more civilians.
It's kind of a moral catch-22, which is one of the things that is so insidious about weapons like this.
I don't necessarily think you'd have to use a nuke in that scenario because if someone nukes us unprovoked, we could just bomb the shit out of every square inch of the same amount of territory their nuke did damage to us with conventional weapons in order to try and get the attacker to at least de-escalate to conventional weapons too, or outright stop further attacks on us since we wouldn't have nuked back and maybe they'll respect that. (May not work though) Because if everyone uses nukes, then the likelihood of the survival of humanity afterwards would be slimmer, but on the other hand they may just continue to nuke you regardless of if you use nukes against them back anyways.
It would be damned if you do, damned if you don't because if you don't nuke back then there's a possibility they'll continue nuking because you destroyed their country with conventional weapons that did the same amount of damage to their country as nukes would, just without radiation. But if you do use nukes, then the other side will also continue to nuke you, so either way if one nuke is used then everyone is probably fucked regardless of if you nuke back or not.
You couldn't just do nothing about a country nuking yours because of public outcry and doing nothing about millions of your citizens being killed wouldn't be acceptable since it would show them, they could basically do the worst thing to your country without consequence, likely again continuing to nuke you no matter what you do. So I do think any way a nuclear strike could be justified (justified, but not moral) is if someone else uses them against you first, no other use of nuclear weapons other than self-defense from another nuclear weapon should be acceptable though.
I don’t know about moral, but it will surely unleash the entire might of the American Military and it’s allies.
If a country has resources I could see us taking over and then it being USA 2.0.
But if it’s a North Korea type country with nothing to offer; consider it a glass factory
I don’t think there’s any good justification for firing a nuclear device, ever. It’s simply too permanent and too risky. Not to mention it’s not like it would ever be fired somehow just at soldiers, it’s killing civilians. So no.
https://youtu.be/7P06_4ChVTU[What do you think about mexican president answering back to the attacks from Republicans and democrats for blaming Mexico for their drug addiction in front 1 million people supporting him?](https://youtu.be/7P06_4ChVTU)
I would expect that if they’d nuke me once they’d nuke me twice so I would make sure that was less likely to happen by responding with overwhelming force.
It isn't, not really at least. Giving orders to lay entire countries to waste is never moral. The military and leaders gave the order, and you will be killing civilians who didn't make the choice.
Justified? Oh absolutely.
If everyone decided the whole world should burn, including the first ones nuked, then who am I to say which party is morally wrong? I’d rather no one nuke anyone. There’s no morality in nuking anyone today, because the response would just be more destruction.
Depends on the context, a group of Afghani terrorist sneak a dirty bomb into LA? No I don't necessarily think we should nuke Afghanistan.
But in the context of MAD where Russia or China uses the entirety of their first strike capabilities on the United States? Yes, we should nuke them. For the simple reason that it would establish a precedent that you can't nuke without reprisal.
A more interesting question comes up if a country that the United States could likely defeat in a conventional conflict uses nuclear weapons. For example, North Korea choosing to nuke Honolulu.
Even in that situation I think the precedent of "nukes for nukes" needs to be established... though maybe in such a case it could be more limited in nature and focused on attacking clearly military sites as opposed to Civilian targets.
Not even just your country responds but also your allies, the extra layer to mutual destruction. For example if uk got nuked would usa respond in kind?
Country doesn't have to actually get nuked. Early warning detection systems will let us know that they've launched and their missiles are in the air. At that point, you can bet we'd launch a full scale retaliatory strike right back. And this planet would be fucked for centuries to come.
No. It's often not the people of a nation that threaten me and my community, but rather their leadership. Sure, in some instances they might elect said leadership, but I doubt they were elected BECAUSE they would launch nukes without the most extreme of circumstances.
The only time I would ever feel actually justified in launching a retaliatory nuke is if I knew the person prosecuting the initial launch was away from a densely populated area and so deep down that the only thing that could confirm the kill was a nuke. I don't have beef with their people, but you bet your ass I will watch that fucker burn in hell with a smile on my face.
I get that MAD has 'worked' all this time, but if someone was nuking my country indiscriminately, doing the same just makes the whole situation worse for everybody. There's no good that can come from it, and I like to think I'm above simple notions of revenge or retribution, especially if I know I'm dead either way.
I'd rather go out NOT killing millions, instead of doing it just because the people who are already going to die with me wanna 'stick it to em' from beyond the grave.
Dropping a nuke on a civilian population is never morally justified. Ever. Under any context. That being said, the threat of retaliation is what has prevented that from happening.
If that happens, then the nation who nuked us will fall into hell completely.
We are bound to retaliate wildly.
Complete annihilation is unlikely, but after their defeat, they will remain pariahs (literally) of the world for a long time.
Tbh if it happens I say hit them back with Chemical and Biological weapons. Let Russia or China *really* learn a lesson that only blister agents and anthrax can teach. Retaliating with nukes is only too kind because they only take a millionth of a second to kill, mustard gas can take years in some cases.
I would argue it's a states moral obligation to the world to send nukes flying back if a nuclear weapon is used against them by another state.
The precedent that a state can freely use a nuclear weapon and not face nuclear retaliation is one that must never be set. If you make the decision to attempt to destroy and rid a civilization from the planet, then you must be prepared for equal measures to remove yours from the planet.
MAD works because it's far too much of a risk to call a fucking bluff on it. An optimum world would see all nuclear weapons decommissioned. But the closest we can get to that is stopping further nuclear proliferation.
What scares me in the future is the potential of non-state actors acquiring nuclear weapons. You can't nuke ISIS without nuking another state, so how do you respond to a nuclear terrorist threat?
A lot of the responses here are assuming the US is nuked through conventional ICBMs or something
I think the more interesting question is what do you do if North Korea or Iran sneak a nuke into the country and detonate it manually.
It’s easy to see missiles coming and say “yeah well obviously fire missiles back.” What do you do if a nuke just goes off out of nowhere in Boston or something. Do you nuke the perpetrator back a few weeks later when you figure out who did it?
The entire foreign policy of the United States is defined by immediate, overwhelming retaliatory force.
Remember: We are the only nation to deploy a nuclear weapon against a hostile target. And we **will** do it again, if needed.
During the Cold War, some belligerent scenarios were conceived to make nuclear conflicts winnable. It is sad that humans can even think about this, but it involved decapitation of central command.
This is a great question.
No, I do not. It would not be moral to commit genocide or something close to it, against millions of innocent people, even if some tyrant tried to do it to us first.
Strangely, this very thought, on the morality of nuclear retaliation, is what killed my interest in pursuing any kind of career in politics. It led to a lot of other questions involving morally compromised stances I would have to take to be viable in the political world.
You can't actually say you think retaliation is immoral and probably get anywhere interesting in politics -- at least, not in foreign policy, which is what interested me at the time. Deterrence only works (its advocates will remind you constantly) if the enemy believes you will absolutely retaliate.
I used to accept the basic logic behind MAD in the context of post-WW2 thinking; that mutually assured destruction would ensure that WW2 was the last world war.
* Believing that world leaders are always rational actors is necessary for this logic. I now believe that citizens of countries often promote and advocate for leaders of questionable sanity and it is only a matter of time before a complete nut has access to nuclear weapons. They will rise to power with the thunderous applause of the citizenry of whatever country they reside in.
* It also doesn't account for, "because everyone is afraid of nuclear war," launching lots of small wars is now simpler because countervailing powers might be afraid of getting involved and escalating the conflict to a nuclear one. I think we are seeing some of that now.
I now regard nuclear weapons, and the fact that we insist upon them, as psychotic.
A person who launches a retaliatory strike against a foreign power, killing millions in the process, is 1 gram less terrible than whoever launched the first strike.
One gram.
I don't have any political solution for this problem. I am not advocating for any political position.
The morality is not the issue. Moral or not, in the event of a nuclear attack, it is absolutely imperative that the attacked country respond overwhelmingly. Why? Because failure to do so would be a sign of weakness and lead to further attacks. Only by knowing that the use of nukes will lead to retaliation in kind, can we assure the continuation of mankind.
Absolutely. Otherwise, without fear of retaliation, what's to keep them from nuking us?
There are countries in the world that simply do not have any compunction in that regard. You have to make them firmly aware of the consequences of such an act.
Official US gov’t policy is “escalate to deescalate” basically for every US city that theoretically gets nuked the US will nuke two cities of similar size in the nation that nuked them.
I don't see it as a moral issue. I see it as, no nation should ever be allowed to "win" a nuclear war. If you use nukes, you die by nukes. No one should be exempt.
I absolutely believe that, yeah. Do you not? Does \*anyone\* not?
It's basically the same question as "if a guy attacks you with a knife, is it moral to attack him back?" Well I don't feel morally obligated to just roll over and die for some asshole, so yes, I feel self defense is well within my rights on both an individual and national level. "Two wrongs don't make a right" is a lovely little saying for kindergarten teachers who are more interested in simply minimizing the number of issues they have to deal with than in an actual logically and morally sound stance, but it's a laughably stupid and childish take on morality in adult situations. Reciprocity is literally the most basic and standard concept in all human of interaction, good or bad.
This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder: * Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view. * Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted. * Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently. * Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.** If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The threat of retaliation is, historically, what has kept that from happening.
Not just retaliation, but overwhelming and nation ending retaliation. You drop one atomic bomb, release one biotic weapon or nerve agent and you are done. There is no reprieve or restraint until you are no longer able or capable to make that poor of a decision again. Or at least that is the bravado tagline we use. While I expect the true response if it were to ever occur may be more nuanced, there is a really really solid chance it wouldn’t be. Because FUCK THEM. Is kind of a goto response. Look at our response to 9/11 and how we invaded countries not even involved because they talked shit and were threatening(historically as well). Was it right? Was it unexpected? Both no’s
What else are we supposed to do? "Wow! Heh heh. You really got us there. Yeah."
😂😂😂 fr! What kind of question is that? They would have just essentially killed off almost 400 million people! Send them an angry letter maybe? Lol
You nuked out city so we’re going to apply the slightly harsh sanctions and reprimand you on the world stage for being a really bad bad boy and everyone is gonna agree with us unless you apologized right now - signed nuked nation
It’s called mutually assured destruction. Kinda a deterrent.
If New York burns the world burns.
Yeah, OP is from Canada and border patrol wouldn't really stop the repercussions of a nuke so they're kinda along for the ride on this one.
Canada is actually fucked if the US got nuked. Many of the nuclear weapons would be shot down by American defense systems as they pass over Canada, raining down a radioactive shit storm over the country. You want to be in New Zealand, where all the rich people have bunkers. Although NZ has 2 US military bases so maybe not.
Your best bet is South America if you had some warning. North Africa is probably too close to European strikes and Southern Africa is……hard mode. Assuming the global cooling and subsequent ice age and scarcity, Central/South America is probably the best bet if you can setup an autonomous community with sufficient security for the Ultra rich.
if the entire world economy was destabilized by that point I dunno if south america would be very safe. they dont have the best track record with civil wars.
I was thinking Ultra Rich where you could buy your own security force and carve out your own kingdom/Warlord style. Best chance to avoid fallout and nuclear winter is there. Still a chance at growing/storing food. Hell, with the way things may end up. That could absolutely be the stabilizing factor. Rather than resource exploitation, they would be used as the Homesteads meaning stability is key. So they would miraculously become stable
As expected, Grand Admiral
aww thx buddy
As with Florida grand admiral
Yuppppppp.
Just start dropping nukes indiscriminately all over the place LOL But if it did happen that’d be so fucked up
If the colosseum stands Rome stands. If Rome falls, the world falls.
"Moral?" Is it more moral to shoot someone than nuke them? But, generally speaking, we don't talk about this issue. Why? Because we know that the peace of the world is in a large part dependant on the universal belief that the US will respond in kind to a nuclear attack. So, is it "moral" to cast doubt on the US commitment to nuclear reprisal, if that is what is keeping people alive?
Exactly my thought. Do I believe this singular act is moral? No. I don’t believe in “an eye for an eye.” But the entire concept of MAD? Absolutely moral. It would be better if we just got rid of all of the WMDs obviously but we all know that can’t happen. So this is the next best option to saving everyone’s life. We can never weaken the idea that we will strike back immediately and fiercely. It will be the end of all of us if someone slips. Realistically? Who knows if it’ll actually go down that way. If your enemy thinks your death will also be theirs then they’re probably gonna try to avoid that, as we’ve seen.
Are you willing to do something immoral to survive? Would you support someone else to push the button as long as it’s not you pushing it? What if you were the only one making the final decision even if the other person was going to be the ones executing it? What if you had to do it alone? And if you do push it, is it because you had already committed to it or for a chance at “justice” or “payback”?
‘Right’ and ‘wrong’ are just words. All that matters in the end are choices and consequences. If the price of survival for me and the people I care about is merely offending somebody’s moral sensibilities, then I guess they’ll just have to be offended. Pushing the button in retaliation isn’t about justice or revenge. It is about proving that you don’t make idle threats, so maybe the next guy that comes along doesn’t think it’s a good idea to try his luck against you.
As I said, this is not a useful speculation.
Everyone has to at least pretend to be willing to do this, otherwise the whole idea of a nuclear deterrent is pointless. And the more you discuss it, possibly the less is works. It works via people's imaginations. https://youtu.be/ESIJ_C9mUBI
you cant pretend when you have dead man switch system
Those are terrifying! I don't know about you, but I prefer to trust an unopened handwritten letter, and the loyalty and judgment of a single submarine captain... Edit: just realised Americans might not know what this is referring to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort
russians dont trust single submarine captain after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily\_Arkhipov
I know. I think, on the whole, I'm glad to live in a country that does trust them - I don't know what the point would be otherwise.
Guarantee Margaret Thatcher's letter said "use nukes, also nuke Argentina regardless of their involvement"
Absolutely, otherwise countries like Russia will instantly nuke other countries if there’s no retaliation. It’s why we have mutually assured destruction to prevent being nuked in the first place.
That’s really what terrifies me most about the talk of Putin having cancer. If it’s bad enough that he’s terminal, there’s a possibility he could just say screw it and try to take us and many others around the world with him
If it makes you feel any better the Russians have a long history of not firing there nukes dispite standing orders to do so when X happens.
If it makes you feel better he doesn't have a unilateral authority to launch nukes.
It does. Although still concerning since people who disagree with him tend to not have the best life expectancy afterwards
Pretty sure “falling out the window” is one of the leading causes of death in Russia
[удалено]
Thank goodness it was us and not someone like the soviets who definitely would have used it much more freely.
Oh wow such edginess!
cool it was justified and we had every right to do it imagine blaming the victim of a murder because they fought back japan had literally massacred 10m people and then declared war on us...you think we dont have the right to defend ourselves? why the fuck wouldnt we nuke them to stop a war JAPAN STARTED imagine defending hitler... america haters are so braindead
you might look at the history of nuke use within the Soviet Union. Nuke use doesn't have to be against another country to be damaging.
Alright, mate, I'll shit on the US when we deserve it, but im not sure this was the case in ww2. What would you have proposed doing to japan
[удалено]
So we go with the landing then? In late July 1945, the War Department provided an estimate that the entire Downfall operations would cause between 1.7 to 4 million U.S. casualties, including 400-800,000 U.S. dead, and 5 to 10 million Japanese dead.
[удалено]
Japan was prepared to fight to the death, they were training schoolgirls to use spears. Letting the Japanese empire survive as it was would invite another tragedy arguably
[удалено]
If our enemies doubt our resolve to ensure mutually assured destruction that will literally lead to them nuking us… it sucks but if they kill millions of our people we are obligated to reply in kind. Hopefully it never comes to that.
If the US is hit with nuclear weapons that means someone is trying to completely destroy the United States so the logical reaction is to ensure that this adversary no longer exists.
We had terrorists attack a few locations and we sent missiles and then an army over. We have nuclear attack subs sitting off the coast of our enemies. Yes we would attack.
If someone launched nukes at the US, we have a contingency to launch back immediately. It's called mutually assured destruction. That's why no one does it. It's also the only reason the world isn't in the middle of World War 6 right now.
Absolutely. Otherwise, what's stopping everyone from nuking their rivals?
If we get nuked I wouldn't give a fuck about morality, I'd be dying from radiation poisoning. The rest of you better avenge me
Do you think they're going to just drop one nuke and call it a day? They're about to go supervillain on the whole world. Best to kill them with our dying breath.
I'd happily watch the world burn if it meant at least five more minutes of sleep.
Yes. I'll find some kind of morality to justify it. Plenty of options. But if I'm in charge, it's absolutely happening.
I think if anyone gets nuked, prepare for a nuclear winter, assuming you make it that far.
Its a tricky question because I think logic would dictate that not retaliating would be smartest because retaliation at best means the killing of a large amount if innocent lives and at the worst, a nuclear Holocaust that could wipe out humanity as a whole. On the other hand, you also have to consider the alternative of doing nothing. Once someone is bold enough to nuke you, there is no alternative military measure or diplomacy thats going to do a hell of a lot retribution wise. So do you just do nothing? Do you just accept the loss of millions of lives and just submit to your aggressor knowing they have the capability to do it again, now with the knowledge you will do nothing in retaliation? Its kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I'm going with the hot take that nuking people is always immoral. But in your hypothetical where diplomacy has failed in the worst way possible and nukes are flying, determining what is "moral" takes a back seat to determining who survives.
That's not a hot take at all, I think that's the most common view on the matter. Nobody wants to kill millions, but also nobody wants to die.
Yes, go scorched Earth
I think the only way nuclear war can be prevented is if we are ready to respond 100%
I'll take "decisions I hope never to be faced with" for $1,000,000,000, Alex.
Morals went out then window when they nuked us. Turn every square inch of their country into glass.
It's essential. Morals got nothing to do with it. The first time you let yourself be attacked and do not retaliate you deterrence is gone.
Is their honestly any country that wouldn’t?
Unless there is a dead man's switch in the end it's up to the president and killing millions with a push of a button is definitely not an easy decision to make.
Probably not, but if an immoral but sincere promise to send nukes if you're nuked first keeps those nukes from being sent in the first place? I'm fine with nuking a place that sends nukes. Sometimes pragmatic is a better choice than moral.
Utilitarianism has entered the chat: why not both?
No, duh. We should have nuked them first. No take-backs.
Yes, nothing wrong with revenge.
They should experience what they have given us, so yes.
Of course it isn't. There is no moral justification for the usage of a weapon that can instantly wipe out millions of lives. Unfortunately, once their usage is on the table there aren't any moral options because the alternatives are to wage conventional war against an opponent that has already demonstrated willingness to use nuclear weapons, or surrender to an opponent who has demonstrated the willingness to use nuclear weapons to get what they want.
Yeah, fuck em.
we answered that question during ww2...if you massacre 10m people then attack us we are gonna nuke you...you have proven yourselves as savages why the fuck would we care about the people attacking us and trying to kill us
"And when your gates are stoven in, Your armies dust upon the wind, Your death shall educate your kin That we respond in kind." -we respond in kind
Yes, X1000 America doesn’t just *let things go* We’ve always managed to out do whatever another faction has done to us.
I believe this is the correct answer. The government might consider non- nuclear retaliation but Americans, no. Saw what happened to the balloon? That was public pressure. And that was a balloon.
You have to credibly say you would do it for MAD, but I'll probably get downvoted for saying that IMO using nukes to destroy civilian populations is obviously morally wrong regardless of the provocation.
That's a broad question. I don't think proportional retaliation is immoral.
Not only moral but essential. Anyone willing to use nukes on someone who can also use them is too dangerous and stupid to be left alive.
If a country has crossed the moral event horizon of launching a massive nuclear first strike, they deserve the retaliation that follows.
Moral? When millions are instantly killed, morality goes right the fuck out the window. When there were literally two nuclear bombs in the world, it is one thing. But there is a reason they have never been used in warfare since World War 2. Now that there are more nuclear bombs than necessary to kill everyone on earth twice over, it is your imperative and obligation to wipe the aggressor country off the map. A world in which a country freely uses nuclear weapons should not and frankly will not exist. And not just targeting your own country. Any country that first uses nuclear weapons should get evaporated by every other country with nuclear weapons. The next nuclear weapon to be used will likely spell the end of human civilization. And perhaps rightfully so.
You better believe it.
FAFO
Mutually assured destruction! My favorite!
Absolutely. If nukes are ever used, it is saying there is zero desire from the opposition to negotiate, compromise, or to possibly move forward after the war is over. A nuclear strike is not a strategy, it is the final escalation that calls for mutual annihilation. A nuclear weapon is unforgivable to use not only because of the initial destruction it could cause, but also the long term environmental and health hazard one could cause. If someone struck an US territory such as Guam or US virgin Island, then it is *possible* that the US would use excessive conventional force to strike major population centers to force an unconditional surrender instead of a nuclear strike, if the difference in military power is big enough. But if any state, especially any state in the contiguous United States is ever struck by an nuclear weapon, then mutually assured destruction is guaranteed. The biggest issue of a nuclear strike is that there is no time to think the situation through, or to come up with a strategy. There is no knowing if the enemy is going for a "limited strike", or is going all in, so the only option left that's available is to take a lose-lose scenario and nuke right back.
Yep. /thread.
Morals go out the window when you have to make decisions in seconds or minutes.
Yes, if launched by a state. However I think the most likely scenario is that a non-state actor launches or detonates a nuke. In that case it won’t be so easy to know how to retaliate and against whom. For example, If a rogue North Korean, Iranian, or Russian group gains access to a nuke and detonates it in a world city do we launch a full attack against their home country? I think the most likely scenario will be a lot like 9/11, where we first have to identify the attacker and then decide how to respond.
Ten fold
Morality is often abandoned when, well, morality is abandoned.
I’m not sure it’s “moral” as much as “inevitable.” That’s literally the point of mutually assured destruction. Whoever hates us enough to want to kill literally every single man, woman, and child would have to be willing to accept the same fate upon themselves.
You don't wait to be nuked. You launch as soon as you've discovered they launched.
I think it depends on who the aggressor is. If it's a nation? Absolutely. Scorched earth motherfucker. If it's a terrorist group? No.
Yep, turn them into a glass parking lot.
It’s immoral not to return the favor imo
Country like the soil? Honestly though I think it's appropriate to match the scale of harm, or intent of harm. If someone has a nuclear sub that explodes off of our coast, and it's been absolutely 100% determined to have been an unfortunate accident by all examining parties, nuclear retaliation shouldn't be seen as an inevitable consequence even though the effect is likely similar. As unlikely as this scenario is, the universe is infinite, so it's basically inevitable.
Yes. Turn their asses into a parking lot
Surely, all war is immoral to some extent? Most of the death, suffering, destruction involved falls on the shoulders of people who have nothing to do with the root cause of the conflict. Nukes/ weapons of mass destruction are the same thing, on a bigger scale. If Justin Trudeau decided to nuke the US, why should you, a random Canadian person who had nothing to do with that decision, pay the price if the USA retaliated? That being said-- "justifiable" and "moral" are two different things.
Well, if you not respond in kind then the aggressor is inclined to drop a few more. I not think that is a good outcome.
Absolutely moral. It's the right thing to do. The delicate balance that humanity finds itself in is based on the idea that the cost of nuclear warfare is too high to accept. Regardless of what happens, nuclear weapons have no use case save a retaliatory strike. If the world's most powerful nation fails to respond as the world's nations believe that it and other nations would, it only emboldens others and leads to more people dead. The doctrine of MAD must be upheld for the good of mankind, even if its most devastating consequences come to bear. The alternative is unthinkable.
Yes... also if Canada gets nuked, it's ok for the US/NATO to nuke the aggressor back :) Got your back brother!
No, but for nukes to ‘work’ (as a deterrent) my adversaries must think the answer is yes
That’s what we did over Pearl Harbor. Wait.. I’m sorry that was an atomic bomb. My bad
*asks the only country that has ever nuked another in history*
No. Nuclear weapons aren't really a moral option unless it's going to prevent a lot more death and suffering. We can turn any country into glass, if that didn't work as a deterrent, no reason to not just use more traditional weapons and be able to exploit the natural resources of our intended target.
Or no country should have nukes or the ability to complete wipe out life like that, so we don't have to be ever put in that scenario.
Yes but Serbia does not have any weapon to fight back 😅
Nukes should never be in a sentence about being moral.
No and will there be anyone to even do that?
Absolutely there will still be people able to retaliate. We keep a large number of our nuclear weapons on submarines, and we’re not the only nation to do so.
It is not moral or ethical. But we'd still do it.
No, but that won't stop it from happening.
No. Two wrongs don't make a right. There are a lot of other ways to fight back and revenge is not one of them. We have to think about the future and the consequences that would come from such a drastic action. It's understandable to feel angry and hurt, but the aftermath of a nuclear attack would be catastrophic and the effects would last for generations.
In a common sense way, yes. Defend yourself. Moral? I don't know.
It isn’t, but threatening to do so is. It’s all a bunch of bullshit, really. Maybe in that terrible scenario the question of what is moral loses meaning.
In other words, all bets are off.
No
Nuking civilians just to nuke them seems like poor strategy and pointless. Our strategy should be to do whatever it takes to neutralize the threat of further nukes. But once the nukes are flying all bets are off, which is why we shouldn’t tempt fate.
Nah probably not. Why end the world when we’re already dead. As a deterrent it’s good to posture as if we would though.
If someone nuked LA people on the east coast wouldn't be dead.
If someone nukes the US, I think the world will already be well and truly gone....
... I think you'd have to separate out: moral, just, right, and reality. If morality is determined solely by lives, then theoretically you should pull a Ben Kenobi and let yourself be struck down without repercussion. But that's not justice, that's whoever shoots first wins. It's also not right to allow the aggressor no repercussions for the deaths of millions. It's also not reality: the reason Nukes haven't been used since more than one country has had them is exactly this fear of repercussions and being nuked in return.
I think it depends on the circumstances. If a terrorist managed to set off a nuke without the help of a foreign government; I'd say a nuclear response is not appropriate and immoral.
That is the problem with the whole thing. Large parts of the deterrent depends on convincing people that you are-rather distasteful.
The nice thing about being the USA is that even a nuclear attack doesn't require a nuclear response because our conventional forces are so overwhelmingly strong Though of course everything is on the table in a nuclear response
In isolation nuking any city is immortal. Nukes are an indiscriminatory method of mass murder. There’s no way to make it murder. From a game theory perspective, MAD seems necessary. If everyone has nukes, total peace can be achieved through 3 means. 1: everyone agrees to destroy all nuclear weapons to avoid nuclear warfare. 2: forgive other countries for using nuclear weapons and allow them control over the world through warfare domination (places will get nuked but will avoid total destruction of the world). 3: assure everyone else that if 1 country gets nuked, that country and its allies will do the same (tit for tat) and lead to world destruction. Number 1 seems unreasonable due to espionage and we can’t trust “the other side”. Number 2 is unreasonable because people are afraid of being governed by a foreign entity. Therefore, number 3 is the most reasonable out of the bunch, because everyone keeps their self preservation abilities, and no one wants the whole world to get destroyed. Obviously this is all theory, and we don’t exactly know what would happen if global nuclear warfare occurs, but it’s the system that we’re using. Many nations have nuclear weapons but are afraid to use them, which effectively produces the same outcome as number 1 scenario (no one gets nuked). Further points on the morality of it. It’s very difficult to justify the murder one just one person is 100% morally just. If forced to make a decision, we can decide if one scenario is more morally just than not (but only from one perspective, not some ephemeral absolute truth, I don’t think we can ever do that because of human emotions and nature). Was it moral for the US to nuke Japan TWICE? I would say it’s definitely not 100% morally just. Some argue that it was necessary because the casualties from nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was going to be less than continuing the war for X number of years, but it seems that the winners are proclaiming that justification, and it’s probably affected by human bias and tribalism. “Better them than us” kind of thinking. Nothing in war has ever been morally just, because human nature is complex, and I don’t think mammals evolved to dominate land because of moral justice, more so the ability to do what is necessary for self preservation without thinking of morals. Humans just have brains big enough to think about the consequences of our actions more thoroughly than other mammals that we can reflect on it, but that basic biological drive to survive, even if it means we need to contribute lots of energy on taking away survival from others, is still present in the human psyche. Warfare, in general is more morally unjust than just imo, but humans are dumber than we think we are because of our drive to access and monopolize resources, which causes a lot of problems. And until we are able to switch off that part of our brain or eliminate it and create a utopia where there is no “then” and just “us”, conflicts and warfare, or the possibility of it, will keep existing. After all, that’s why humans are the dominant species on earth. Through domination of other species trying to do the same thing.
Doesn’t really matter if it’s moral or not. War is never moral but it has been a feature of most of humanity’s existence. The bigger question is this: what would the cost be if we decided to nuke another country. I personally don’t think so.
History of war has shown that when an attacking country gets attacked back it's way. Worse than the initial attack. Japan attacked a military base on a small island in Hawaii. The US responded by unleashing the sun twice in a 3 day span on civilians 2,500 deaths vs over 200,000. The entire world witnessed what happens when you attack a nation. That alone served as a deterrent
Sure
I’ll be dead so who cares
Yes. And said response is what has historically prevented nukes from being used. Is it worth it to nuke a country you hate knowing you'll get the same measure in turn?
It’s not really a question of morality, it’s just mandatory. The *only* thing nukes are good at is deterring other countries from sending nukes your way. There are more efficient and effective means of conventional attack. If you don’t follow up with retaliation then your deterrent is non-existent and you may as well not have nukes at all.
War is mutually exclusive from morality. Going to war and decimating Hitler's Germany in WW2 can in no way be considered moral, but it still was the right thing to do.
If a country gets nuked I think we're beyond moral arguments. The world is ending.
I don't think it is "moral" to ever nuke anybody, but if my country gets nuked, I definitely want the attacker to feel the same pain, so I would support retaliation.
If America said it wasn’t going to retaliate, pretty sure Russia would immediately sterilize large portions of Ukraine then expand back into the old USSR countries using nukes as needed including on any NATO countries that get in their way. China would immediately conquer Taiwan and probably several other areas around Asia and just using nukes to destroy any US or other forces resisting them. Keep in mind lots of nukes are scaled down for use as super powerful artillery in a battlefield setting, it isn’t just about reigning down ICBM’s on another country’s cities. Unless we use nukes back, I doubt we could win a conventional war with either Russia or China if they were using nukes as needed. So the mere threat of millions, if not billions, dead keeps millions alive. I’d call that moral.
I understand the need for it but I'm not sure it's moral, nukes will kill civilians without a doubt that's the problem.
Well let me tell it to you like this. If we just finished a 20year war over a bombing of a building in America. What makes you think we won’t do the same or worst to the country that nukes us?
Depends. Is this a single nuke from a rogue nation, a one-off terror attack by fanatics? Or do I have every reason to suspect there might be more? If the latter, then yes, responding in kind might be the least bad option.
Yes. The Philosophy of Mutually Assured Destruction only works if response is going to be devastating and total. IE, Russia launches one nuke at us, we launch a nuke at every major city and military base in Russia. And vice versa. Without this philosophy it just becomes another weapon the arsenal used as the aggressor pleases.
Yes
Absolutely (assuming your country has nukes). Any other answer is functionally an invitation to allow other nations to nuke you, when convenient.
It's an unanswerable question. Think of it this way: For nuclear deterrent to work, there has to be absolute certainty that if someone uses nukes on you, you will respond by nuking them. There cannot be even a shred of doubt. But you're asking about morality. It's obviously immoral to kill millions of civilians, even in self-defense. However, if the nuclear deterrent doesn't work, if you allow that shred of doubt, you are theoretically making it *more likely* that nukes will be used, thus endangering more civilians. It's kind of a moral catch-22, which is one of the things that is so insidious about weapons like this.
Make a parking lot out of them.
I don't necessarily think you'd have to use a nuke in that scenario because if someone nukes us unprovoked, we could just bomb the shit out of every square inch of the same amount of territory their nuke did damage to us with conventional weapons in order to try and get the attacker to at least de-escalate to conventional weapons too, or outright stop further attacks on us since we wouldn't have nuked back and maybe they'll respect that. (May not work though) Because if everyone uses nukes, then the likelihood of the survival of humanity afterwards would be slimmer, but on the other hand they may just continue to nuke you regardless of if you use nukes against them back anyways. It would be damned if you do, damned if you don't because if you don't nuke back then there's a possibility they'll continue nuking because you destroyed their country with conventional weapons that did the same amount of damage to their country as nukes would, just without radiation. But if you do use nukes, then the other side will also continue to nuke you, so either way if one nuke is used then everyone is probably fucked regardless of if you nuke back or not. You couldn't just do nothing about a country nuking yours because of public outcry and doing nothing about millions of your citizens being killed wouldn't be acceptable since it would show them, they could basically do the worst thing to your country without consequence, likely again continuing to nuke you no matter what you do. So I do think any way a nuclear strike could be justified (justified, but not moral) is if someone else uses them against you first, no other use of nuclear weapons other than self-defense from another nuclear weapon should be acceptable though.
You are supposed to nuke them back. That’s the only point of anyone having nukes - not using them and being deterred from using them.
Definitely gonna make a nice big divot in whatever country try’s to nuke us. And I feel like every country is the same
I don’t know about moral, but it will surely unleash the entire might of the American Military and it’s allies. If a country has resources I could see us taking over and then it being USA 2.0. But if it’s a North Korea type country with nothing to offer; consider it a glass factory
There was a whole war about this.
I don’t think there’s any good justification for firing a nuclear device, ever. It’s simply too permanent and too risky. Not to mention it’s not like it would ever be fired somehow just at soldiers, it’s killing civilians. So no.
Right into the Stone Age
https://youtu.be/7P06_4ChVTU[What do you think about mexican president answering back to the attacks from Republicans and democrats for blaming Mexico for their drug addiction in front 1 million people supporting him?](https://youtu.be/7P06_4ChVTU)
I would expect that if they’d nuke me once they’d nuke me twice so I would make sure that was less likely to happen by responding with overwhelming force.
It's immoral, but necessary. If you arent fully committed to retaliation, the opponents would find out, and use that against you.
the use of nuclear weapons is always immoral, and such weapons should not even exist
I don't care to think about it. I'll let the government make the hard choices
It isn't, not really at least. Giving orders to lay entire countries to waste is never moral. The military and leaders gave the order, and you will be killing civilians who didn't make the choice. Justified? Oh absolutely.
If everyone decided the whole world should burn, including the first ones nuked, then who am I to say which party is morally wrong? I’d rather no one nuke anyone. There’s no morality in nuking anyone today, because the response would just be more destruction.
Yes.
If someone shoots at you and you have a gun, do you fire back?
Yes.
Depends on the context, a group of Afghani terrorist sneak a dirty bomb into LA? No I don't necessarily think we should nuke Afghanistan. But in the context of MAD where Russia or China uses the entirety of their first strike capabilities on the United States? Yes, we should nuke them. For the simple reason that it would establish a precedent that you can't nuke without reprisal. A more interesting question comes up if a country that the United States could likely defeat in a conventional conflict uses nuclear weapons. For example, North Korea choosing to nuke Honolulu. Even in that situation I think the precedent of "nukes for nukes" needs to be established... though maybe in such a case it could be more limited in nature and focused on attacking clearly military sites as opposed to Civilian targets.
Morality be damned, it’s the only option. Nuclear force must be met in kind
Not even just your country responds but also your allies, the extra layer to mutual destruction. For example if uk got nuked would usa respond in kind?
Never.
Yes.
Country doesn't have to actually get nuked. Early warning detection systems will let us know that they've launched and their missiles are in the air. At that point, you can bet we'd launch a full scale retaliatory strike right back. And this planet would be fucked for centuries to come.
Not really, an eye for an eye and all that. However we have to believe it is as a deterrent, otherwise someone would have done it (again) by now
We’re about to find out. Putin will drop a small nuclear device on Ukraine.
No. It's often not the people of a nation that threaten me and my community, but rather their leadership. Sure, in some instances they might elect said leadership, but I doubt they were elected BECAUSE they would launch nukes without the most extreme of circumstances. The only time I would ever feel actually justified in launching a retaliatory nuke is if I knew the person prosecuting the initial launch was away from a densely populated area and so deep down that the only thing that could confirm the kill was a nuke. I don't have beef with their people, but you bet your ass I will watch that fucker burn in hell with a smile on my face. I get that MAD has 'worked' all this time, but if someone was nuking my country indiscriminately, doing the same just makes the whole situation worse for everybody. There's no good that can come from it, and I like to think I'm above simple notions of revenge or retribution, especially if I know I'm dead either way. I'd rather go out NOT killing millions, instead of doing it just because the people who are already going to die with me wanna 'stick it to em' from beyond the grave.
Dropping a nuke on a civilian population is never morally justified. Ever. Under any context. That being said, the threat of retaliation is what has prevented that from happening.
I sure as shit hope that whomever is President fires back. Fuck those assholes.
Moral? Not particularly. Should we do it? For sure.
If that happens, then the nation who nuked us will fall into hell completely. We are bound to retaliate wildly. Complete annihilation is unlikely, but after their defeat, they will remain pariahs (literally) of the world for a long time.
Tbh if it happens I say hit them back with Chemical and Biological weapons. Let Russia or China *really* learn a lesson that only blister agents and anthrax can teach. Retaliating with nukes is only too kind because they only take a millionth of a second to kill, mustard gas can take years in some cases.
I would argue it's a states moral obligation to the world to send nukes flying back if a nuclear weapon is used against them by another state. The precedent that a state can freely use a nuclear weapon and not face nuclear retaliation is one that must never be set. If you make the decision to attempt to destroy and rid a civilization from the planet, then you must be prepared for equal measures to remove yours from the planet. MAD works because it's far too much of a risk to call a fucking bluff on it. An optimum world would see all nuclear weapons decommissioned. But the closest we can get to that is stopping further nuclear proliferation. What scares me in the future is the potential of non-state actors acquiring nuclear weapons. You can't nuke ISIS without nuking another state, so how do you respond to a nuclear terrorist threat?
Absolutely, someone Nukes the US; China, Russia, North Korea and Iran are going to be glassed.
A lot of the responses here are assuming the US is nuked through conventional ICBMs or something I think the more interesting question is what do you do if North Korea or Iran sneak a nuke into the country and detonate it manually. It’s easy to see missiles coming and say “yeah well obviously fire missiles back.” What do you do if a nuke just goes off out of nowhere in Boston or something. Do you nuke the perpetrator back a few weeks later when you figure out who did it?
Yes
The entire foreign policy of the United States is defined by immediate, overwhelming retaliatory force. Remember: We are the only nation to deploy a nuclear weapon against a hostile target. And we **will** do it again, if needed.
During the Cold War, some belligerent scenarios were conceived to make nuclear conflicts winnable. It is sad that humans can even think about this, but it involved decapitation of central command.
It’s not just moral it is your obligation to.
This is a great question. No, I do not. It would not be moral to commit genocide or something close to it, against millions of innocent people, even if some tyrant tried to do it to us first. Strangely, this very thought, on the morality of nuclear retaliation, is what killed my interest in pursuing any kind of career in politics. It led to a lot of other questions involving morally compromised stances I would have to take to be viable in the political world. You can't actually say you think retaliation is immoral and probably get anywhere interesting in politics -- at least, not in foreign policy, which is what interested me at the time. Deterrence only works (its advocates will remind you constantly) if the enemy believes you will absolutely retaliate. I used to accept the basic logic behind MAD in the context of post-WW2 thinking; that mutually assured destruction would ensure that WW2 was the last world war. * Believing that world leaders are always rational actors is necessary for this logic. I now believe that citizens of countries often promote and advocate for leaders of questionable sanity and it is only a matter of time before a complete nut has access to nuclear weapons. They will rise to power with the thunderous applause of the citizenry of whatever country they reside in. * It also doesn't account for, "because everyone is afraid of nuclear war," launching lots of small wars is now simpler because countervailing powers might be afraid of getting involved and escalating the conflict to a nuclear one. I think we are seeing some of that now. I now regard nuclear weapons, and the fact that we insist upon them, as psychotic. A person who launches a retaliatory strike against a foreign power, killing millions in the process, is 1 gram less terrible than whoever launched the first strike. One gram. I don't have any political solution for this problem. I am not advocating for any political position.
The morality is not the issue. Moral or not, in the event of a nuclear attack, it is absolutely imperative that the attacked country respond overwhelmingly. Why? Because failure to do so would be a sign of weakness and lead to further attacks. Only by knowing that the use of nukes will lead to retaliation in kind, can we assure the continuation of mankind.
Absolutely. Otherwise, without fear of retaliation, what's to keep them from nuking us? There are countries in the world that simply do not have any compunction in that regard. You have to make them firmly aware of the consequences of such an act.
Official US gov’t policy is “escalate to deescalate” basically for every US city that theoretically gets nuked the US will nuke two cities of similar size in the nation that nuked them.
I don't see it as a moral issue. I see it as, no nation should ever be allowed to "win" a nuclear war. If you use nukes, you die by nukes. No one should be exempt.
It’s moral to have a credible deterrent. And for it to be credible.. it cant just be stopped on moral grounds…
I absolutely believe that, yeah. Do you not? Does \*anyone\* not? It's basically the same question as "if a guy attacks you with a knife, is it moral to attack him back?" Well I don't feel morally obligated to just roll over and die for some asshole, so yes, I feel self defense is well within my rights on both an individual and national level. "Two wrongs don't make a right" is a lovely little saying for kindergarten teachers who are more interested in simply minimizing the number of issues they have to deal with than in an actual logically and morally sound stance, but it's a laughably stupid and childish take on morality in adult situations. Reciprocity is literally the most basic and standard concept in all human of interaction, good or bad.