Would Deploying Nukes Be a Measured Response to Bio-Weapons Attack

originally posted by: SailorJerry

originally posted by: CthruU
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Yeah lets deal with nuclear fallout/winter as well as current affairs.

What a stupid shortsighted question.

We deserve a plague

Darwin would be proud

I think I would be ok with this. Nature's forest fire, burning away dead growth/dead weight. We don't have enough producers to support a growing number of parasites...

And we need an event like this to sober up the drunken liberals who just think "everything's FINE, man! just give everyone whatever they want, let people come and go as they please, let everyone F whoever, whatever, whenever, wherever, however... nothing matters let's just party and seek pleasure and just not worry about protecting our culture and civilization which our ancestors handed down over the millenia and which is the greatest thing humanity has collectively produced..."

a reply to: AtomicKangaroo

edit: oh and my words seem to have triggered you and hurt ya feelz. excellent.

You get pleasure from hurting others but you wanna lecture the United States of G(osh) D(arned) America on morality?

a reply to: Deplorable
That is what I was thinking. A precision strike using a tactical nuke would ensure the bio threat at that facility is sanitized from existence. I think if it is ever confirmed that China caused all this from a bio weapons research program, the facility in question could and should be sanitized properly with sun fire.

originally posted by: wantsome
George Bush told Saddam during the first gulf war if he used chemical weapons we would use nukes.

I don't think we ever explicitly said we would. As I recall, Bush gave the Iraqi ambassador a letter that said if he was thinking about using chemical or biological weapons, we'd remind you America is a nuclear power.

I also remember an interview with Colin Powell where he said that was almost certainly a bluff. The political cost would've been too high to retaliate with even a tactical nuclear weapon, unless, as Zaph said, the chemical attack resulted in massive causalties, like 10s of thousands of coalition troops dead.

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: CthruU
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Yeah lets deal with nuclear fallout/winter as well as current affairs.

What a stupid shortsighted question.

Fallout from destroying a few buildings?

Some people don't know anything about nuclear weapons aside from environmentalist propaganda. They don't realize that literally thousands of nuclear bombs have been test-detonated, and we haven't seen a nuclear winter. They think if we set off a few nukes it'll be the end of the world. Especially tactical nuclear weapons, the global environmental impact is minimal.

The political cost of using nuclear weapons, precisely because of the decades of fear around them, is mostly why they aren't used. Between the superpowers, it's the fear of it escalating into a MAD situation, but among the smaller nuclear powers, like Israel, they don't use nukes on their enemies because the gain isn't worth the setback that would follow. Any country that used a nuclear weapon today would face serious economic consequences from the rest of the world. It would make the usual "sanctions" play look like a tap on the shoulder.

a reply to: face23785

Exactly

More than 4 thousand nuclear weapons have been detonated on Earth. Above ground. More than 1 thousand of them in Utah alone.

People still live in Utah

NO, a resounding no, in answer to your OP, as there is no way to tell who released what where. That would be the absolutely worst response, given the times and circumstances we live in.
SMH
regards and stay safe,
tetra

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Could radicals in The Communist party somehow muster enough votes or pledges or whatever their inner party system does for power to authorize a retaliatory tactical nuclear response?? I believe it has been wrongly speculated that China would not be a first strike aggressor in some circles and think tanks.

As soon as they launch we can detect that their nukes are headed our way. We launch back immediately.

You're assuming they would launch ballistic nuclear missiles. A tactical nuclear strike, like the OP is talking about, would likely be conducted by bombing from aircraft or with a standoff weapon.

a reply to: face23785

And all China could hit that way is Guam or our bases in Japan.

a reply to: face23785

There's a big difference though. There were 4,000+ nuclear weapons set off over decades of testing. The nuclear winter scenario was after hundreds of weapons were set off in a matter of hours. You can spread them out over years with no effect. But set off a smaller number in rapid succession and you get a totally different effect.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: face23785

There's a big difference though. There were 4,000+ nuclear weapons set off over decades of testing. The nuclear winter scenario was after hundreds of weapons were set off in a matter of hours. You can spread them out over years with no effect. But set off a smaller number in rapid succession and you get a totally different effect.

True enough, but in this case we're responding to a commenter who thinks a tactical nuclear strike will cause a nuclear winter.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Could radicals in The Communist party somehow muster enough votes or pledges or whatever their inner party system does for power to authorize a retaliatory tactical nuclear response?? I believe it has been wrongly speculated that China would not be a first strike aggressor in some circles and think tanks.

As soon as they launch we can detect that their nukes are headed our way. We launch back immediately.

You're assuming they would launch ballistic nuclear missiles. A tactical nuclear strike, like the OP is talking about, would likely be conducted by bombing from aircraft or with a standoff weapon.

Bombing from an aircraft? Hahaha which aircraft? You do realize it would take hundreds of aircraft to pull that off right? Explain your scenario in detail please, I'm ready for a good laugh.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Could radicals in The Communist party somehow muster enough votes or pledges or whatever their inner party system does for power to authorize a retaliatory tactical nuclear response?? I believe it has been wrongly speculated that China would not be a first strike aggressor in some circles and think tanks.

As soon as they launch we can detect that their nukes are headed our way. We launch back immediately.

You're assuming they would launch ballistic nuclear missiles. A tactical nuclear strike, like the OP is talking about, would likely be conducted by bombing from aircraft or with a standoff weapon.

Bombing from an aircraft? Hahaha which aircraft? You do realize it would take hundreds of aircraft to pull that off right? Explain your scenario in detail please, I'm ready for a good laugh.

I think you have an overestimation of just how ready our overseas bases and some of our ships are for a surprise attack. Same thing Americans thought about the homeland before 9/11. If anybody tries anything, we'll scramble hundreds of fighters and SAMs will come up out of the ground!

In reality, not so much. And who says they have to attack an air base? Chinese and Russian planes routinely fly close to our ships and we do nothing in response. It would be a simple matter to make it look like they're doing that again, and suddenly this time it's for real.

a reply to: AtomicKangaroo

good old times where the US government were responsible for the majority of the conspiracies avaible. I think that conservatives here got the bad disease called donald trump blindness

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Hardly. A few bombers flying what appears to be a routine mission, and launching missiles. Depending on the missile they don't even have to enter radar range.

a reply to: face23785

If the Chinese objective was only to hit the location they identified as where the virus originated from they'd have to use an ICBM though. China doesn't have the ability to fly a bomber close to CONUS and launch a missile that could reach the target area.

If all they were interested in was starting a war, they easily could by hitting targets in the Pacific.

a reply to: face23785

Yes, a tactical weapon isn't going to. But mentioning all the test weapons is irrelevant to the discussion.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
If the Chinese objective was only to hit the location they identified as where the virus originated from they'd have to use an ICBM though. China doesn't have the ability to fly a bomber close to CONUS and launch a missile that could reach the target area.

I'm aware, but as we've both pointed out, that's not necessary. There are plenty of ways to "attack America" without hitting the CONUS.

If all they were interested in was starting a war, they easily could by hitting targets in the Pacific.

Thats exactly what I was getting at. IF China thought we had done some kind of massive biological attack on them, and IF they decided they wanted to retaliate with a tactical nuclear strike, as the OP asked, they absolutely could. They wouldn't have to attack mainland U.S. to accomplish this. And they wouldn't need hundreds of aircraft to do it.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: face23785

Yes, a tactical weapon isn't going to. But mentioning all the test weapons is irrelevant to the discussion.

How so? We've test detonated tons of strategic nuclear bombs with much higher yields. If he thinks a tactical nuclear strike is gonna cause nuclear winter, surely a strategic weapon, some of which are over 1000 times more powerful, could render such an effect in just one test. Yet we've done many such tests, with no nuclear winter.

a reply to: Zaphod58

lets not forget the lower yield new warhead for the minuteman and the new low yield gravity JDAM dial a yield bomb.

i would think a running/active BS4 lab that released something on the US would almost have to be nuked because of the high heat compaired to a normal bomb.

i would not take chances of hitting facilities actively making these nasty world ending bugs with anything less than a small nuclear explosion

a reply to: face23785

Because mentioning the numbers makes it sound like you're saying a nuclear winter wouldn't happen under any circumstances. Pointing out the years of testing and it not happening is, IMO, a better way to say it.