U.S. Nuclear Retaliatory Response

If a rogue nation such as Iran or North Korea attacks a neighbor with a nuclear weapon, what would the U.S. response look like? Would it be with Trident and/or Minuteman MIRV ballistic missiles, or simpler hydrogen bombs dropped from bombers? I know our strategic missiles can be fired on pretty much anywhere in the world with little notice, but how long would it take to prepare a response from bombers? What type of bombs are available and have they been updated recently with smartbomb technology etc.? Thanks...

[edit on 5/17/2005 by djohnsto77]

From what I understand, Bush already has a full drawn-out plan of retaliation at the detonation of ANY nuclear weapon on ANY area from North Korea. He already has plans to declare war on them if this happens. (And he is the man we let lead our nation...) I read an article on this a bit back, I'll see if I can find it, but I'm pretty sure that would be the response of the U.S., as far as our government goes.

Well, I couldn't find the article, but it was an ATSNN News article not too long ago. It said that Bush had a drawn out plan, and would go to war with North Korea if it performed a nuclear test. It actually said that if there was enough evidence to the fact that they were going to do it, he would actually run a pre-emptive strike to hit them before they can detonate it.

Sorry I can't find the article though, I'll keep looking.

Well that's neither here nor there, I'm just wondering (since this is the weaponry forum) what type of nuclear weapons the U.S. would use in such a strike against a rogue state.

Here I'm assuming it would be in retaliation to an aggressive first strike by that state, but it could just as easily be preemptive.

I actually think this is just another excuse for Bush to fund another war, and take even more power and influence and that region...I wouldn't think that we would retaliate with any high powered bombs like hydrogen, atomic, etc., because that would be the very thing we are stopping them from doing, and even Bush isn't ignorant enough to do that. My guess is, it would be a war similar to the ones we have fought against Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, if they were to target a nuclear weapon at the United States, and it was successful, and possibly even if it wasn't successful, that is the time I suspect that Bush and the government think that they have enough of an excuse to retaliate with nuclear weaponry. Otherwise, I think it would be similar to a pre-emptive strike via troops. I hope this made sense, and I'm answering what you asked

As you've already mentioned the US has their ICBM's and SLBM's, they also have the B-61 dial a yield thermonuclear gravity bomb. This can be delivered by almost any plane in the US inventory.
They could also very quickly rearm Tomahawks with nuclear warheads if the need arose.

As for nuclear war plans for North Korea, this is nothing new. The US has a plans to attack just about every country with nuclar weapons even Mexico. The same goes for Russia, France and England.

Dear all,

We are all assuming that a nuclear attack on US or its interests would result in a nuclear response.

This does not necessarily follow.

Cheers

BHR

The Army dissolved it's nuclear arsenal, in accordance with the INF Treaty. That included the Lance and Pershing II missile systems, and some howitzer fired projectiles( the M454(155mm) and the M423CA1E1( Old 8")). So everything would have to be Navy or Air Force aresenal.

Originally posted by nathraq
The Army dissolved it's nuclear arsenal, in accordance with the INF Treaty. That included the Lance and Pershing II missile systems, and some howitzer fired projectiles( the M454(155mm) and the M423CA1E1( Old 8")). So everything would have to be Navy or Air Force aresenal.

Well, to hit targets in North Korea and Iran, artillery shells would be pretty much useless. They were pretty much retired because there was no need for them especially with the B-61 dial a yield weapon.

Most likely a weapon would be delivered by n aircraft unless a general nuc;ear exchange were to happen between significant nuclear powers. That's when the large ICBM warheads would come into play.

Originally posted by rogue1

Well, to hit targets in North Korea and Iran, artillery shells would be pretty much useless. They were pretty much retired because there was no need for them especially with the B-61 dial a yield weapon.

Most likely a weapon would be delivered by n aircraft unless a general nuc;ear exchange were to happen between significant nuclear powers. That's when the large ICBM warheads would come into play.

We have artillery units in South Korea, where these weapons were stationed.

We also had these weapon systems in Turkey.

The Lance and the Pershing II could have hit targets within Iranian territory, and in Asia, artillery fired nukes could have hit N. Korean troop bases and small cities.

it depends what they nuke or try to nuke. If they make a contotnetal us hit then that country is ash... full nuke exchange.

now if its intersepted eather a limited exchange and a ground war if they nuke the ground troops full nuke exchange agine.

if nuke on allied turf odds of limited nuking with ground war also.

Originally posted by nathraq
We have artillery units in South Korea, where these weapons were stationed. ...... artillery fired nukes could have hit N. Korean troop bases and small cities.

There isn't much within artillery range of the North Korean boarder worthy of a nuke,. besides South korea would probably get some of the fallout. Seoul is only 40 km from the boarder.

We also had these weapon systems in Turkey.

Yes and they are completely useless in Turkey.

The Lance and the Pershing II could have hit targets within Iranian territory, and in Asia,

Well, the lance would be of very limited use, the Pershing though has a 1400km range really making it a medium range missile rather than a tactical weapon. Anyway I was only talking about artillery shells and short systems in that category.

A nuclear strike against North Korea would almost assuredly be in the form of a B-2 delivering a SRAM-A.

It has superior capabilities against a third-rate and well-known air defense system.

Target of choice can be changed after launch of both the aircraft and the weapon system, to a lesser extent.

It has the ability for re-attack, should the first missile substantially miss its target, or fail to detonate.

SRAMs have a warhead that is more tailored to tactical attacks (such as against a NK missile launch complex, or NK C3CI facilities), and not against general populations.

It has the ability to be called back, if required.

It would not be detected and cause fear and panic amoung other nuclear nations (such as China and Russia) prior to weapon detonation, as would be the case of the launch of an ICBM or SLBM.

No.. I still think if a minnow like NK or Iran..(I doubt Iran will nuke theUS unless the US try and invade to "liberate" the opppressed Iranian ppl :@@
would nuke the US then the US may not exact the return..THey'd definitely launch a full scale offensive.. but nuking again I doubt..
That country's screwed anyhow..The US has to think of the future and its image in the international community.. esp. after the iraq blunder..

Everyone check out this thread :

US ready to launch nuke attacks on hostile countries: Report

Like Daedalus, I'm not so sure we'd nuke them back, as I'm sure we'd want to go in there.

If we did nuke them, it'd be a low yield nuke on thier known nuclear sites.

I hope this doesn`t happen , as , `nukes` have only been used in anger twice ; and IMO , as soon as anyone uses one , and someone else responds , then the gloves come off everyone - which could mean nuclear weapons to `solve` the IND/PAK issue`s , russia solving chechnya by wiping the country off the map etc.

NK , has ICBM capability - so , say there is a pre emptive presision strike , and NK gets off a missile , who gets hit? LA? `frisco? hawaii? - even a `small` 500kt warhead would flatten alot of real estate

Originally posted by Pyros
A nuclear strike against North Korea would almost assuredly be in the form of a B-2 delivering a SRAM-A.

The SRAM is no longer in service due to START limitations. The B-2 would probably use B-61 bombs - whereas the B-52 would use ALCM-N's against poorly defended targets and the ACM "Stealth" cruise missile against well defended targets.

However, it takes at least 12-24 hours to get a bomber on target with no warning, whereas an ICBM could get the job done (and not car about defense systems) in about 30 minutes, a SLBM a little less if it is already on alert (which they aren't normally, it takes a while to get to the correct depth/speed and align the missiles) - TLAM-N from subs could probably also strike in under an hour.

If there is advanced warning however, a bomber is the weapon of choice...

But NK might counter attack :

Check out this thread : North Korea to Conduct Nuclear Tests in June:Top Russian Politician

Originally posted by Pyros
It would not be detected and cause fear and panic amoung other nuclear nations (such as China and Russia) prior to weapon detonation, as would be the case of the launch of an ICBM or SLBM.

This was what I was worried about a ballistic missile stike. China and Russia are nearby to Iran and North Korea, and probably wouldn't be too happy with us launching them in their direction.

From the responses to the thread, it seems there's a consensus that the U.S. does have plenty of nuclear gravity bombs ready to deploy with bombers whenever needed.