Nuclear Retaliation

[BigBallinStalin]

If Russia were to attack the missile defense sites in Poland, let's say that NATO responds by deploying its military forces to counter-attack or resist the Russian attack. This escalates into a nuclear war with the US, UK, France, etc. against Russia.

Let's say 95% of the populations of North American, Europe, and Russia is destroyed. This happens primarily because the US didn't want to end building a missile defense system in Poland.


1) Is nuclear retaliation the correct choice?
If yes, then how do you justify getting all these people killed so that the US can continuing building those missile defense sites?



Lagniappe conversation-starters:
2) Given the massive loss of innocent lives and given that foreign policy is hardly controlled by their civil societies, should nuclear weapons actually be used for their intended purposes?

3) Does the US expansion of its global security lead to less stability?

[DiM]

i played all the games in the fallout series. i'd have no problem surviving in your scenario

[Sniper08]

it will never go that far, even if russia attacks the missile sites, the west wont fire the first nuke as they would win a convential war against russia.

the idea that russia would attack is just stupid , they are just posturing at this point, their military is in no ways as good as it was in soviet times plus they are at the moment reducing their military to under a million active and the european nato countries would probably win a convential war without america getting involved although it would be very costly.

[BigBallinStalin]

it will never go that far, even if russia attacks the missile sites, the west wont fire the first nuke as they would win a convential war against russia.

the idea that russia would attack is just stupid , they are just posturing at this point, their military is in no ways as good as it was in soviet times plus they are at the moment reducing their military to under a million active and the european nato countries would probably win a convential war without america getting involved although it would be very costly.

It's not just about the "idea that X would attack." Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? The Russians weren't building missiles in Cuba and then planned on launching them immediately--regardless of the consequences. Foreign policymakers tend to view this posturing and power projection capabilities (e.g. missile defense systems, nuclear weapons) as part of the balance of power. That's what this is about.

The Russians expect that the US building NMD systems in Poland will definitely decrease their future abilities to project power. Their nuclear threat deterrent becomes less significant if the US can simply shoot down their nuclear weapons. This is what concerns most of the chief Russian policymakers. Therefore, the Russians have a lot to lose if the US continues construction in the Poland.

All diplomacy is about posturing, but it's made credible with military threat (i.e. power projection). The Russian government is capable of knocking out those missile sites, but are they willing to do so? No one really knows at the moment. And, would the US policymakers like to gamble in order to find out--especially when their forces are dealing with a global war on terror, reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq, and containing Iran?

Do the costs really outweigh the benefits?

[BigBallinStalin]

The Russians are taking advantage of a great opportunity, given the relative weakness of the US (NATO) military at the moment. They want something, and they expect to get it. So what do they want? And for what?

1) The military posturing will induce a sense of crisis within Russia, thus consolidating Putin's control over his country.
2) They want to trade something for the US NMD in Poland.

For example, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the US and the Russians were at a stand-still. The Russians eventually were willing to withdraw, but like any exchange they wanted something for their cooperation. Two or so years later, the US dismantles the Juniper missiles in Turkey.

The Russian posturing is opening a dialogue with the US. It's a form of trade involving the risk of global war, so it shouldn't be dismissed so easily.

[Sniper08]

the difference with the cuban missile crisis is the russians were on par with the US in terms of strength, nowadays they cant hope to win a war so if push comes to shove they would be the ones backing down.

the russians are clearly in a phase of trying to re-establish themselves as a global power as well as deterring Nato from expanding east. they were quick to invade georgia on 08 to prove they are still capable of such and to warn Nato about expanding into that country.with putin in power and his tough guy persona they will continue to be confrontationalists with the west in international matters.almost everything the americans want to do at the UN the russians oppose it.

what would they want out of america for letting them put a missile shield up?

[BigBallinStalin]

I agree that the Russian and US power are unequal in regards to the global scene, but it depends on the means. For example, the US can deploy a force of 150,000 men 8000 miles away and with air power render useless a country's military in a matter of weeks (Iraq 1 and Iraq 2), and I'll admit that the Russians aren't capable of such power even though the Russians with the Chinese are capable of conducting such an operation against Taiwan (judging from their Shanghai Cooperation Organization military exercises, in the mid 2000s IIRC).

But since both sides have capable nuclear weapons, then their power to retaliate becomes equal in that sense. Countries with capable nuclear weapons tend to not get invaded by state-level armed forces (substate forces are different, e.g. terrorists).

So, in the Eastern European region, I can imagine that the Russians are capable enough of knocking out the missile sites in Poland very quickly (say, one or two days)--especially since US resources are tied down in other regions. In this sense, Russian power is definitely worrisome.


What do the Russians want? If I told you that, I'd be neutralized! Just kidding, honestly, I'm not sure. You should send Obama an email!

Maybe it appear in the form of "free"-trade agreement, or a loosening of those restrictions, and the missile sites are dismantled. Maybe the World Bank would be "strongly encouraged" to lend Russia more conditional loans, so the missile site building continues. And let's not forget, the EU is involved in this, so loans and trade with Russia might be altered with their members.

It depends on a lot in the uncertain future. Russia could threaten to remove itself from nuclear treaties too. Shit's serious.

[DiM]

the difference with the cuban missile crisis is the russians were on par with the US in terms of strength, nowadays they cant hope to win a war so if push comes to shove they would be the ones backing down

when nukes are deployed there's no winner. even if russia has less conventional troops it still has a lot of nukes. more than enough to destroy the whole world, not just usa.

[Sniper08]

the difference with the cuban missile crisis is the russians were on par with the US in terms of strength, nowadays they cant hope to win a war so if push comes to shove they would be the ones backing down

when nukes are deployed there's no winner. even if russia has less conventional troops it still has a lot of nukes. more than enough to destroy the whole world, not just usa.

im talking a convential war without nukes as we all know the oourcome with nukes

I agree that the Russian and US power are unequal in regards to the global scene, but it depends on the means. For example, the US can deploy a force of 150,000 men 8000 miles away and with air power render useless a country's military in a matter of weeks (Iraq 1 and Iraq 2), and I'll admit that the Russians aren't capable of such power even though the Russians with the Chinese are capable of conducting such an operation against Taiwan (judging from their Shanghai Cooperation Organization military exercises, in the mid 2000s IIRC).

taiwan is a heavyily fortitied island so a quick knockout isnt guarenteed in a war. they have a few hundred fighters to defend themselves and airpower was the key to american strategy in gulf war. without intervention i doubt they would hold out for more than a couple months.

So, in the Eastern European region, I can imagine that the Russians are capable enough of knocking out the missile sites in Poland very quickly (say, one or two days)--especially since US resources are tied down in other regions. In this sense, Russian power is definitely worrisome.

sure they could knock it out with just a few long range missiles

But since both sides have capable nuclear weapons, then their power to retaliate becomes equal in that sense. Countries with capable nuclear weapons tend to not get invaded by state-level armed forces (substate forces are different, e.g. terrorists).

ofcourse thats the whole point in having nukes in the first place to prevent war

What do the Russians want? If I told you that, I'd be neutralized! Just kidding, honestly, I'm not sure. You should send Obama an email!

Maybe it appear in the form of "free"-trade agreement, or a loosening of those restrictions, and the missile sites are dismantled. Maybe the World Bank would be "strongly encouraged" to lend Russia more conditional loans, so the missile site building continues. And let's not forget, the EU is involved in this, so loans and trade with Russia might be altered with their members.

the americans have been to full of it up to now to back down with the missile sites so i doubt they would be dismantled. my guess is they want a free pass like deal at the UN or in eastern europe where nato countries wont oppose what they will do.

[saxitoxin]

There's a myth that nuclear war is not survivable, perpetuated perhaps by the idea that the nuclear powers plan to target each others cities. A nation striking first will always try to uncover their own targets by neutralizing the enemies ability to retaliate, rather than waste them on population centers.

France and UK only have 25% of their nuclear arsenal deployed at a time, all loaded onto a single SSBN. If the Red Banner Northern Fleet is able to intercept these two subs (whether by plan or merely happy accident) they'll move quickly to hit Argyll, Scotland and the air bases used by the Force de Frappe in France with nukes before the British and French reserve weapons can be brought online. They have no need to use nuclear weapons against other places like London or Paris. France and the UK will immediately surrender once their deterrents have been destroyed.

The U.S. is a different story as the American nuclear forces are infinitely survivable due to greater quantity, variety of deployment platforms and a wider and deeper geography to encamp them. But the U.S. is not going to risk global nuclear war just because a couple low-yield nukes hit the UK and France. Once that happens the U.S. will request a negotiated settlement with Russia.

Most likely the Americans won't be interested in being tied to Europe after two of its major economies have been atomized and will agree to respect a Russian sphere-of-influence over the continent in exchange for some concession like Russian non-interference in the Pacific or cooperation against China.

[saxitoxin]

But the U.S. is not going to risk global nuclear war just because a couple low-yield nukes hit the UK and France. Once that happens the U.S. will request a negotiated settlement with Russia.

Best case scenario ... worst case, the U.S. will order the German and Dutch air forces to retaliate against Russian front-line positions with nuclear weapons. (This is the whole point, of course, of the U.S. "nuclear sharing" program - the U.S. can use nukes against Russia via a proxy state so it doesn't subject North America to possible retaliation and only the proxy state [Germany or Holland] is risked.)

[BigBallinStalin]

the difference with the cuban missile crisis is the russians were on par with the US in terms of strength, nowadays they cant hope to win a war so if push comes to shove they would be the ones backing down

when nukes are deployed there's no winner. even if russia has less conventional troops it still has a lot of nukes. more than enough to destroy the whole world, not just usa.

im talking a convential war without nukes as we all know the oourcome with nukes

I agree that the Russian and US power are unequal in regards to the global scene, but it depends on the means. For example, the US can deploy a force of 150,000 men 8000 miles away and with air power render useless a country's military in a matter of weeks (Iraq 1 and Iraq 2), and I'll admit that the Russians aren't capable of such power even though the Russians with the Chinese are capable of conducting such an operation against Taiwan (judging from their Shanghai Cooperation Organization military exercises, in the mid 2000s IIRC).

taiwan is a heavyily fortitied island so a quick knockout isnt guarenteed in a war. they have a few hundred fighters to defend themselves and airpower was the key to american strategy in gulf war. without intervention i doubt they would hold out for more than a couple months.

So, in the Eastern European region, I can imagine that the Russians are capable enough of knocking out the missile sites in Poland very quickly (say, one or two days)--especially since US resources are tied down in other regions. In this sense, Russian power is definitely worrisome.

sure they could knock it out with just a few long range missiles

But since both sides have capable nuclear weapons, then their power to retaliate becomes equal in that sense. Countries with capable nuclear weapons tend to not get invaded by state-level armed forces (substate forces are different, e.g. terrorists).

ofcourse thats the whole point in having nukes in the first place to prevent war

What do the Russians want? If I told you that, I'd be neutralized! Just kidding, honestly, I'm not sure. You should send Obama an email!

Maybe it appear in the form of "free"-trade agreement, or a loosening of those restrictions, and the missile sites are dismantled. Maybe the World Bank would be "strongly encouraged" to lend Russia more conditional loans, so the missile site building continues. And let's not forget, the EU is involved in this, so loans and trade with Russia might be altered with their members.

the americans have been to full of it up to now to back down with the missile sites so i doubt they would be dismantled. my guess is they want a free pass like deal at the UN or in eastern europe where nato countries wont oppose what they will do.

If we can agree on these points, then the Cuban Missile Crisis scenario is then relevant. Why? The MAD incentive still holds as well, just as it did during the Cuban Missile Crisis (CMC). And even more troublesome: the relative power of Russia in the Eastern Europe region is greater than the US-NATO power at the present moment, given the US-NATO involvement in current issues already mentioned.

The main point about my bringing up CMC was that countries of equivalent power will negotiate and trade. Given that the difference in power within Eastern Europe at this time between Russia and the US + NATO is slanted in Russia's favor, I am led to believe that the Russians have more bargaining power; therefore, we can reasonably expect the US to offer the Russians something in order for them to quiet down.

(patches and probably others seem to think otherwise, and I mention this with you in order to show that yes, a Russian attack would be crass, but it's the capability and threat of their attack (posturing) will require some offer by the US. That's all!


Regarding Taiwan, that point is to show that Russia isn't some puny country whose demands can be safely ignored. The western and southwestern coasts of Taiwan are similar to the coasts of China's Jinan province, which was the area that the NCO (China + Russia + lol small countries) held that exercise.

To address your last point, the US also invested much into the Juniper missiles in Turkey. Then, they were removed... (or massively scaled down).

[AndyDufresne]

"India Warns Kashmiris to Prepare for Nuclear War" (NY Times Reporting)

If you live in the region, you should stock up on food and water and construct some basements evidently.


--Andy

[DoomYoshi]

I played all the games in the Tetris series. I would have no problem surviving your proposed scenario.

[rdsrds2120]

I played all the games in the Tetris series. I would have no problem surviving your proposed scenario.

Stacks on stacks on stacks on stacks.

BMO