The "other" options in a Nuclear warfare

[Chinese-Dragon]

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

Which would be a pity, because 99.999% of the casualties on both sides would be innocent civilians.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Which would be a pity, because 99.999% of the casualties on both sides would be innocent civilians.

I may be wrong about this but don't most American nukes target strategic military targets? I think both the Soviets and the Americans followed this line of thinking through the Cold War.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

I may be wrong about this but don't most American nukes target strategic military targets? I think both the Soviets and the Americans followed this line of thinking through the Cold War.

Yes they target military and strategic assets.

However if war breaks out between the USA and North Korea there are going to be millions of dead civilians, no matter which way you cut it.

North Korea for instance points most of it's weapons at Seoul, which is very close to the North Korean border. The Seoul National Capital Area contains around half the South Korean population, around 25 million people.

At the first hint of a war, North Korea is going to unleash everything it has, in the direction of Seoul, up to and including any nuclear weapons that are available.

It's going to be worse than Vietnam by far, in terms of civilian death tolls.

And if the North Korean government collapses, then millions of North Korean refugees will stream over the border into China, and create an unimaginable humanitarian crisis for China as well.

As bad as it sounds, the best thing we can do is to maintain the status quo and hope that Kim Jong-Il's son is not as crazy as he is.

 

[applesauce]

the point of a first strike is to eliminate your enemies with one hit or at the very least hit them hard enough that they cant cause anywhere near the amount of damage you did to them. thus a first strike will not be on the level of Hiroshima, it will be far greater, thus anyone country on the receiving side must retaliate in full as much as it can. there is no other option.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

the point of a first strike is to eliminate your enemies with one hit or at the very least hit them hard enough that they cant cause anywhere near the amount of damage you did to them. thus a first strike will not be on the level of Hiroshima, it will be far greater, thus anyone country on the receiving side must retaliate in full as much as it can. there is no other option.

True... but what about nuclear submarines?

America, China, Russia, UK, etc. all have nuclear submarines, so it is likely that such nations can still strike back after they have been attacked... and still cause unacceptable losses.

 

[below_freezing]

Depends on what "unacceptable losses" are.

is losing 80% of your population to make the enemy lose 99% of his worth it?

 

[Markus]

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

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

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

Please elaborate on the anti-oxygen weapons that you had pointed out in your post.

Are you referring to Napalm or any other chemical weapon?

 

[gambit]

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

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

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

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



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

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


So whats your option and why?

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

No country is going to have a limited response to a nuclear strike. Likewise, no country is going to initiate a nuclear conflict without assuring itself that the first strike will cripple the enemy to the point of unable to respond.

 

[applesauce]

True... but what about nuclear submarines?

America, China, Russia, UK, etc. all have nuclear submarines, so it is likely that such nations can still strike back after they have been attacked... and still cause unacceptable losses.

hence there have been no wars between those powers

 

[nietzche]

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

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

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

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



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

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


So whats your option and why?

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

Bombensturm: Apologies ..have been busy.

Option 4 is predicated on this - How many Hiroshima's to begin with has been inflicted in the first strike?

Consider a conventional Indian assault on Pakistan. The strike corps would be penetrating deep into the thar and cholistan deserts severing Sindh and Punjab. (Ofcourse Cold Start and concepts of "Limited War" under Nuclear Overhang are meant to be below the adversaries nuclear threshold) If this scenario appears likely then it is a declared Pakistani policy that nukes would be used. Considering that it would be a beaten army with its finger to the button the policy may well be enforced. Question is would it be used on the invading army (if so - where?) or on population centres? Conflicting signals on this. If it is the former then a more measured Indian response is likely in line with option 2 or 4. If it is the latter then it could well be option 1 and doomsday. Again the defeated state (actors - in this case the Pakistani army) may well decide to unload everything they have - what do they have to lose anyways and may be based on the assumption that a nuclear strike is a nuclear strike and will bring on an overwhelming response.Better to use your weapons than lose them in the expected crippling second strike. Religious irrationality which is a part of the psyche of the Pakistani military may also play a part. I am sure these game theory scenarios have all been war gamed.

What is certain though is that whatever the contours of a Pakistani preemptive nuclear strike ,the Pakistani state is unlikely to survive the aftermath - intact.