Response to nuclear detonation on US soil

[nerdgirl 0]

If a nuclear device (not a radiological dispersive device or ‘dirty’ bomb) was successfully detonated on US soil by a foreign terrorist group, would there be an “upswell” from the US citizenry supporting or demanding retaliation with nuclear weapons?

VR/Marg

p.s. I'm waiting til there are a few votes up there before I cast a vote.

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Lefty 0]

I voted "unlikely". I'd like to think that even the most short-sighted of us would see the drawbacks of a ham-fisted approach like that.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[akarunway 1]

Quote

I voted "unlikely". I'd like to think that even the most short-sighted of us would see the drawbacks of a ham-fisted approach like that.

Well. If we'd quit meddling in other countries beewax MAYBE they'd quit fucking w/ us.(USA). Let em fight their own battles. I am so sick of this shit I wanna puke.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[warpedskydiver 0]

I voted no, there is only one candidate that would retaliate, even if we knew which country was complicit via manufacturing, and logistics.

[Lefty 0]

Quote

Quote

I voted "unlikely". I'd like to think that even the most short-sighted of us would see the drawbacks of a ham-fisted approach like that.

Well. If we'd quit meddling in other countries beewax MAYBE they'd quit fucking w/ us.(USA). Let em fight their own battles. I am so sick of this shit I wanna puke.

I hope you're not referring to what I said...it would be way off topic if you were.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[Andrewwhyte 1]

If there was a clear national government that was responsible I do not believe the C in C would wait for a national upswelling, nor should they. If a nuclear attack is not met with the same in kind the deterrence value of the nuclear arsenal would be gone.
However, if it was the work of Al Queda or a similar, stateless group, I don't think the president would be able to build a case like they did for the invasion of Afghanistan. The world community does matter; they gave their enthusiastic OK to Afghanistan, and a somewhat reluctant "uh huh" to Iraq. That would not be the case for a nuclear attack.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I voted no, there is only one candidate that would retaliate, even if we knew which country was complicit via manufacturing, and logistics.

Admittedly it's hard to disentangle from the views of the elected politicians (which after all, are intended to represent the views of their electorate) ... I'm most curious about opinions on what you think will be the response from the wider populace, particularly those outside the Beltway.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Amazon 7]

I think there would be a great outcry for it.... I also think that our system of government would no longer exist... and the American experiment of government by the people would be over.

[Lefty 0]

Quote

I also think that our system of government would no longer exist... and the American experiment of government by the people would be over.

Why's that?

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Quote

I also think that our system of government would no longer exist... and the American experiment of government by the people would be over.

Why's that?

I ... am ... the road warrior!!!

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Amazon 7]

Our "government" will over react to "protect" us fro the EvilDoers.

[billvon 3,009]

>I'd like to think that even the most short-sighted of us would see
>the drawbacks of a ham-fisted approach like that.

There is no limit to how stupid people can be.

[FreeflyChile 0]

I think so...almost certainly.

First people would want revenge. Then on the news, people would hear about the talking heads reporting that the US policy regarding a nuke attack is to go nuclear as well (at least, i'm under the impression that is the policy, please correct me if i am mistaken), which would only further stir the hornets nest.

I think it largely depends where this nuke is set off. If its set off in the middle of Iowa and a few farms are blown up, the uproar would not be nearly what it is if the nuke was set off in downtown Manhattan.

I just remember hearing people on 9/11 calling for nukes (general populous, not politicians)...granted these were the minority but i can imagine that if the attack escalates, so will the public outcry for a harsh retaliation.

[shropshire 0]

That would be the expected knee-jerk reaction - Yes.

But identifying a 'legitimate' target would be nigh on impossible.... wouldn't stop some folks trying tho'

So the death of innocents could likely lead to the death of more innocents - Never seen that before

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If a nuclear device (not a radiological dispersive device or ‘dirty’ bomb) was successfully detonated on US soil by a foreign terrorist group, would there be an “upswell” from the US citizenry supporting or demanding retaliation with nuclear weapons?

Didn't Bush declare this as doctrine a few years ago? Any mass attack on US citizens can lead to a nuclear response.

It's the correct doctrine to announce - it's hardly in our interests to say that we would not respond in kind to such an attack (which is not revenge, it's called the real world). The primary reason no one would use a nuke is the fear of the response, since no unattached military group can match the nuclear arsenal of the US.

It's hard for a group to obtain a nuke without state assistance. Nukes don't come out of thin air, and their origins may be identified in the aftermath, making it extremely dangerous for a country to 'lose' one to a group to try to achieve plausible deniability. In the aftermath of an attack, even reasonable doubt might get you a mushroom cloud.

[crozby 0]

Quote

But identifying a 'legitimate' target would be nigh on impossible.... wouldn't stop some folks trying tho'

It would be Irans fault even if it wasn't.

[shropshire 0]

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[martin-o 0]

A wise man once said: You can never underestimate people enough.

/Martin

[shropshire 0]

If policy is respond in kind ..... So, what if the device could be traced back to being of home-grown manufacture? Which city gets it?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[TheAnvil 0]

I think it the likely initial reaction, but against whom would such a response be directed?

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Didn't Bush declare this as doctrine a few years ago? Any mass attack on US citizens can lead to a nuclear response.

There’s lots of doctrine on nuclear weapons. I think your referring to the National Strategy to Combat WMD or the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), relaeased in Jan 2002: SecDef Rumsfeld’s cover letter to Congress, who requested the NPR & excerpts leaked to the LA Times. National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD)-14 remains tightly classified, which is thought to deal with nuclear weapons targeting: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/index.html. The NPR put forth the “New “Triad,” which has been much discussed:

“Second, we have concluded that a strategic posture that relies solely on offensive nuclear forces is inappropriate for deterring the potential adversaries we will face in the 21st century. Terrorists or rogue states armed with weapons of mass destruction will likely test America's security commitments to its allies and friends. In response, we will need a range of capabilities to assure friend and foe alike of U.S. resolve. A broader array of capability is needed to dissuade states from undertaking political, military, or technical courses of action that would threaten U.S. and allied security. U.S. forces must pose a credible deterrent to potential adversaries who have access to modern military technology, including NBC weapons and the means to deliver them over long distances. Finally, U.S. strategic forces need to provide the President with a range of options to defeat any aggressor.

“To meet the nation's defense goals in the 21st century, the first leg of the New Triad, the offensive strike leg, will go beyond the Cold War triad of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and long-range nuclear-armed bombers. ICBMs, SLBMs, bombers and nuclear weapons will, of course, continue to play a vital role. However, they will be just part of the first leg of the New Triad, integrated with new non-nuclear strategic capabilities that strengthen the credibility of our offensive deterrence.

“The second leg of the New Triad requires development and deployment of both active and passive defenses--a recognition that offensive capabilities alone may not deter aggression in the new security environment of the 21st century. The events of September 11, 2001 underscore this reality. Active and passive defenses will not be perfect. However, by denying or reducing the effectiveness of limited attacks, defenses can discourage attacks, provide new capabilities for managing crises, and provide insurance against the failure of traditional deterrence.”

General James “Hoss” Cartwright (currently Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) is leading a review of defense nuclear weapons strategy. He was an iconoclast at STRATCOM … waiting to see how/if the move from Nebraska to DC affects that.
VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[pirana 0]

It depends on how obvious the offender is. If a state launched a volley at another state, it would be pretty obvious where they came from. In that case retaliation does no good unless it is swift and severe. Mulling it over for even an hour could easily be too long. Might be tough to effectively strike back, or just a meaningless gesture after the country has been turned into the world's largest bonfire.

I mean, a retalitory strike by our submarine fleet (assuming we are talking USA) might satisfy the need for revenge and justice, but if the rest of our military capability and most off the countryside, infrastructure, manufacturing capability, etc has been turned to a crisp - as a state we would be unstable, vulnerable, and not likely to survive into the future. At least not as we know ourselves today.

A single weapon, or even a number of them, delivered in a clandestine manner poses a much more difficult situation. I still think retaliation will occur, just maybe not as swiftly and severely if the offending party is not directly tied to a state. I think the manner of action is hard to predict, but it will get ugly. I foresee extreme action being taken without a whole lot of diplomacy. I think it will be very hard to practice much diplomacy once nukes start flying.

I see chaos, panic, and resultant over-the-top behavior if people feel their life, or the very existence of their state is threatened.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Darius11 12]

Looking at our pervious history compared to other countries. We simply have not had many attacks on our homeland. An attack on our homeland generates greater fear in our population then some others as we have not been desensitized to such things. I believe such an attack would cause panic and outrage from the population and would but a lot of pressure for the government to act. I believe most would want the government to hit who ever hit us as hard as we can. I also believe we would not be as sensitive as we are now to collateral damage



We tend to kill more then a 1000 people for every 1 American that has been killed, and often the people who we kill are not even responsible for the deaths we are avenging.
We also have a lot of people who would justify the action as a quick end, and a good option when compared to a long drawn out war like we are in now.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

We also have a lot of people who would justify the action as a quick end, and a good option when compared to a long drawn out war like we are in now.

I think this may be a interesting variable to consider - has the prolonged conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan -- "the Long War" -- lessened the public barrier to call for/accepting the use of unconventional weapons? Nuclear is the only one that we have in our arsenal. (Aging CW stocks being demilitarized don't count ... nevermind the US laws prohibiting use of CW.)

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Darius11 12]

I honestly think if there were a nuclear explosion on US soil; Killing Americans in such numbers that a nuclear bomb would all bets would be off. The fear and anger that would generate would trump 9-11, Katerina, and any thing else that comes to mind.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain