nuclear war..

[slinky]

say you were in charge of our country's defenses. we get hit with the biggest baddest nuclear missile from a hostile country. would you a) fire off all nukes towards this country in hopes of incinerating them before they do to you or b) accept that it was an accident, save mankind?

[super gerbil]

naw super gerbil would just go kick that countries @@s and we wouldn't have to waste any precious nuclear weapons

[Chuckiechan]

Save mankind? Maybe not save all of mankind in that particular country..

I would retaliate in kind only close to a major city not on it - or possily a very high air burst, and demand an immediate, unconditional surrender within a short timeframe.

[Prexaspes]

Neither.
We eliminate their ability to wage war, nuclear or otherwise, against us. If we need to use strategic nuclear strikes as a quick and effective means of achieving our ends, so be it. After all, if there were some country crazy enough to nuke us first, they deserve it.

[SeanC]

If I was really angry at that and they gave attitude, use twice the nukes to take them out.

If they said it was an accident then I wouldn't retaliate.

Sean

[desmocat]

they gonna need sunscreen 50000
'nuff said.

[SiliconJon]

God help us. I do hope those in favor of perpetuating a nuclear war are only joking...please tell me you are joking. If I could move to another planet, I WOULD. But it looks like that option isn't availble within my lifespan.

[SiliconJon]

When I'm done with my research paper (it's final draft isn't due for over a month) on "The Global Effects of Nuclear Weapons", I'll post it up here so y'all can take a gander at the numbers.

~20 years ago, there were enough nuclear weapons on this planet to OVERKILL every human being 26 times. And our stockpiles have only grown since then...

and now we have MIRVs...so one launch can carry up to 18 warheads. No to mention we could put a 50Mt warhead on an ICBM that could hit any target on the planet 10 years ago+, so we're probably up to 200Mt by now. That's enough to punch a hole clear through the atmostphere, and leave a 10 mile blast radius, and enough fallout to cover thousands upon thousands of square miles.

Check out "The Day After Midnight" from you local library. It's based on a report by the Office of Technology Assessment, and was published in 1982. And remember, yes it's old, but in this category things have only gotten worse, so you're reading a bit of an understatement or conservative estimates on their scenarious.

[daveleau]

We have enough military superiority to wipe anyone out with conventional bombs, protecting the civilians at the same time. In all seriousness, I think that would be the plan. With the way we go out of our way to protect civilians to the point of making ourselves much more vulnerable, I don't know what occasion would call for a full scale nuclear attack. Tactical nukes are a possibility.

SiliconJon,
I don't know about ICBMs, but I know other nuclear missiles have been disbanded (ACM and ALCM turned into CALCM) and are no longer in production. The idea that our stockpiles are growing may not be correct.

[Chuckiechan]

During the first gulf war, Ralph Nader or one of his cronies (Carl Sagan?) predicted that the smoke from the oil fires that were sure to happen would end life on earth...

The impending demise of the earth was greatly exagerated...

Same with limited nukes...

BTW: keeping nukes out of the hands of dangerous people (yes, we decide who is dangerous) is one way of preventing a holocaust.