Trump Says He's Ready to Use Nukes

[Grand58742]

Honestly, once they send theirs, concerns about "environment" are a bottom priority. The real question is will anyone come out alive. Our enemies need to understand there is no such thing as a limited exchange, it's a buy one get ten free situation.

Everyone needs to be one the same page that it's "all or nothing." Every President needs to understand that reality and as much as I disliked Obama and hated Clinton I think even they understood that reality. The only one who may not have fully gotten it is Carter and even then I can't say for sure, he was in the Navy so he should have grasped certain realities.

The thing is, I'm not sure all Presidents have "got it" in regards to the reality of an exchange. Say we had a rogue state or even a terrorist group use a nuclear device in a major city. Would we retaliate against their population (or in the case of a terrorist group, the country they are based from) especially after having time to think about it? An outright exchange with China or Russia is easy. They aren't going to send over a single nuke at us. It will come with overwhelming force and we'll counter. Because the President won't have time to think it over.

On the other hand, a single North Korean nuke? Say it's targeted against a city within range of their missiles. Would we overwhelmingly attack them in a 10:1 ratio? Especially knowing the fallout portion would be heading straight over Japan and eventually over the US? Would our allies support such an overwhelming response? Emotion will play a part in such a retaliation after having the time to think it over. I wouldn't even be surprised if it didn't turn highly political on the home front in the aftermath. "We didn't have to use nuclear weapons! Orange Man Bad/Kenyan Man for destroying a helpless country!"

This won't sound right the way I'm about to say it, but the Cold War was easy. They light us up, we light them up. MAD at its finest. Today, the nuclear paradigm is not so clear in regards to third party actors. I'm not sure any President would be so quick to strike back after having time to think it over. I'm not saying they won't, but there would be a serious pause with some before sending out those codes.

[SteyrAUG]

The thing is, I'm not sure all Presidents have "got it" in regards to the reality of an exchange. Say we had a rogue state or even a terrorist group use a nuclear device in a major city. Would we retaliate against their population (or in the case of a terrorist group, the country they are based from) especially after having time to think about it? An outright exchange with China or Russia is easy. They aren't going to send over a single nuke at us. It will come with overwhelming force and we'll counter. Because the President won't have time to think it over.

On the other hand, a single North Korean nuke? Say it's targeted against a city within range of their missiles. Would we overwhelmingly attack them in a 10:1 ratio? Especially knowing the fallout portion would be heading straight over Japan and eventually over the US? Would our allies support such an overwhelming response? Emotion will play a part in such a retaliation after having the time to think it over. I wouldn't even be surprised if it didn't turn highly political on the home front in the aftermath. "We didn't have to use nuclear weapons! Orange Man Bad/Kenyan Man for destroying a helpless country!"

This won't sound right the way I'm about to say it, but the Cold War was easy. They light us up, we light them up. MAD at its finest. Today, the nuclear paradigm is not so clear in regards to third party actors. I'm not sure any President would be so quick to strike back after having time to think it over. I'm not saying they won't, but there would be a serious pause with some before sending out those codes.

So with respect to your scenarios.

Terrorist group. Hard call. We can't light up Moscow because some Chechen radicals brought a suitcase or improvised nuke to the US. Really comes down to delivery system. You pretty much need state support to send a nuke to us and we can pretty well determine where it came from. So if a missile is launched from Pakistan, even if they officially deny having anything to do with it, we still nuke em hard. If it turns out the a radical Islamic group gained control of a missile launch site, then that is still Pakistan's problem the same as it would be ours if a bunch of Tim McVeigh types somehow took over a US ICBM site and targeted Pakistan, which is why we do everything we can to make sure that never happens.

Rogue state. Doesn't matter if North Korea sends a single missile in the 1 kiloton range. Complete and total retaliation is the response with the only consideration being South Korea and other bordering countries. We can't expect China to choke on nuclear exhaust because it was time to smack pork chop kid so obviously it will be more of a Hiroshima yield device than a dozen in the megaton range. And honestly we only have to obliterate Pyongyang and selected military targets, we don't have to kill every man, woman and child, especially since we will probably roll in, occupy and rebuild.

As for what Presidents understand, like I said I'd hope they all realize the nature of the game. From Truman forward the only one I'd have wondered about is Carter. Even Clinton realized DC would be in the Top 10 list and in any nuclear exchange he started with a 50/50 chance of personal survival at best.

[Dr. Bullseye]

Haven't we learned anything since 2002? Iran has no nukes. Further, even if they did, Iran has no delivery system capable of hitting the US mainland. If Trump is afraid of Iranians in Western Asia, remove our troops. If Trump is afraid Iran will bully "our allies in the region", meaning Israel, well, that's Israel's problem. Screw them. Israel certainly didn't help us as much with ISIS as Iran did.

Get back to the real issue---Mexico.

[Grand58742]

So with respect to your scenarios.

Terrorist group. Hard call. We can't light up Moscow because some Chechen radicals brought a suitcase or improvised nuke to the US. Really comes down to delivery system. You pretty much need state support to send a nuke to us and we can pretty well determine where it came from. So if a missile is launched from Pakistan, even if they officially deny having anything to do with it, we still nuke em hard. If it turns out the a radical Islamic group gained control of a missile launch site, then that is still Pakistan's problem the same as it would be ours if a bunch of Tim McVeigh types somehow took over a US ICBM site and targeted Pakistan, which is why we do everything we can to make sure that never happens.

Rogue state. Doesn't matter if North Korea sends a single missile in the 1 kiloton range. Complete and total retaliation is the response with the only consideration being South Korea and other bordering countries. We can't expect China to choke on nuclear exhaust because it was time to smack pork chop kid so obviously it will be more of a Hiroshima yield device than a dozen in the megaton range. And honestly we only have to obliterate Pyongyang and selected military targets, we don't have to kill every man, woman and child, especially since we will probably roll in, occupy and rebuild.

As for what Presidents understand, like I said I'd hope they all realize the nature of the game. From Truman forward the only one I'd have wondered about is Carter. Even Clinton realized DC would be in the Top 10 list and in any nuclear exchange he started with a 50/50 chance of personal survival at best.

The game of nuclear brinkmanship has changed significantly since the end of the Cold War and the efforts at proliferation by other nation states and rogue groups. Your North Korea scenario makes sense, but again, swapping city for city will become a political matter rather than a military one. I wouldn't expect immediate retaliation with such a thing and even then, the opposing party will damn all the actions (or inactions) taken by the sitting POTUS. The days of national unity seen after 9/11 are gone forever in my opinion. Even in a nuclear attack, I feel politicians will do their normal thing and second guess and Monday morning quarterback each and every decision made by the POTUS in regards to what happens next.

[SteyrAUG]

Haven't we learned anything since 2002? Iran has no nukes. Further, even if they did, Iran has no delivery system capable of hitting the US mainland. If Trump is afraid of Iranians in Western Asia, remove our troops. If Trump is afraid Iran will bully "our allies in the region", meaning Israel, well, that's Israel's problem. Screw them. Israel certainly didn't help us as much with ISIS as Iran did.

Get back to the real issue---Mexico.

Iran doesn't have to hit the US to start a global conflict.

[NWPilgrim]

Haven't we learned anything since 2002? Iran has no nukes. Further, even if they did, Iran has no delivery system capable of hitting the US mainland. If Trump is afraid of Iranians in Western Asia, remove our troops. If Trump is afraid Iran will bully "our allies in the region", meaning Israel, well, that's Israel's problem. Screw them. Israel certainly didn't help us as much with ISIS as Iran did.

Get back to the real issue---Mexico.

The main reason we are worked up about Iran is because the Saudis are. Our politicians are desperate to continue the spending spree that the Petro Dollar makes possible, so they jump when the Saudis say “go attack so-and-so cuz we scared and we want to rule Islam!”

I think Trump’s answer was about nuke policy in general and any country should consider if the shoe fits then wear it. If they have no plans to attack us or our allies then no worries. I think the grey area for the US is what would our response be to a nuke attack on an ally since we have a wide range of allies. To me the list of allies that we would respond for with nukes is very short. Many nominal allies have criticized our nuke policy and worked hard to disarm.