Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Chemical, Biological and Nuclear Weapons Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: When to respond to an incompetent state sponsored CW/BW attack?
rerecruit    6/25/2005 11:16:07 AM
When does a country (such as UK, Israel, US) that renounced all WMD except Nuclear Weapons acknowledge coming under attack by CW/BW if such an attack has few or no immediate casualties? I have a specific event during GW1 in mind but this question may have current significance. http://www.mod.uk/issues/gulfwar/info/medical/jubayl.htm For example: Over-flight of northern Israel by Iranian manufactured drones. From a citizens perspective, who is without protective equipment and training, a government which allows a state sponsored terrorist aggressor to experiment with attack procedures until they find the right one is exactly the opposite kind of government to that which we pay for. But a seemingly unprovoked nuclear strike is clearly political suicide for the leader of the country subjected to a CW/BW attack, albeit incompetently. Additionally will his or her armed forces even follow such an order? Effectively does the leader sacrifice themselves to protect the population of the country which elected them? How does the nuclear-armed country prove satisfactorily to other nuclear powers that the recently vaporized (non-nuclear-armed?) country deserved it? If it cannot it may itself be vaporised forthwith. Finally, where does such a quandary leave the UK, US and Israeli concept of reliance on Nuclear Weapons for protection against WMD through the concept of MAD? I suspect specfor would be used in response to such a CW/BW attack. However it may be that the CW factories can only be reached and neutralised by full scale invasion or overwhelming Nuclear attack.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Jerry W. Loper    USA stated policy is.....   6/29/2005 10:11:59 AM
USA stated policy is to retaliate with nuclear weapons if weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are used against either American military or civilian targets, and the definition of WMD was chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. I saw President Bill Clinton make this pledge in an address on national TV, and understand that both Bushes have made similar pledges. On 9/11, Al Qaeda and all other terrorist groups learned that the USA would NOT retaliate with nuclear weapons even after 3,000 of its citizens were murdered by fully fueled jetliners flown into office buildings, and probably reckoned that that means they can get away with a hell of a lot. I'd prefer that they not think that. As far as I'm concerned, a WMD (nuclear, chemical, or biological) that kills just one American can serve as the tripwire. (P.S. I'm not advocating a multi-megaton bomb wiping out a whole city of one American is killed by nerve gas; retaliation could be a low yield tactical nuke on an army or air force base if the number of US casualties is low, something nastier if US casualties are higher.))
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics