4

I am too new to answer peoples questions, so I decided to post my own to frame the problem a different way. People assume that nuclear states hold nuclear weapons only to deter intimidation from other nations that hold them. However, it is not the only reason. In the case of a strike against a nation, which dooms the state that doesn't strike first, why would that doomed state not retaliate? Given that the conflict in the first place was about world governance, why would an attacked nation give the world over to this aggressive state by not firing back and turning that place, its capital cities and its industrial base, into a glass carpark?

Any people who were to have survived from the nation that was first doomed, would then be subjugated to the aggressor nation, probably forever.

In addition, the attacked nation may believe that all mankind is facing this aggressor in some way, and that the aggressor is a problem for mankind's future. If so they will make a decision to throw the boss out the window for everyone else. Yes a lot of people will die, but a valuable lesson will have been learned by humanity about where stupidity and arrogance gets you.

As far as the environment is concerned, they will say to themselves "it was unilaterally decided that planet earth could handle one country being annihilated by nuclear weapons, we think there's room for one more".

Finally, the attacked nation will believe that they are morally in the right - if so, why should the other go unpunished?

Tell me if I'm not thinking straight please. But if one gets attacked, the other IS GOING TO FIRE BACK. Please tell me that is crazy talk, it will be amusing....

Improve this question
2
  • 1
    Welcome to Politics.SE! It's worth noting that most questions can be answered without any reputation, but that specific question has been protected and can only be answered if you have 10 rep or more. (Also, we seem to have edited the question at the same time, sorry about that. Let me know when you're done editing and I can add my changes back in.)
    – F1Krazy
    Commented Jan 23 at 13:21
  • "if I'm not thinking straight" I think your ideas are quite reasonable but not exhausting. There are more considerations that can be taken into account. In the end if you are doomed all bets are off and nobody can predict what will come out of it. It's up to the personal preferences of all people with influence on the situation. Just imagine the captain of a nuclear submarine. He or she will finally give the command or not give it. Nobody can say with certainty what it will be.
    – NoDataDumpNoContribution
    Commented Jan 23 at 20:02

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
4

The entire idea of MAD (mutual assured destruction) is that the other side will strike back after a first strike. The purpose being that unless the first strike is fast enough and can ensure the total destruction of the other sides weapons they will suffer for it.

However once you start talking about irrational states all the logic around it goes out the window.

Mutual assured destruction

Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy which posits that a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by an attacker on a nuclear-armed defender with second-strike capabilities would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender. It is based on the theory of rational deterrence, which holds that the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents the enemy's use of those same weapons. The strategy is a form of Nash equilibrium in which, once armed, neither side has any incentive to initiate a conflict or to disarm.

Improve this answer
6
  • That's' right, my point is that it isn't a pretence, because they are going to strike back for sure. Some people question this.
    – Andrew Martin
    Commented Jan 23 at 14:07
  • 1
    @AndrewMartin Who exactly questions this? The idea of a country doing a nuclear strike in the first place is pretty silly.
    – Joe W
    Commented Jan 23 at 14:36
  • Russia has often said it doesn't subscribe to the MAD philosophy. They feel the response will be of the standard forms: non-military; non-nuclear; equivalent retaliation; or a slight and measured escalation (or some combination thereof). It is considered neither a rational nor human response to elevate a non-apocalyptic nuclear strike into an apocalyptic one. Only a monster would do that, and for all the cold war rhetoric these were not monsters being dealt with.
    – zibadawa timmy
    Commented Jan 23 at 15:05
  • 1
    @zibadawatimmy The MAD philosophy is about a large scale nuclear strike not a standard attack. Accusations of only a monster would do that applies to the nuclear first strike that triggered the response.
    – Joe W
    Commented Jan 23 at 15:38
  • 1
    MAD only works if nobody is mad enough to test MAD.
    – NoDataDumpNoContribution
    Commented Jan 23 at 19:56
2

Question:

People assume that nuclear states hold nuclear weapons only to deter intimidation from other nations that hold them.

Countries can hold nuclear weapons for both defensive and offensive reasons. Deterring military aggression / intimidation can come before or after a nation uses conventional aggression themselves.

Question

In the case of a strike against a nation, which dooms the state that doesn't strike first, why would that doomed state not retaliate?

Technical reasons exist. It's possible for technology to advantage a first strike such that the first strike would knock out any retaliatory strike before the retaliatory strike can exist. It's also possible for a technology like missile defense to render another nations retaliatory strike inert. Such technological advances are constantly watched for and countered.

The most interesting reason and hardest to guard against would be morality. Many individuals if they knew they were about to die and their was nothing they could do to save themselves simple would not make the choice to visit that same destruction upon millions of other innocents. Most individuals would not want to be directly responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people by pushing a button and destroying them. Not everybody could push that button. This goes for the leaders of nations, but probable even more so for the functionaries in the bombers, submarines and silo's. Even though the belief that a retaliatory strike would occur is what keeps a nation from experiencing a first strike in the first place. So there are drills where the entire launch chains are tested functionally and systemically.

Improve this answer
1
  • Agree with the first point, but not with the second. It's true that not everyone could push it, but they will find enough who have the ideals required. My view is that they won't be thinking of the children they are killing or the environment they will be thinking about whose hands the governance of the earth belongs too. They will push it.
    – Andrew Martin
    Commented Jan 24 at 2:50

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .