So long as it doesnt hurt me?

[Lostpuppy]

How much truth is in this statement?

“But more than that, an opinion poll run by Stanford University’s Scott Sagan found that the US public would not oppose the preemptive use of even nuclear weapons provided that the US itself was not affected. And nuclear Trident offers that temptation.”

Could the US win World War III without using nuclear weapons?

To understand how a new world war might play out, it’s important to remember just how powerful the US really is.

theconversation.com

 

[Publius]

It’s a good read and it’s thought provoking.
It attempts to place respondents in the position of Americans in 1945.
It is not however a question on the morality of using nukes alone. Remember the fact that the continuation of the war very likely could have resulted in 20000 US casualties. Russia was knocking on japans northern door. Ask those families who had their sons off to war not for just “tour”. They were gone until the war ended.
I say this because the question is not asked in the vacuum clinical morality.
Are nukes morally acceptable? Is a strafing run from a 20mm auto cannon or 20 2000lb bombs from 30000feet moral?

It’s like asking a Pict if it’s “moral” to go into battle with armor and large siege engines.
Siege engines are going to result in the deaths of non-combatants.

Americans are willing to support the use of nukes on targets or regions that would have civilians casualties Vs 20000 of their sons and daughters not coming home from a war.
I mean if you’re asking me if my nation is attacked and we have been engaged in a long bloody war. And that we have a choice of losing 20000 more of our sons and daughters. Vs 10000000 of my attacker civilians. That this conundrum could not be avoided save one of these two options.
Then I’m sorry in a black and white dichotomy like this. Then nuke them.

Not the same moral question.
Let’s never forget wars are not movies or jousting matches where the “best man” wins. They are existential fights for survival.

The question when applied to Iran might better be asked. Would the US wade into or launch a war against Iran if it meant 20000 Americans might die in it?
Irrespective of civilian Iranian deaths, we wouldn’t. Thus it is not a reasonable extrapolation that the US population is shifting regarding the morality or willingness to use nukes against Iran as long as the nuclear triad holds.
Its proposed question leaves too many variables on the table. It’s tacitly implying American would be willing to see nukes used to remove the IRGC. That is not what this poll illustrates

 

[teekay99]

I think the question may have a degree of nuance. For example, define "use".
I argue they are already in use as deterrence.

Does use mean "launch" or authorize their detonation? How so? In the form of offense? In the form of defense, say to neutralize an invading force? Or as retribution or revenge against an adversary? Did the adversary use nukes first? Does nuke use provide a tactical and strategic advantage? Can nuke use that requires Presidential authorization really ever be tactical?

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

I think the question may have a degree of nuance. For example, define "use".

I think the question defines the term "use" when it uses the phrase "pre-emptive" and "that the US itself was not affected."

 

[teekay99]

I think the question defines the term "use" when it uses the phrase "pre-emptive" and "that the US itself was not affected."

True with respect to the reply from @Lostpuppy. I was looking at the question itself, which doesn't specify. Ok I'm splitting hairs...

 

[NuclearID]

Once the nuclear can is opened, it is not going to stop there, against a nuclear/tech peer. Anyone saying otherwise is a delusional lunatic. If they truly believe a nuclear war can be limited then they are truly psychopathic and don't truly understand the gravity of such a decision or the gravity of such a decision on their own life nonetheless.

Once a nuclear weapon is used in a conflict against another nuclear peer, the probability that it remains “limited” drops into absolute and total fucking fantasy territory. At that point, you are no longer playing brinkmanship. Brinkmanship is the threat. Actual nuclear use is the endgame starting.

I do not understand how people convince themselves it would stop at one or two strikes. That is Hollywood bullshit. That is not strategy.

That is a bedtime story for people who want to feel intellectually brave without staring at the consequences. Or more bluntly people who want to lie to themselves to feel better.

You cannot “win” a nuclear conflict against another nuclear peer in any meaningful sense.

You can survive pieces of it. You can destroy enough of the other side to call it revenge. You can maybe preserve some broken version of national continuity. But victory? No. Again anyone saying otherwise is a fucking lunatic who needs to be stopped by any and all means necessary within the law of course! That word stops meaning anything once cities, command nodes, satellites, submarines, missile fields, airbases, ports, and civilian populations enter the exchange. PERIOD.

A “limited” nuclear strike staying limited is about as real as the Land of Oz or the Yellow Brick Road. The idea exists. It is just not reality!!!


The deeper danger is not only the weapon itself. It is the growing belief among the public, commentators, and politicians that nuclear war can be managed, contained, calibrated, or won. They're all fucking idiots.

That belief is how you eventually get full scale nuclear war. Not because everyone wanted the end of the world, but because enough people convinced themselves the first step would be controllable.

Modern peer on peer war does not give leaders clean, calm, rational decision windows. It gives them minutes, maybe seconds, under uncertainty.

Incoming missile. Is it conventional? Is it nuclear? Is it a decapitation strike? Is this the first wave? Are our forces about to be blinded? Are our weapons about to be lost? That is not a sane environment for controlled escalation. That is a pressure cooker wired to a dead man’s switch.

So no, I DO NOT BUY THE FANTASY that a nuclear exchange between peers stays neatly limited because some honest to God retarded think tank map says it does.

Once nuclear use begins between nuclear peers, escalation control becomes a PURE theory trying to outrun physics, fear, automation, command breakdown, and human panic. Good luck with that.

The most dangerous part is not simply that nuclear weapons exist. The most dangerous part is the growing STRAIGHT UP delusion that they can be used carefully, politically, and successfully.

That is not deterrence thinking.

That is: Darwin Award strategy with a national flag pinned to it.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

Once the nuclear can is opened, it is not going to stop there

Government are increasingly betting that is can stop.

 

[NuclearID]

Government are increasingly betting that is can stop.

And that is why it's going to happen.

 

[Yingyang]

Anyone who thinks a pre-emptive strike against another nuclear country means they themselves won't be affected, your dreaming. I havn't answered this poll as to many variables to say yes or no.

 

[NuclearID]

Anyone who thinks a pre-emptive strike against another nuclear country means they themselves won't be affected, your dreaming.

Holy s*** for once we agree on something.

 

[NuclearID]

Going to save everybody the trouble here. Save yourself the energy and the brain bandwidth for other things. Iran war looks to be coming to a close. Enjoy the free time before it ends. Because it will eventually....

This is the most dumb argument humanity has ever conjured and you ALL know it. Find something else to fight over to kill time that doesn't have existential risk to humanity propagating totally through unnecessarily fictional crap made of boredom or Hollywood naiveism BS.

This was not directed at you @Lostpuppy just nipping this in the butt. Better more realistic things to focus this community attention on. Even with Iran simmering down.

Of course. Cannot overstep staff or moderators. But hope as a janitor of these forums they respect my decision and see where I am coming from. SO feel free to undo my action. But. We have had this debate a hundred times on forums. And we all know this is a quite literal nonsense debate propagated through Hollywood or naive/lie to themselves to feel better about reality.

@Staff. Before action or comments about limiting opposition speech, community already came to the common census logic, within 6 hour no less:

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

We'll keep it open for others to chime in.

 

[NuclearID]

We'll keep it open for others to chime in.

Fair. But you should know already we've had this debate 100 times on forums and more than willing to merge every single thread for the past 10 years on this. So people can finally once and for all stop bringing this up.

And again, entertaining this totally ludicrous idea only propagates existential risk to humanity. At least I know I did my part for humanity to the best of my abilities given. If y'all can live with this repeatedly... Great. At least I'm not making this call and I can honestly say to myself or God I tried.

I will no longer engage in this fruitless, pro-anarchist, doomsday, fanatical thread, which this "idea" is ALL it's dressed up to be, period.

With that before I wash my hands of this thread.... Hope everyone had a wonderful memorial Day weekend and did something to honor our fallen heros!