When is nukular war justified?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Spec
This poll is invalid!

Ask LS

Hi! This poll is valid!

kthxbi

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Whenever anyone uses spelling like "nukular", they should have a nuke shoved up their ass.

Yeah because Dauphin, graduate from one of the better universities of this land in physics, doesn't know how to spell "nukular". I see you were put at the bottom of KH's scale for a reason, Texan

[Victor Galis]

Depends, can your first strike take out some of their nukes and reduce damage to your country?
Is the madman a dictator (i.e. is nuking his cities just killing more innocents or is he a popular whackjob and you're taking out people responsible for him being in power)?

[Ned]

Nuclear war implies attacking civilians.

THAT is never justified IMHO. Never.

[Spec]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Hi! This poll is valid!

kthxbi

You lie!!!



Spec.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ned
Nuclear war implies attacking civilians.

THAT is never justified IMHO. Never.

So you capitulate and or let your citizens get nukulated?

[Dauphin]

Ned? I am very interested in your personal take on the issue. Capitulate or nukulation, which is it to be for you?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ned
Nuclear war implies attacking civilians.

There are tactical nuclear weapons.

Also, many countries focus on defensive nuclear strategies (China, India, Pakistan, France during the Cold War)... i.e. wanting a bomb to target an invading conventional military force (think Iran or North Korea wanting to target American military forces if they were to invade). Nuclear weapons could also be used against naval targets. Because many countries don't possess accurate delivery systems, navies present attractive targets because a nuclear weapon wouldn't have to be as precise against say a carrier group. Even the wave that the blast creates would do much in the way of crippling ships.

So much is made about countries wanting to possess nuclear weapons and the destabilizing effect it would have. But it has quite the opposite effect. Nuclear weapons stabilize regions because it prevents nuclear powers from invading states that would otherwise be subject to military action.

As for the use of nuclear weapons? Why make a distinction between using nuclear weapons and going to conventional war? War is war. It doesn't matter what kind of weapons you use. The same standards of justification would apply for a "just war" in the case of the use of nuclear weapons. Only nuclear weapons are a specific kind of weapon designed to inflict a specific amount of damage. In a just war, the force applied must be proportionate to the goal. The use of nuclear weapons would be justified if the situation called for the use of such force.

However, nuclear weapons are really only practical as a defensive weapon. The environmental and political implications of using nuclear weapons makes their use unlikely by rational actors in the international system. I can't imagine a scenario in which the use of nuclear weapons would be viewed as legitimate or justified by the international community. Any country that would use nuclear weapons in an offensive manner would face catastrophic consequences.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Ned
Nuclear war implies attacking civilians.

THAT is never justified IMHO. Never.

I'm with Ned. The only reason to use nuclear weapons as opposed to conventional weapons is if you do not care about collateral damage. And a nuclear preemptive strike cannot be considered a defensive use. You can never be certain enough that the other side is going to use them to justify using them first yourself. Within the current international climate, a nuclear retaliatory strike would be unnecessary, as the international community would exert all necessary force to bring the perpetrators to justice.

[notyoueither]

Nuke them and blame the British.

Bonus points for having a sub and launching from the Irish Sea.

[Arrian]

Nuclear weapons could also be used against naval targets.

Heh, I used to do that in CivII.

-Arrian

[General Ludd]

Nice to see that a majority of people here are in favour of a nuclear attack on another people - and a first strike, no less. Humanity. Genocide. Radiation. Nuclear winter.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Nice to see that a majority of people here are in favour of a nuclear attack on another people - and a first strike, no less. Humanity.

Surely the score of "Blame the British" makes up for it

[Arrian]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Nice to see that a majority of people here are in favour of a nuclear attack on another people - and a first strike, no less. Humanity. Genocide. Radiation. Nuclear winter.

Validity of online polls

-Arrian

[General Ludd]

The opinions of people who use the internet are invalid.