Would arabs/Iranians use nukes if they got them?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Lancer


They nuke us and then we have to do another multi billion dollar occupation?

Anyway the point of this is to prevent the nuking of us in the first place by getting the Arabs to police their own people and therefore prevent a retaliation.

Save lives...

I think the point is that just about anybody knows how utterly insane it would be to use a nuclear weapon first. Not every country has had a Curtis LeMay running for Vice President, or a Douglas MacArthur as a 5-star general. What Pakistan and Iran want is a little bit of M.A.D. - the reassurance that they have a weapon that keeps the neighbor with 8 times the population or the enemy with the much more advanced technology, from walloping them into a new stone age.

[Lancer]

Yes, and this policy would allow for
Iran to get its bomb, pack it away and cherish it like the rest of the world does. Also, if "everyone knows how utterly insane..." it is why not codify MAD used in this manner as national policy just to be sure? That would be extra inspiration for Iran to keep it in its box, and not give it away to the wacko nutjobs it supports.

'Supports' as in 'supports'.

[Naked Gents Rut]

I am pretty sure that there would be some sort of "response" by the U.S.

I'm pretty sure the U.S. wouldn't start WWIII over it. It's completely illogical to respond to an attack on Mexico that had some collateral damage on the U.S. with a reprisal that will ensure that the rest of America's cities are destroyed.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Barnabas
It wouldn't be worst than the Holocaust, I doubt more than 6 million people would die.

How many cities would they have to nuke to kill more than 5-6 million people?

If I recall correctly in Hiroshima and Nagasaki only a couple of hundred thousand people died.

The average strategic nuclear warhead now a days is in the 300 kT range, making it around 20 times more powerful than either Little Boy (the Uranium fission device dropped on Hiroshima) or Fat Man (the Plutonium fission device dropped on Nagasaki). Fat Man was actually more powerful than Little Boy (~20kT vs. ~15kT) but Little Boy killed more because of the geography and weather conditions at the time and place of their respective blasts.

Modern militaries also know how to use nukes to increase lethality. There is an exponential drop off in lethality as you radiate out from the blast. Because of this, you could kill more people with three 300kT warheads spaced out over a large target than by dropping a single 1 MT device on the same target.

I would think that you could easily kill 5-6 million people by just hitting Karachi, Tehran, and Cairo (three large urban areas with over 12 million people each) with a handful of modern warheads spaced out correctly to maximize the area of 90% plus lethality.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by GePap


Given that the third largest Muslim population in the world is in India, we will have to nuke India as well, to be sure.

I guess if the price we must pay for this deeply immoral fantasy of yours is your own death in nuclear fire....I am okay with it.

You misunderstand - deliberately, I suspect.

Muslims aren't the enemy. A number of states with Islam-inspired or dominated ideologies, whose existence and policies is and are antithetical to the interests of India, are.

[Naked Gents Rut]

No. We'll have to nuke India, too. It's the only way to be sure.

[notyoueither]

My reading of the topic indicates there are a lot of Muslims in California and New York too.

[Kuciwalker]

We don't need nukes to get rid of those.

[Naked Gents Rut]

A pogrom will do the trick nicely.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut


I'm pretty sure the U.S. wouldn't start WWIII over it. It's completely illogical to respond to an attack on Mexico that had some collateral damage on the U.S. with a reprisal that will ensure that the rest of America's cities are destroyed.

Well I think one could argue that Russia in my scenario started WWIII but you are saying that if 30% of the US population were subjected to radiation poisoning due to something that Russia did purposely and unprovoked by the US your opinion is that there would be no "proportional response"

I believe that was the assessment General LeMay gave Kennedy about a possible first strike against Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
We don't need nukes to get rid of those.

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
A pogrom will do the trick nicely.

I'd rather be sure.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Canada doesn't have any nukes, so there's not much you can do. We'll nuke Toronto for you if you're really worried, though.

[Naked Gents Rut]

I believe that was the assessment General LeMay gave Kennedy about a possible first strike against Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Curtis LeMay was nuts.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


Well I think one could argue that Russia in my scenario started WWIII but you are saying that if 30% of the US population were subjected to radiation poisoning due to something that Russia did purposely and unprovoked by the US your opinion is that there would be no "proportional response"

I believe that was the assessment General LeMay gave Kennedy about a possible first strike against Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

America could nuke China to irradiate Russia, in response

[Saras]

That's what I call a proxy war