redlightning
Banned
What if the 9/11 attacks killed an excess of 20,000 Americans in 2001. The US uses tactical nuclear weapons in Afghanistan following the attacks. How does the world react?
WI: US Uses Nuclear Weapons in Afghanistan After 9/11
- Thread starter redlightning
- Start date
TFSmith121
Banned
The US would not use special weapons in such a situation
The US would not use special weapons in such a situation; US policy throughout the Cold War and afterward was to avoid use of such weapons for obvious reasons.
Even in the event of the Iraqis using WMD (in this case, chemical weapons) during the campaign in Kuwait and southern Iraq, US policy was to retaliate with conventional weapons; the obvious targets would have been the hydroelectric and flood control systems on the Tigris and Euphrates, and there is strong evidence this was communicated to the Iraqis and influenced their decision-making.
Similar strategies would be used in the event of conflict with other potential enemies; this would be precluded by those enemies' use of nuclear or (potentially) radiological weapons, of course.
Best,
The US would not use special weapons in such a situation; US policy throughout the Cold War and afterward was to avoid use of such weapons for obvious reasons.
Even in the event of the Iraqis using WMD (in this case, chemical weapons) during the campaign in Kuwait and southern Iraq, US policy was to retaliate with conventional weapons; the obvious targets would have been the hydroelectric and flood control systems on the Tigris and Euphrates, and there is strong evidence this was communicated to the Iraqis and influenced their decision-making.
Similar strategies would be used in the event of conflict with other potential enemies; this would be precluded by those enemies' use of nuclear or (potentially) radiological weapons, of course.
Best,
Taliban are wiped out, Saddam Hussein is scared straight, and people start calling Gore "Our real President".
The way people generally react to mass, indiscriminate, and horrifically brutal murder. The people on the other side, who maintain the bizarre illusion that nuclear weapons are something other than that stated above, stew in righteous indignation.
How do you see the 20,000 Americans being killed. That is an order of magnitude worse than actually happened. I'm curious how you scale that many more casualties.
Lost Freeway
Banned
I once read a scenario on an Objectivist blog where the United States reacted to 9/11 by nuking Afghanistan...
...and Pakistan
...and Iran
...and Syria
..and Saudi Arabia
...and the United Arab Emirates.
And yes, Mecca does get a can of instant sunshine, which somehow causes all Muslims to abandon their faith.
The worst part? The author portrays this as a good thing.
...and Pakistan
...and Iran
...and Syria
..and Saudi Arabia
...and the United Arab Emirates.
And yes, Mecca does get a can of instant sunshine, which somehow causes all Muslims to abandon their faith.
The worst part? The author portrays this as a good thing.
Yeah, leaving aside everything else about the US not using nuclear weapons as a general policy, there's nothing in Afghanistan (or even Iraq) worth using a tactical nuclear weapon on. The US had essentially uncontested air supremacy in both conflicts; any targets the US wanted to hit, could be hit with conventional weapons. The only ones that were tricky were ones that required precision targeting, and that's not something nukes are particularly good at.
Afghanistan quickly devolved into guerrilla warfare, which nukes aren't any use in. I suppose you could make an argument for Iraqi armored formations as a tactical target...except the Gulf War had demonstrated that they were easy pickings for conventional weaponry.
As other pointed out US had total control of the skies just pound the heck out of any target with conventional weapons. Speaking of conventional weapons if we just wanted a big explosion we would have used one of these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-43/B_Massive_Ordnance_Air_Blast
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-43/B_Massive_Ordnance_Air_Blast
The Target List for Desert Storm day one was over 40 pages long... the Target List for Afghanistan, the entire list was 2 pages, everything else hit were either close air support or targets of opportunity.
There is NOTHING in Afghanistan worth a nuke, even Tora Bora was not nukeable as the caves covered a massive area, it was mountainous which would have limited the effects and the Indians, Pakistanis, Russians and Chinese would all be really pissed off about all that bothersome fall out.
There is NOTHING in Afghanistan worth a nuke, even Tora Bora was not nukeable as the caves covered a massive area, it was mountainous which would have limited the effects and the Indians, Pakistanis, Russians and Chinese would all be really pissed off about all that bothersome fall out.
Anaxagoras
Banned
This raises a question that has always disturbed me. Since congressional war powers have pretty much become irrelevant in the modern age, POTUS can launch a nuclear attack more or less whenever he wants against whomever he wants. So what would happen if a President actually did become somewhat unhinged and ordered a nuclear strike?
The Secretary of Defense still needs to confirm the launch to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs per the two-man rule. That type of scenario would be just about impossible to do.
Unless it is during an actual attack I believe that it is a two-man system. Once the President gives the order it has to be verified by a second person. I can not be 100% certain, because the nuclear protocols are VERY closely held, but it would match everything else the U.S. is known to do with nuclear weapons.
Doubtful that the second person allows it to happen.
If the weapons are launched the POTUS is impeached before the fallout settles, undoubtedly followed by a criminal action by the DoJ for violating a raft of treaties and mass murder (and, incidentally, to short-circuit any ICC foolishness). Also, undoubtedly found incompetent to stand trial and locked away forever.
Doubtful that the second person allows it to happen.
If the weapons are launched the POTUS is impeached before the fallout settles, undoubtedly followed by a criminal action by the DoJ for violating a raft of treaties and mass murder (and, incidentally, to short-circuit any ICC foolishness). Also, undoubtedly found incompetent to stand trial and locked away forever.
Not that I've got a clearance or anything beyond open source material, but it is my understanding that the two man rule applies at presidential level no matter the circumstances, and the second person at any level has the authority to veto if they think it's not a valid order.
Hello!
WHERE are you going to drop nukes that it would make any sense?
If the Taliban had congregated in large enough military units that the US could have nuked them, the US could also have crushed them in conventional battle.
Nukes aren't magic. Oooo... Let's irradiate a couple of square miles and all the bad guys (even ones hundreds of miles away?) die.
It doesn't work that way.
Besides, as pointed out by others, the US WILL NOT respond with WMDs unless they are attacked with them - and even then it's politically iffy.
So. No.
The only way the U.S. Is using Nukes anywhere is as an instant response. The only way we'd nuke say, Baghdad, would be if a nuclear weapon went off in New York and within the day we positively absolutely knew that the Iraqi regime was responsible. And even then, we probably wouldn't do it if we didn't think more attacks were coming.
John Farson
Banned
Why would the US resort to nuclear weapons against guys with Kalashnikovs and RPGs?
Why would the US resort to nuclear weapons against guys with Kalashnikovs and RPGs?
Revenge? Showing al-Qaida who's boss?