Missile Shields and Military Strategy

[Captain Murphy]

We are in the process of installing missile shields in Eastern Europe and Japan. I think most Americans agree that if a country attacks us with nukes, then we should respond in kind. But, what if a country attacks us and we intercept and destroy the missile(s)? Do we nuke them anyway?

Obviously this is a hypothetical question. Just curious about how the concept of a missile shield affects US military policy in the event we are attacked with a nuclear missile(s).

 

[Meursault]

I tend to think that if we intercepted the nukes then we should not nuke their cities. As long as we can strategically attack and disable the country's ability to launch further missile attacks, then I think that nuking a city would be overkill (pardon the pun.)

If our technological superiority allows to protect our own civilian lives, then I see no reason to decimate the civilians of our adversary; again, provided that we can disable their ability to further attack us with nuclear weapons.

 

[TahoeHorn]

One interesting fact to know in this hypothetical is whether they have the capability to fire more.

 

[BattleshipTexas]

How would you know whether their missile was a nuclear missile or not?

 

[dognduckhorn]

I think that any decision to respond with a strike should be a tactical situational decision. To incorporate a retaliatory strike into official policy might give us problems as far as getting consent for European basing and possibly Japan.

Otherwise, I agree with Meursault (sp?)

 

[TxStHorn]

I think Americans, because we like to believe in the proposition that we're the moral good guys, if successful in defending a nuclear missile strike, would initially still be inclined to respond with strategic air & missile strikes against military targets only.

This would include known nuclear missile silos.

If not fully successful, and we incurred a second attack (successful or not), then we might turn up the heat a little, as it were.

 

[Ag with kids]

It's a safe bet to assume that any ICBMs would be nuclear armed...

And you can tell the trajectory of an ICBM pretty easily...

 

[Captain Murphy]

I agree we can't come out publicly and state our strategy. Even during the Cold War, I don't think we openly declared that MAD was our official military doctrine.

I believe that if it was commonly understood that the US would retaliate with nukes if we were attacked with nukes - regardless of whether or not we succeeded in thwarting the attack - then the likelihood of being attacked with nukes would decrease. Which is an important consideration, since we have no assurance we could successfully thwart such an attack.

 

[Ampoliros]

I think America will just leave our policy on this unstated. It makes it scarier for our enemies and leaves it up to the discretion of the people in charge if it actually happens, so they can use their best judgment (this may not always be a good thing).

At the very least, though, I would imagine that we would counterattack their nuke facilities. Maybe with ICBMs, but just as likely with massive waves of conventional cruise missiles and the like.

Who would use an ICBM that was not a nuke? If it were destroyed over land, though, the debris would be radioactive, so it would be easy to tell after the fact. Might take a few days to be sure, though.

 

[dognduckhorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[EuroHorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[dognduckhorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Nivek]

You would have to return the volley 10x minimum.

 

[53 Veer Pass]

Anyone using an ICBM knows that their adversary is going to assume it's a nuke whether it is or not and will respond accordingly. However, if you had the missiles but not the warheads, and wanted to commit national suicide, then I could see it.

 

[BattleshipTexas]

Y'all keep talking about ICBMs. The threat is a missile like Iran's Shahab-4 missile with a 1,350-1,500 kilometer range. I doubt that is considered an ICBM by most. But that is what the missile shield will need to counter. And it won't be obvious when fired whether it is nuclear, biological, chemical or basic explosives.

 

[Vibro_King]

Some of you guys are either high or just real nice. I think if an ICBM came this way we'd unload the stockpile. I hope we would. That's what it's there for. We're armed to the teeth for a reason. It's so no one bothers us.

Also I'm sure this scenerio has been played out and guys in the Petegon will grab a special binder and run the playbook.

 

[EuroHorn]

In reply to:

---

---