What would be the appropriate response to...

[texas_ex2000]

Iran using a tactical nuclear weapon against a US carrier in the Arabian Gulf? Even though our Aegis ships have TBM capability, they aren't perfect. And they could weaponize torpedoes, where our fleet is much more vulnerable. A friend asked me that today. He has concluded that, deal or no deal, it's inevitable Iran will get the bomb. He said the only choice would be a "full" response, implying nuclear strikes to population centers.

I said, if they attacked a population center, like Tel Aviv, that probably is the current contingency. But a tactical nuke against a warship at sea? After thinking about it, I said an all-out conventional attack, which surprised him.

What do you think it should be, and does MAD game theory even apply to Iran/Ayatollah?

 

[zork]

A strongly worded letter and Kerry shaking his finger at the camera.

 

[WorsterMan]

IMHO, any nation that has the bomb or gets the bomb should understand that a tactical or ICBM type nuclear attack on an US ship, facility, land or asset will result in a nuclear response at some level. Tactical or greater.

Now if our dithering and incompetent POTUS would actually grow testicles and do this or not is another story.

 

[nashhorn]

First order of business - blame Bush. Second, the ineffective congress. Then you tee off.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Iran using a tactical nuclear weapon against a US carrier in the Arabian Gulf? Even though our Aegis ships have TBM capability, they aren't perfect. And they could weaponize torpedoes, where our fleet is much more vulnerable. A friend asked me that today. He has concluded that, deal or no deal, it's inevitable Iran will get the bomb. He said the only choice would be a "full" response, implying nuclear strikes to population centers.

I said, if they attacked a population center, like Tel Aviv, that probably is the current contingency. But a tactical nuke against a warship at sea? After thinking about it, I said an all-out conventional attack, which surprised him.

What do you think it should be, and does MAD game theory even apply to Iran/Ayatollah?

I agree with you. A nuclear strike on a US aircraft carrier should be viewed in the same regard as the attack on Pearl Harbor. I wouldn't nuke Iranian population centers, but I sure as hell would end of the Iranian regime regardless of the costs or whether it expands into a larger war. And I might nuke military target if it supported the overall mission.

If they nuke Tel-Aviv, then I think Israel would immediately go nuke on Iran. I'm not sure we'd have to do much. Hell, Netanyahu probably wouldn't even call the White House. On the off chance that they nuked a US civilian population center, then we should bring nuclear Armageddon to Iran and basically destroy their entire civilization, but that's not going to happen.

 

[BevoBeef]

Iran using a tactical nuclear weapon against a US carrier in the Arabian Gulf? Even though our Aegis ships have TBM capability, they aren't perfect. And they could weaponize torpedoes, where our fleet is much more vulnerable. A friend asked me that today. He has concluded that, deal or no deal, it's inevitable Iran will get the bomb. He said the only choice would be a "full" response, implying nuclear strikes to population centers.

I am not sure that is the most practical question to ask. I have seen analysis that says that Iran is not trying to develop an ICBM carrying a nuclear warhead. Or even a medium range missile. They will push the envelope but will not cross that line. Their goal is to put a tactical nuclear bomb in something like a suitcase and give it to one of their proxies in Gaza or Lebanon. Iran is smart enough to know we are a paper tiger in the Middle East and are not threatened by us -- at least with our most recent threat postures. Their influence in the foreseeable future is in their vicinity of this planet. One of their terrorist proxies will trigger a nuclear bomb, and then they will sit back and say, "It is not us."

The direct threat will not be first against us because of the might of our nuclear retaliation. Iran will anticipate that we will just sit back if not directly threatened. The real question to ask will be in regards to our response when nuclear war breaks out in the Middle East? The first explosion will be in Israel. They will retaliate. Then all hell will break loose. What do we do then? Threaten to shoot down Israeli jets or urge for diplomacy and peace talks to prevail?

 

[texas_ex2000]

I am not sure that is the most practical question to ask. I have seen analysis that says that Iran is not trying to develop an ICBM carrying a nuclear warhead. Or even a medium range missile. They will push the envelope but will not cross that line. Their goal is to put a tactical nuclear bomb in something like a suitcase and give it to one of their proxies in Gaza or Lebanon. Iran is smart enough to know we are a paper tiger in the Middle East and are not threatened by us -- at least with our most recent threat postures. Their influence in the foreseeable future is in their vicinity of this planet. One of their terrorist proxies will trigger a nuclear bomb, and then they will sit back and say, "It is not us."

The direct threat will not be first against us because of the might of our nuclear retaliation. Iran will anticipate that we will just sit back if not directly threatened. The real question to ask will be in regards to our response when nuclear war breaks out in the Middle East? The first explosion will be in Israel. They will retaliate. Then all hell will break loose. What do we do then? Threaten to shoot down Israeli jets or urge for diplomacy and peace talks to prevail?

Asymetric attacks via their proxies are certainly Iran's MO. But a conflict with Iran, whether initiated by proxies or not, will eventually evolve into a conventional conflict (e.g. uniform v uniform) at some point - maybe even maneuveur warfare. It may not be the decisive phase of a campaign in Iran, but it would happen.

The cornerstone of Iran's defense strategy is to mine the Strait of Hormuz and kill our carriers by swarming with cruise missiles, gun boats, and submarines. They feel secure on their other natural boundries and air defense system to repel a US assault long enough that the loss of a carrier would deteriorate homeland morale and stomach for a prolonged campaign.

Obviously, if a nuke strike were an eminent threat, our ships wouldn't be in the Gulf, but we've had a constant presence there since the 80s. This scenario is the "Pearl Harbor" case Deez is referencing. We could launch air strikes from Saudi Arabia and Turkey. But that would most likely be at a later stage once the conflict has escalated.

As a scenario to think about the response is interesting. But most likely any attack against our carriers would likely be in retaliation to an Israeli strike. I doubt we'd have our fleet bottled up in the Gulf if we had a heads-up, but who knows. Seeing a US carrier high-tail it out of the Gulf would put Iran on full alert for an attack.

It's a cluster.

 

[Seattle Husker]

If Iran used a tactical nuke to take out a Carrier it would only be due to a fear that anything less would be insufficient. I think a conventional warfare response would be enough. Going nuclear would escalate the affair far beyond a regional conflict and would likely turn the world sentiment against us.

 

[zork]

Seattle Husker, so two strongly worded letters and some harsh faces from Kerry?

 

[Seattle Husker]

This...

Seattle Husker, so two strongly worded letters and some harsh faces from Kerry?

came from this?

I think a conventional warfare response would be enough.

 

[zork]

Carpet bombing then? They do have much better anti-aircraft, Chinese made reportedly, than anything Libya, Iraq, Syria, ever had.