NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's say country A is a nuclear power. So are country B and Country C. Countries A and B are allies, country C hates them both. If country C uses nuclear weapons on country B, does country A have an ethically justified motive to retaliate with nuclear weapons against country C?

No.

Let's say country A is a nuclear power. So are country B and Country C. Countries A and B are allies, country C hates them both. If country C uses nuclear weapons on country B, does country A have an ethically justified motive to retaliate with nuclear weapons against country C?

Depends on treaty obligations, and on what A thinks C will do after finishing with B.

It's not a moral question - it's a survival question that should be evaluated using game theory alone.

Let's say country A is a nuclear power. So are country B and Country C. Countries A and B are allies, country C hates them both. If country C uses nuclear weapons on country B, does country A have an ethically justified motive to retaliate with nuclear weapons against country C?
If country A has treaty obligations with country B, they should honour them.

Depends on treaty obligations, and on what A thinks C will do after finishing with B.

It's not a moral question - it's a survival question that should be evaluated using game theory alone.
C will not attack A. It's certain death.

Let's say country A is a nuclear power. So are country B and Country C. Countries A and B are allies, country C hates them both. If country C uses nuclear weapons on country B, does country A have an ethically justified motive to retaliate with nuclear weapons against country C?
Technically no, since C actually didn't attack A, and there was no declaration of war. But, if A does consider C's actions to be war-like they can call it and then declare war, which in a strange way, gives C extra public support because they were never at war and suddenly this country has declared war on them.

Depends on treaty obligations, and on what A thinks C will do after finishing with B.

It's not a moral question - it's a survival question that should be evaluated using game theory alone.

Agreed. This being a horribly imperfect world, sometimes morality needs to take a back seat to survival. Use of retaliatory nukes allowed if the situation demands.

C will not attack A. It's certain death.
If that is the condition, then it will not last forever. C, out of fear, will develop more weapons and plan to use them on A.

A should destroy C before they repeat what they did to B. After all, C has demonstrated a willingness to use nuclear weapons without any legitimate provocation.

Yes they have to. If we give the impression we will tolerate country C ever using nuclear wepons then the whole point of its existance becomes worthless.

Like in the cold war, we'd never actually use them but we always had to give the impression if one of us went to far we'd have to.

Sounds like we wait for Iran to nuke Israel, and then we wipe Iran off the face of the earth.

Sounds like we wait for Iran to nuke Israel, and then we wipe Iran off the face of the earth.
I doubt we'll do that. Despite that Iran is filled to the brim with religious fanaticism to boot, we have to remember that its primarily those in power who are at the helm of this Cruise Ship of Assholery. The citizens are innocent, and are given very little options in their 'elections'.

Let's say country A is a nuclear power. So are country B and Country C. Countries A and B are allies, country C hates them both. If country C uses nuclear weapons on country B, does country A have an ethically justified motive to retaliate with nuclear weapons against country C?
Not necessarily, no.

I doubt we'll do that. Despite that Iran is filled to the brim with religious fanaticism to boot, we have to remember that its primarily those in power who are at the helm of this Cruise Ship of Assholery. The citizens are innocent, and are given very little options in their 'elections'.
It's news to me that they have elections in Iran. The last time anyone tried that there was the election of Mossadeq back in the '60s, surely?

It's news to me that they have elections in Iran. The last time anyone tried that there was the election of Mossadeq back in the '60s, surely?
No, they have regular elections. It's just that the mullahs decide who can and can't run.

Let's say country A is a nuclear power. So are country B and Country C. Countries A and B are allies, country C hates them both. If country C uses nuclear weapons on country B, does country A have an ethically justified motive to retaliate with nuclear weapons against country C?

Assuming you mean allies in the treaty sense, then yes. In fact they would probably not only have an ethical reason to do so, but a response would justified under international law as well. (I am further assuming that country C just attacked B out of the blue for no reason).

It's news to me that they have elections in Iran. The last time anyone tried that there was the election of Mossadeq back in the '60s, surely?
I didn't say elections, I said 'elections' - perhaps you missed the quotation marks, indicating that it's not really an election. It's just a way to make people think they get to choose their public officials, when it's just a game of, "here, we have x-number of radical conservatives, please pick the one that best represents our views and not yours, even though you're 'voting'."

I didn't say elections, I said 'elections' - perhaps you missed the quotation marks, indicating that it's not really an election. It's just a way to make people think they get to choose their public officials, when it's just a game of, "here, we have x-number of radical conservatives, please pick the one that best represents our views and not yours, even though you're 'voting'."
My bad.

Assuming you mean allies in the treaty sense, then yes. In fact they would probably not only have an ethical reason to do so, but a response would justified under international law as well. (I am further assuming that country C just attacked B out of the blue for no reason).
Seconded. However, retaliation mustn't nessecarily be nuclear.

Interesting. Poll results are not what I would have expected.

Seconded. However, retaliation mustn't nessecarily be nuclear.

Thirded and agree with the honorable person from Sailin' The Digital Seas' amendment.
*see below
While country A has an obligation by "normal*1" alliance treaty terms to attack C, I would also say that nuclear weapons in the stand off / stand down class *2 should/won't ever be used. And in attacking C, A should have the option oper to use Tactical nuclear arms*3. Other then that enjoy your newly annexed state.

*1 (by this i mean most that I've seen with a 'I get attacked you help me out' clause)

*2 ICBM's, City Killer, nuclear winter kind.

*3 these are small very low strength WMD that could be used on troop concenrations and have little impact outside of 50km. Compared to 5000++++km for the ICBM class. Only use them on enemy soil. And before your troops engage the enmeys to minimise your own losses.

Interesting. Poll results are not what I would have expected.

What'd you expect?

And wouldn't it depend on the proximity of the country to other countries and to each other? I mean, if they're close together, the fallout could be tremendous.

nuke that retarted country c out of existance. if they threaten country a strike first and end it once and for all.:mp5:

I voted to conventionally attack country C because it upsets me to see so many nuke-happy hawks zooming around, and I wanted to narrow the gap a little bit for a little while. If B has a mutual defense treaty with A, then A is obligated to defend them or retaliate on their behalf. If there's no treaty, retaliation would still be the correct thing to do, to honor the status of ally -- unless they were a crappy ally and you're glad to be rid of them. In general, I would be inclined to retaliate against C even if B wasn't my ally because I don't want C thinking they're the new top dog on the planet. If A can crush C, then C needs to get crushed, even if B was my enemy.

I voted to conventionally attack country C because it upsets me to see so many nuke-happy hawks zooming around, and I wanted to narrow the gap a little bit for a little while. If B has a mutual defense treaty with A, then A is obligated to defend them or retaliate on their behalf. If there's no treaty, retaliation would still be the correct thing to do, to honor the status of ally -- unless they were a crappy ally and you're glad to be rid of them. In general, I would be inclined to retaliate against C even if B wasn't my ally because I don't want C thinking they're the new top dog on the planet. If A can crush C, then C needs to get crushed, even if B was my enemy.
A can nuke C, but that doesn't mean it would be morally right... I'm going to vote for the first one, but in the sense of they CAN, not that they SHOULD.

If in fact someone nuked a Nato nation such as the UK or Italy. The US should absolutely lay waste to said nation. I would expect nothing less than a nuclear response.

I'd say use conventional strikes and try to eliminate country C's nuclear capabilities. If that fails, nuke country C before they can retaliate (if possible).

Let's say country A is a nuclear power. So are country B and Country C. Countries A and B are allies, country C hates them both. If country C uses nuclear weapons on country B, does country A have an ethically justified motive to retaliate with nuclear weapons against country C?

C will not attack A. It's certain death.

Answer - No the US shouldn't nuke Iran if/when Iran nukes Israel.

The US would, however be justified in conventionally moving on Iran.

Yep. That's what MAD is all about.

Let's say the US nukes N. Korea---Very likely with the current administration---would that mean that England or France should nuke LA or NY? Or would it be better for China to Nuke the entire west coast?