Nuclear war: Hypothetical scenario

[The Green Bean]

EDIT: I DO NOT condone the use of Nuclear weapons on anyone for any cause. This is just a discussion on the morality of their use according to what most Americans think. After all Americans are pound for they feel they are a moral people. Personally, I feel nuclear weapons should be banned. Embargoes should be imposed on anyone who possesses them. I don't understand why American's claim it would be dangerous for Iran to possess nuclear weapons while they themselves may use them.

This is purely hypothetical and I'm looking for American opinions on justification of actions. I'm really NOT interested in hearing what would happen.

Lets suppose the Americans invaded Pakistani territory without their permission in an illegal act of war. The Pakistanis subsequently declared full scale war on them. Would they be justified in their use of nuclear weapons on American military targets inside Pakistan or at sea? On Pakistan's part this would not be an illegal war against the aggression of America. They have the right to defend themselves. Would this not be more justifiable than Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Because of the fact that Japan was not inside US territory and posed no immediate threat to US sovereignty and that military targets posing an immediate threat would be targeted. Most of the world's countries would not be threatened by this invasion unlike WWII but from Pakistan's point of view this invasion would put them in the place of the allies. Would it not?

If Pakistan used nuclear weapons causing high military casualties, would America be justified in bombing Pakistani cities and killing civilian (who have nothing to do with the war except see their country invaded and defenders trying to defend it) and try and counter Pakistan? If you say yes; why do you say that?

We all know an invasion of Pakistan could get very very messy and the outcome would be horrid if nuclear weapons were involved. But I'm more interested in what the Americans think about what is right and wrong morally.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

The problem with the use of nuclear weapons is that once one side uses them, the other side damn near has to use them. In this case the US would level Islamabad. It does not really matter who is and is not justified.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Based on your scenario, Pakistan would be attempting to start a limited nuclear engagement.

Much would depend on the target, how quick Pakistan would pull the trigger and what attempts may have been made to resolve the situation.

As stated above, the worst case situation would destroy Pakistan is that the US retaliated with nukes.

Also, if Pakistan used the nuclear option, what do you think India might think/react.

Nukes may sound nice and clean; they are not.

It is a horrible weapon and should not be considered by sane people as anything but a last resort to prevent futher destruction/loss of life.

 

[Andyb23]

If Pakistan used nuclear weapons I can assure as an Indian we would help Americans.

And nuclear weapons are not an option in todays world, they are a deterrent. Using nuclear weapons on civilians or soldiers is a last resort.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Andyb23
If Pakistan used nuclear weapons I can assure as an Indian we would help Americans.

What would you do if America illegally invaded Pakistan?

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
It is a horrible weapon and should not be considered by sane people as anything but a last resort to prevent futher destruction/loss of life.

If that's the only way Pakistan can save itself from becoming another occupied territory of the USA then?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Andyb23
If Pakistan used nuclear weapons I can assure as an Indian we would help Americans.

What would you do if America illegally invaded Pakistan?

Cheer.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
The problem with the use of nuclear weapons is that once one side uses them, the other side damn near has to use them. In this case the US would level Islamabad. It does not really matter who is and is not justified.

Would that not be hypocritical? Apparently, the terrorists attacked on 9/11 because of Israeli killings of Palestinians (Or atleast they claim).

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
The problem with the use of nuclear weapons is that once one side uses them, the other side damn near has to use them. In this case the US would level Islamabad. It does not really matter who is and is not justified.

Would that not be hypocritical? Apparently, the terrorists attacked on 9/11 because of Israeli killings of Palestinians (Or atleast they claim).

What?

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
The problem with the use of nuclear weapons is that once one side uses them, the other side damn near has to use them. In this case the US would level Islamabad. It does not really matter who is and is not justified.

Would that not be hypocritical? Apparently, the terrorists attacked on 9/11 because of Israeli killings of Palestinians (Or atleast they claim).

What?

I'm trying to compare American civilians to Pakistani civilians. We are humans too. Everybody here believes that Israel is America's fault.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
The problem with the use of nuclear weapons is that once one side uses them, the other side damn near has to use them. In this case the US would level Islamabad. It does not really matter who is and is not justified.

Would that not be hypocritical? Apparently, the terrorists attacked on 9/11 because of Israeli killings of Palestinians (Or atleast they claim).

What?

I'm trying to compare American civilians to Pakistani civilians. We are humans too. Everybody here believes that Israel is America's fault.

Technically, Israel is Germany's fault.

 

[Harabec]

I think a far more likely scenario would be US special forces cooperating with Pakistani forces\intelligence in medium-scale attack against terrorists.

You need to give Americans more credit. While you may hear bush saying dumb things and see the US as a bully, it is impossible to be both an idiot and a superpower.
(That is, unless we ALL agree the US is stupid and no longer a superpower, heh)
If you DO think the above combination is possible, then you are no more than a "victim", trying to underrate a much bigger player to make yourself feel better - for whatever reason.

Now for your questions. I think you misunderstand the meaning of war.
War is not meant to be moral. It does not answer philosophical questions. It is merely using calculated violence to achieve a goal that would be otherwise impossible.

Any "moral" decisions\debates are to be thought through beforehand and they include the predicted amount of people killed\injured on both sides, what the main objective of violence is and therefor what needs to be done about the non-fighting population.

You do not wage war thinking "oh, those poor bastards I'll be shooting at, am I right to pull the trigger?". That comes before the war. Either in a public debate or in dark rooms full of smoke and hot interns writing down things.

I'm always amazed by that way of thinking. "moral"? "justified"? You do what you need to do in order to get things done the way YOU want them to. If you think the "moral" cost is too high - civilian casualties, infrastructure damage etc. , you don't start a war.

Now, if a certain group goes to war without expecting it to be bloody...well, tough luck, welcome to real life.

 

[CycloWizard]

If a nation cannot control what is happening in one region within its nominal borders, then that region is not under the rule of law and effectively not part of that nation. Thus, that region may be considered as a separate entity. If that entity carried out an aggressive action within US territory, then the US would indeed be justified in attacking said entity.

 

[Andyb23]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
The problem with the use of nuclear weapons is that once one side uses them, the other side damn near has to use them. In this case the US would level Islamabad. It does not really matter who is and is not justified.

Would that not be hypocritical? Apparently, the terrorists attacked on 9/11 because of Israeli killings of Palestinians (Or atleast they claim).

What a ridiculous statement. Osama Bin Laden was from Saudi Arabia. Israel never did anything to Saudi Arabia. Israel is a small nation they are no threat to the Middle East at all.

 

[Lemon law]

To the Green Bean,

You have somewhat put your finger on what basically no longer happens. Namely a country on country all out total war. And its sorta of interesting that you choose Japan vs. the US as an example.

But basically, pre ww2, Japan was fairly strong militarily but was totally limited by a total lack of raw materials. And the US and the European powers basically had the Asian and world raw material markets locked up. And were threatening a total raw material embargo because these status quo powers were very unhappy with Japanese expansionist policies in Korea and China. And quite frankly Japan was the rather brutal Asian 800 Lb. Gorilla feeling its Psychopathic oats. And Japan was totally PO'd at being checked by a set of larger but distant 3200 LB gorillas.

Then Japan got a GOD send when Germany and Italy allied, effectively becoming a Japan friendly 3200 lb. Gorilla, Effectively canceling the European set of Japan hostile Gorillas. And then Japan figured all they had to do is take out the sleeping US 3200 LB. Gorilla and they could do anything they wanted to do. Hence the Pearl Harbor attack which worked beyond their wildest dreams. And made the Eastern Pacific a Japanese lake. But it was still a matter that Japan woke up a 3200 gorilla and the Gorilla woke up pissed. With one and only one goal in mind. Namely build a bridge to Tokyo. The means were not immediately clear but the dedicated goal was. And in less than four years the 3200 lb gorilla became a 6400 LB. Gorilla . While Japan was reduced to a 50 LB. Gorilla powerless to resist. Only one card remained for Japan to play. Resist having Japan being occupied by arming its civilian population in a battle to the death thereby forcing the US to kill every man, woman, and child in Japan. As we all know, the nuclear surprise card ended up avoiding that scenario.

Even today we debate about the justifications. Japan thought it was Justified, the US thought it was Justified, but in a conventional war, its a matter of who plants which flag in the enemy capital. And might and not justification makes right.

And sorry The Green Bean, as a US citizen I am ashamed to admit that the US is now that
12,800 LB. Psychopathic Gorilla and at best Pakistan is a conventionally armed 200 Gorilla. And if Pakistan wants to look to the East, it can see a 1600 LB Indian Elephant. Add in the nukes and the Pakistani arsenal can't even scratch what Uncle Sam has and can deliver. In short, the best Pakistan can do is enrage an already irrational brute.

And as a military problem, Pakistan has to hope the Uncle Sam 12,800 Lb. Gorilla retains an iota of sense. But if Pakistan tries to resist the US militarily, it will get squashed like an ant on the sidewalk. Pakistan may be totally justified and its killer card may be in Uncle Sam not having the resources to occupy, but as you can see by the many neocon sympathizers here, if you give the US much of a reason to attack, nuts like GWB&co. will.

Meanwhile we all hope to walk that fine line while praying nothing disturbs the status quo. And hopefully in six months or so, our congress will start reining in the insanity of GWB&co. so the world can heave a giant sigh of relief.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
It is a horrible weapon and should not be considered by sane people as anything but a last resort to prevent further destruction/loss of life.

If that's the only way Pakistan can save itself from becoming another occupied territory of the USA then?

There is no need for the US to attempt to treat Pakistan as a occupied territory.
The only reason that we (US) (at present) would have military forces in Pakistan would be
1) To go after AL people that are hiding in Pakistani territory; knowing where they are and not getting any assistance from the Pakistani government in destroying them. They are our enemies, not the Pakistani people. Now, if the Pakistani government were to be shown aiding and abetting them, then a scenario similar to Afghanistan could develop against the government, not the population.

2) To secure nuclear weapons/facilities if it were determined that some-one may be thinking about utilizing such weapons w/ respect to a first strike.

The US has territories that have been offered complete independence if they want it; for the past 50 years, many have asked for an commonwealth status which allows them US protection and benefits. You should not be able to find any case where the US has occupied a country and stayed to make it a territory.

Afghanistan is US forces working with the government there along with NATO/UN forces.
Iraq is a place that we want a stable government, not an occupied territory.
Territories/Countries that were occupied in WWII have been returned to their local governments without the political and military oversight. Unlike what the Soviets did to Eastern Europe and Chinese did to Tibet, etc.

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
The problem with the use of nuclear weapons is that once one side uses them, the other side damn near has to use them. In this case the US would level Islamabad. It does not really matter who is and is not justified.

Would that not be hypocritical? Apparently, the terrorists attacked on 9/11 because of Israeli killings of Palestinians (Or at least they claim).

If you believe the terrorists were launched under the guidance of Bin Laden, then you should have understood that Bin Laden was doing this out of hatred of the US for the GWI and stationing of US personnel in Saudi during the action (at the request of the Saudis)
AQ was not prevalent until after GWI; OBL had 20 years of planning and testing the US responses to incidents prior to 9/11.

People may have claimed the the 9/11 participants were doing this as a result of Israel - individually that may be, but they were lead by people that did not care about the Palestinians - few Saudis do w/ the exception of the radicals. I have seen nothing published (at this point) documenting points of view from the 9/11 participants.

Because Palestinians may have cheered at the results of 9/11 does not mean that they were the trigger or intended beneficiaries of it.

 

[athithi]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
This is purely hypothetical and I'm looking for American opinions on justification of actions. I'm really NOT interested in hearing what would happen.

Lets suppose the Americans invaded Pakistani territory without their permission in an illegal act of war. The Pakistanis subsequently declared full scale war on them. Would they be justified in their use of nuclear weapons on American military targets inside Pakistan or at sea? On Pakistan's part this would not be an illegal war against the aggression of America. They have the right to defend themselves. Would this not be more justifiable than Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Because of the fact that Japan was not inside US territory and posed no immediate threat to US sovereignty and that military targets posing an immediate threat would be targeted. Most of the world's countries would not be threatened by this invasion unlike WWII but from Pakistan's point of view this invasion would put them in the place of the allies. Would it not?

If Pakistan used nuclear weapons causing high military casualties, would America be justified in bombing Pakistani cities and killing civilian (who have nothing to do with the war except see their country invaded and defenders trying to defend it) and try and counter Pakistan? If you say yes; why do you say that?

We all know an invasion of Pakistan could get very very messy and the outcome would be horrid if nuclear weapons were involved. But I'm more interested in what the Americans think about what is right and wrong morally.

I shouldn't really speak for Americans, as I am technically not one yet. But having lived here for a decade, I would think most Americans would feel morally very justified because the invasion of Pakistan would not necessarily be 'illegal' in the first place. Any American opposition to such an invasion, or its aftermath, would come because of what pacifist Americans want their country to be and not necessarily because they believe Pakistan to be innocent of terrorism against the American people.

What law do you suppose America would be breaking if they invade a country that openly breeds and hosts groups that are inimical to American interests? Pakistan's contribution to terrorism against America is significantly greater than Iraq and arguably greater than even Afghanistan. The only reason the US attacked Afghanistan was because Osama was based there and Mullah Omar refused to hand him over to the U.S. The entire world, Pakistan included, stood behind this invasion. The way I see it, the situation is nearly identical with Pakistan.

Pakistan's need to defend itself against radical Islam is far greater than its need to defend against an implausible attack from the U.S. The U.S would have no reason to attack Pakistan if only Pakistan would capture/kill OBL and suppress the terrorist groups within their own borders. Any subsequent Pakistan attack on US targets would only be seen as an attempt to prevent the US from safegaurding its interests.

I am originally from India and find it ironic that after decades of dismissing Indian claims of cross-border terrorism from Pakistan, the US is now a victim of cross-continent terrorism from Pakistan. My views are definitely influenced by my Indian origin but I don't think I am far from the mark when I believe Americans have started feeling the same way towards Pakistan now.

Rather than ask the US if it would be morally justified in invading Pakistan, why don't Pakistanis ask themselves if Pakistan is morally justified in letting terrorism breed within its borders?

 

[Andyb23]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Andyb23
If Pakistan used nuclear weapons I can assure as an Indian we would help Americans.

What would you do if America illegally invaded Pakistan?

I would protest against it just like I did against the Iraq War. I have family from Lahore and Karachi, now in Pakistan.

But using nuclear weapons is a last resort like I said. Hiding terrorists is ridiculous, these people have no love for anybody.

 

[Moonbeam]

The Green Bean: Lets suppose the Americans invaded Pakistani territory without their permission in an illegal act of war.

M: We can stop right here. This hypothetical stated that the America action is illegal and therefore morally wrong and thus, therefore, a just pretext for war as a response. One side is right, Pakistan and one side is wrong, America, end of story.

TGB: The Pakistanis subsequently declared full scale war on them. Would they be justified in their use of nuclear weapons on American military targets inside Pakistan or at sea? On Pakistan's part this would not be an illegal war against the aggression of America. They have the right to defend themselves. Would this not be more justifiable than Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Because of the fact that Japan was not inside US territory and posed no immediate threat to US sovereignty and that military targets posing an immediate threat would be targeted. Most of the world's countries would not be threatened by this invasion unlike WWII but from Pakistan's point of view this invasion would put them in the place of the allies. Would it not?

M: Pakistan is defending itself against an illegal and unjust war. You can't get any more right than that.

TGB: If Pakistan used nuclear weapons causing high military casualties, would America be justified in bombing Pakistani cities and killing civilian (who have nothing to do with the war except see their country invaded and defenders trying to defend it) and try and counter Pakistan? If you say yes; why do you say that?

M: We already know that America is engaged in an unjust war. Any act of aggression they took in any direction, here, would be wrong.

TGB: We all know an invasion of Pakistan could get very very messy and the outcome would be horrid if nuclear weapons were involved. But I'm more interested in what the Americans think about what is right and wrong

M: This American believes that right is right and wrong is wrong and that is obvious and simple. What is not obvious is determining what it is that is really right and really wrong in objective reality and not a result of your own ox being gored. But you eliminated that problem for me in this hypothetical case by stating the facts of the matter a priori.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The Green Bean: Lets suppose the Americans invaded Pakistani territory without their permission in an illegal act of war.

M: We can stop right here. This hypothetical stated that the America action is illegal and therefore morally wrong and thus, therefore, a just pretext for war as a response. One side is right, Pakistan and one side is wrong, America, end of story.
...
This American believes that right is right and wrong is wrong and that is obvious and simple. What is not obvious is determining what it is that is really right and really wrong in objective reality and not a result of your own ox being gored. But you eliminated that problem for me in this hypothetical case by stating the facts of the matter a priori.

But your analysis assumes that what is legal is also moral. I contend that, while this should always be the case, it is generally not.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Lets suppose the Americans invaded Pakistani territory without their permission in an illegal act of war.

Is there such thing as a legal act of war?

You might think that the US declaring war on Japan after Pearl Harbor was a legal act of war, but a state of war already existed between the two countries at the time all congress was doing at that time was making a political statement.

Everyone, even the Pakistanis, accept for a fact that members of the Taliban and AQ are hiding and operating out of Pakistan. And everyone accepts that those groups are launching operations against American, NATO and Afghanistan. If the Pakistani government can?t or won?t deal with those forces then America would be justified in going after them ourselves. This is VERY unlikely to happen since invading Pakistan would be a disaster for moderate elements of the Pakistani government.

As far as Pakistan being justified to use nukes against US forces:

If we launched an all out invasion with the intent of removing the current Pakistan government and replacing it with something else then the military leaders of Pakistan might think it justified to use nukes to defend themselves. However using nukes on the US would allow the US to respond in kind if it wanted. Meaning the US could then us its battle field nukes against Pakistan military sites or even cities. This would be a disaster for Pakistan. Launching a nuclear attack in order to save your country from invasion only to have your country destroy during a retaliatory attack doesn?t make much sense.

Now when you have someone like Obama saying he would not use nuclear weapons in a retaliatory way you just invite our enemies to use nukes against us.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Everyone, even the Pakistanis, accept for a fact that members of the Taliban and AQ are hiding and operating out of Pakistan. And everyone accepts that those groups are launching operations against American, NATO and Afghanistan. If the Pakistani government can?t or won?t deal with those forces then America would be justified in going after them ourselves. This is VERY unlikely to happen since invading Pakistan would be a disaster for moderate elements of the Pakistani government.

The US wants Pakistan to kill all tribals that are not going to give AlQaeeda up. They will not do that. If they, or America did anything, we would have suicide attacks on cities on the scale not even seen in Iraq. If America did step into Pakistani soil, they would be in a dillemma.

 

[FoBoT]

Pakistan has no way to deliver a nuke to north america

i don't think i understand this scenario you are proposing

i doubt Pakistan has tactical nukes, the small ones that could be used in a military theater vs. "deterant" type nukes that are big just to scare others (India? isn't that the reason Pakistan has nukes?), big nukes are for killing civilians/deterance, not for use on troops that are already inside your own country. that would be suicide

 

[K1052]

The second you go non-conventional (nuclear, biological, or chemical) all bets are off. It becomes not only a military imperative but a political one to respond in kind, probably with overwhelming force. Failure to respond sends the message to other nations that you can use nuclear weapons on US military targets without fear of retaliation.

I think this scenario is incredibly far fetched, though from your previous postings you seem to have some idea that the US is out to get Pakistan (which isn't the case).

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Everyone, even the Pakistanis, accept for a fact that members of the Taliban and AQ are hiding and operating out of Pakistan. And everyone accepts that those groups are launching operations against American, NATO and Afghanistan. If the Pakistani government can?t or won?t deal with those forces then America would be justified in going after them ourselves. This is VERY unlikely to happen since invading Pakistan would be a disaster for moderate elements of the Pakistani government.

The US wants Pakistan to kill all tribals that are not going to give AlQaeeda up. They will not do that. If they, or America did anything, we would have suicide attacks on cities on the scale not even seen in Iraq. If America did step into Pakistani soil, they would be in a dillemma.

Looks like K1052 is right in that you have no clue what America wants.

What we want is for AQ and the Taliban to be killed and eliminated, we could care less about tribal groups living in mountains.

Now if these tribal groups are helping AQ and the Taliban then they are just as much our enemy as AQ.

Green Bean think of it this way?

Some extremist Indian group starts to cross the boarder and launch attacks into Pakistan and India refuses to do anything about it how long do you let this happen before you take action on your own?

Now let?s say you find some little mountain village that these people are hiding in and you think you can go over kill them and get back across your boarder without involving the Indian military would you do it?

It would be the same think as Israel going after Hezbollah in Lebanon, they were not going after the government of Lebanon, but after one particular group.