4 ms·

Yes, the reason the U.S. has historically not ruled out a first use was to deter a conventional attack (mainly in Europe). At the same time, the Soviet union de

Yes, the reason the U.S. has historically not ruled out a first use was to deter a conventional attack (mainly in Europe). At the same time, the Soviet union declared that they would not make a first use (because their conventional army was much stronger anyway). However, now the tables are turned, and NATO has more conventional forces than Russia. (And indeed, Russia changed policy and says that they would use nuclear weapons in response to a conventional attack). Realistically, there is no situation in which the U.S. today would actually make a first use, so they can afford to change their formal policy to reflect that. At the same time, keeping the policy ambiguous has a cost, namely that the other side will feel more threatened, raising the risk of an accidental nuclear war. (C.f. Able Archer 83). Ruling out first use is the option that gives the lowest risk of nuclear war. To give the maximal stability, everyone should adopt as restrictive a policy as possible (the ideal example is China, who rule out both first use and use against non-nuclear countries). Such a policy makes the weapons less "useful", in the sense that they only used to deter a nuclear attack and not for "getting away with" weaker conventional forces, but it is safer.

gozur88 10y ago
>Ruling out first use is the option that gives the lowest risk of nuclear war. I don't believe this is true. You lower the risk that an enemy will misinterpret something as a nuclear attack, but you raise the risk of getting involved in a conventional war that goes nuclear.
- nickff 10y ago
  This is a very interesting (Bayesian?) point. Probability of enemy nuclear first strike decreased Probability of enemy conventional first strike increased Probability of enemy nuclear escalation ? I am only addressing policy effects on enemies because the policy may be an intentional lie.
flukus 10y ago
What's China's policy if, in a conventional war, someone starts attacking there nuclear facilities?
- dogma1138 10y ago
  Define nuclear facilities (reactors, launch silos?). Under MAD an attack on the nuclear capabilities of a nuclear armed state or any attempt at unilateral disarmament is usually defined as a nuclear attack/first strike. This often interpreted both indirect and indirect means which is why the ABM work the US is been doing over the years in Europe causes such a big mess with the Russians. The US spends trillion on missile defense, trillions that Russia cannot afford, so Russia is forced to spend it on improving their nuclear delivery capabilities. Russia restarting their investment in their nuclear arms made the US go and say "see Europe, we weren't just fear mongering, they are rearming you need our missile defense" which pushes the Russians even further.
  - flukus 10y ago
    I was thinking launch silos when I wrote it, but it's a deeper question now that I think of it. Could a conventional attack on a power plant and the fallout from it be considered a nuclear attack? What about a nuclear powered air craft carrier? Is an attack on a nuclear armed submarine, would they be considered an attack on their nuclear capabilities? The attacker might not even know what type of submarine it is.
    - dogma1138 10y ago
      Well when it comes to MAD any attempt to disarm the nuclear capability of your partner in MADness has to be considered as a first strike which would lead to a retaliatory nuclear 2nd strike even if the 1st strike was not nuclear it self. Like everything in life you have to take it into proportion, if Russia or the US sink a single SSBN that's not exactly nuclear disarmament, if one party launches a preemptive non-nuclear strike against the SSBN fleet at large as well as the fixed and mobile ground based platforms that would likely invoke a very harsh response which traditionally under MAD has to be nuclear because if you do not use your nuclear arsenal while you still have it effectively you've lost it for good. And if the other party knows or suspects you would not use your nuclear arsenal unless you've been attacked with nuclear or non-conventional non-nuclear weapons first even if the conventional attack is against your nuclear capability they would attempt to disarm you without thinking twice. MAD works well when you under no circumstances would use your nuclear arsenal first in an offensive manner, but have very clear and public guidelines for nuclear response.
dingaling 10y ago
> Realistically, there is no situation in which the U.S. today would actually make a first use During Operation Desert Storm there was consideration of using nuclear weapons to demolish very-deeply-set bunkers until it was determined that they weren't built under rock sheets. Although technically excellent thanks to Yugoslav and East German expertise, they had been dug-and-covered rather than drilled-out. A GBU-28 conventional penetrator can punch through about 20 feet of rock, whereas a shallow-detonation 400kT B61-11 will crack structures several hundred feet deeper through shock effects. The B61-11 remains in the inventory and has now been supplemented by the penetrating B61-12. I wouldn't rule-out first use of either type in the face of suitably challenging targets.

gozur88 10y ago

>Ruling out first use is the option that gives the lowest risk of nuclear war. I don't believe this is true. You lower the risk that an enemy will misinterpret something as a nuclear attack, but you raise the risk of getting involved in a conventional war that goes nuclear.

nickff 10y ago
This is a very interesting (Bayesian?) point. Probability of enemy nuclear first strike decreased Probability of enemy conventional first strike increased Probability of enemy nuclear escalation ? I am only addressing policy effects on enemies because the policy may be an intentional lie.

flukus 10y ago

What's China's policy if, in a conventional war, someone starts attacking there nuclear facilities?

dogma1138 10y ago
Define nuclear facilities (reactors, launch silos?). Under MAD an attack on the nuclear capabilities of a nuclear armed state or any attempt at unilateral disarmament is usually defined as a nuclear attack/first strike. This often interpreted both indirect and indirect means which is why the ABM work the US is been doing over the years in Europe causes such a big mess with the Russians. The US spends trillion on missile defense, trillions that Russia cannot afford, so Russia is forced to spend it on improving their nuclear delivery capabilities. Russia restarting their investment in their nuclear arms made the US go and say "see Europe, we weren't just fear mongering, they are rearming you need our missile defense" which pushes the Russians even further.
- flukus 10y ago
  I was thinking launch silos when I wrote it, but it's a deeper question now that I think of it. Could a conventional attack on a power plant and the fallout from it be considered a nuclear attack? What about a nuclear powered air craft carrier? Is an attack on a nuclear armed submarine, would they be considered an attack on their nuclear capabilities? The attacker might not even know what type of submarine it is.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    Well when it comes to MAD any attempt to disarm the nuclear capability of your partner in MADness has to be considered as a first strike which would lead to a retaliatory nuclear 2nd strike even if the 1st strike was not nuclear it self. Like everything in life you have to take it into proportion, if Russia or the US sink a single SSBN that's not exactly nuclear disarmament, if one party launches a preemptive non-nuclear strike against the SSBN fleet at large as well as the fixed and mobile ground based platforms that would likely invoke a very harsh response which traditionally under MAD has to be nuclear because if you do not use your nuclear arsenal while you still have it effectively you've lost it for good. And if the other party knows or suspects you would not use your nuclear arsenal unless you've been attacked with nuclear or non-conventional non-nuclear weapons first even if the conventional attack is against your nuclear capability they would attempt to disarm you without thinking twice. MAD works well when you under no circumstances would use your nuclear arsenal first in an offensive manner, but have very clear and public guidelines for nuclear response.

dingaling 10y ago

> Realistically, there is no situation in which the U.S. today would actually make a first use During Operation Desert Storm there was consideration of using nuclear weapons to demolish very-deeply-set bunkers until it was determined that they weren't built under rock sheets. Although technically excellent thanks to Yugoslav and East German expertise, they had been dug-and-covered rather than drilled-out. A GBU-28 conventional penetrator can punch through about 20 feet of rock, whereas a shallow-detonation 400kT B61-11 will crack structures several hundred feet deeper through shock effects. The B61-11 remains in the inventory and has now been supplemented by the penetrating B61-12. I wouldn't rule-out first use of either type in the face of suitably challenging targets.