5 ms·
Would it, tho? Answering a conventional strike in international waters with a nuclear one (and at different target instead of the original attacker, since you
by senko 5y ago
Would it, tho?
Answering a conventional strike in international waters with a nuclear one (and at different target instead of the original attacker, since you can't really nuke a sub) is crossing the Rubicon, there's no going back from that.
- CamperBob2 5y agoYes. Sinking an aircraft carrier would likely kill several thousand personnel at once. If that doesn't lead to the use of tactical nukes, nothing will.
- warkdarrior 5y agoBringing down the Twin Towers in NYC killed several thousand people at once. US did not use nukes against Taliban/Al-Qaeda in response.
- ericmay 5y agoThere wasn’t a single country to really nuke. If it was a conventional military power then the U.S. would have went to war and began attacking actual things like ships or air bases. Taliban didn’t really have those. What are you going to do, nuke random places in Afghanistan for no reason?
- Wildgoose 5y agoThe US openly reserved the right to do so though.
- aloer 5y ago> If that doesn't lead to the use of tactical nukes, nothing will. And that’s exactly how it should be and has been since ww2. You use nukes when someone else uses nukes. No exception. In a perfect world this keeps the balance
- CamperBob2 5y agoSorry, but US nuclear doctrine contains no such provisions.