It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nuclear decapitation strike or something else?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Let's assume a third-world country uses nukes against U.S./coalition forces during a war. Undoubtedly, the U.S. would respond with nukes. However, how exactly would they respond?

For those who don't know, a nuclear decapitation strike is one where nukes are used to destroy another country's leadership and C4ISR capabilities. A very specialized nuclear strike.

So the question is, would the response be a decapitation strike or would it be a limited counter-force or counter-value strike? I say limited because the small size of a third-world country as opposed to the gargantuan Russia and China means less nukes would have to be used. Also, in this day and age, a strong response would be grounds for some major repercussions.




posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdostrong response would be grounds for some major repercussions.
which Id point out would probably not be at the top of the list of America's greatest concerns at that time.



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animalmother

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdostrong response would be grounds for some major repercussions.
which Id point out would probably not be at the top of the list of America's greatest concerns at that time.


It would be the greatest concern at that time. Any nuclear situation is a beyond-serious concern.



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   
As a rule, they dont want to take off the head....who would surrender?

In say....Iran....I would think it would be the Nuke faculities, Navel and Army centers, any large army in the field, etc.

Civilian Centers arent really a good target



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
As a rule, they dont want to take off the head....who would surrender?

In say....Iran....I would think it would be the Nuke faculities, Navel and Army centers, any large army in the field, etc.

Civilian Centers arent really a good target


So you're suggesting a limited counterforce strike?

I realize the SIOP is pretty much the most highly-classified and secret military document, but dammit I wish I knew the general idea of what those options were!!!



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

So you're suggesting a limited counterforce strike?


Yes.

Warfare isnt the same as it was in WW2, there isnt really a reason to inflict huge amounts of civilian casualties. Now the name of the game is to take out the enemies ability to fight.



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 12:58 AM
link   
its impossible to predict what would happen..no country is going to use nukes on US first, or on any other country first..the countries that have nukes (including Iran) keep them safly hidden..

unfortunantly it is not possible to prevent civilian casualties with any type of nuclear war..forget about mini-nukes, bunker busters..they will end up killing 100,000s of civilians from cancer..the chernoble accedent killed a few thousand initially but another 93,000 have now died of cancer

[edit on 21-4-2006 by jajabinks]




top topics



 
0

log in

join