Deployment of nuclear weapons?

What exactly is americas policy regarding the deployment of its nuclear weapons? I mean what is the threshold in war at which point nuclear weapons become a legitimate response. I keep on hearing that if country x where to deploy chemical weapons against american troops the country would be turned into a "glass wasteland" is this true? If its true are primitive chemical weapons like mustard agent or chlorine (hardly WMDs in my opinion) also considered worthy of a nuclear response ?

Bio and Chemical weapons are treated as WMD and would depending on the situation warrent a Nuke responce. The military essentialy removed its tactical nuclear weapons a while ago. Im not sure how quickly you could rearm ships with TLAM-N's (subs would take much longer if they were out on patrol) Esp the LA class and thier VLS systems. You could load gravity and SRAM ont bombers pretty quickly, but I don't know how long it would take to covert the CALCM's back to nuclear.

However the strategic weapons are ready and avalible from the Trident to the Minuteman and can launch on a short notice

Nuclear weapons are used as a means of deterence and are highly political due to the fear associated with them.

Basically at this stage of the game warfare has developed far beyond force-on-force, black-and-white, and overt proclamations and proof of aggression. Clandenstine nukes may have been used in a number of bombings throughout the world already.

Besides that, the US uses uranium-235 in munitions and armor. When the munitions vaporize upon contact they resulting dust is a slowly working lethal toxin. Whether by design or accident, the US is actively using non-critical nuclear weaponry.

Threats of nuclear obliteration and turning cities into glass are meant to deter enemies from using WMDs. People are very good at figuring out what they can get away with, however, and still use WMDs covertly.

Basically, the threat of using nukes helps secure strategic goals, while their overt use is extremely limited. Notice, despite the cold war lasting about 50 years, that at no time did the US and USSR hit one another with nukes. The United States is the only country to use large scale nukes in warfare, and it happened at a time when a measured response from the enemy was not possible. Despite doing less direct damage to Japan than conventional firebombing runs, the nuclear bombs had an astounding psychological impact that truly crushed the enemy's will to resist.

So, basically, nuclear weapons deter nations from overt, full-scale aggression, especially with nukes. Due to this, the possibility of two giant nations with comparable amounts of power slogging it out World War Two style is dramatically lessened by threats of microsecond flash megadeaths. Notice that shooting wars for spherical control between superpowers have become proxy wars ala Korea, Vietnam, South American insurgencies, etc. The closest the US and the USSR came to war was over Cuba, and the nuclear element was key in both starting and resolving that conflict.

I think it would be a very hard decisions whether to use nuclear weapons. If you really turn a 3rd world countries citys into "glass wastelands" just because they got their hands on some sort of chemical weapon. You'd probably be very far out and lose the respect of many western countries.

I think if we were ever in the same position we were in WWII again, a nuclear strike would again be used. History tends to repeat itself, but the porblem is that now the bombs are so much more powerful than they were back then.

Depends on the enemy and threat level.If America was to strike near another Nuclear armed country that would pose a threat too that countries economy and population.This could cause a nuclear response fron that country.I don`t believe nuclear weapons will every be used for that reason.

Thanks to everyone who answered my post
more specifically though what I was refering to was if say we were to start a war with Iran (or any other nation in that region of the world) and they were out of deperation to start shelling our troops with gas weapons how would we respond. Would we drop a nuke on their capital city, would we respond in kind with chemical agents of our own, or would we just continue fighting with conventional weapons?

America wouldn`t deploy ground troops until they were happy that Irans capabillity to deploy chemical weapons was destryed or seariously damaged.That was one of the reasons grounds troops were not deployed in Iraqi until after the air operation.Soilders in most modern armies are well trained and equiped to cope in a chemical or biological attack.Don`t believe the hype from the media they are not as effective on the battle field as you are led to believe.A nuclear respose in that region would have massive reprocutions on the oil supply to the world plus you would contaiminate Isreal which would not be too happy about.America would just bomb the crap out of there military with conventional weapons.

[edit on 22-8-2004 by weirdo]

Originally posted by boogyman
more specifically though what I was refering to was if say we were to start a war with Iran (or any other nation in that region of the world) and they were out of deperation to start shelling our troops with gas weapons how would we respond. Would we drop a nuke on their capital city, would we respond in kind with chemical agents of our own, or would we just continue fighting with conventional weapons?

It all depends on how 'bad' the chemical weapons attack was. IMO the only WMDs are nuclear weapons. Sure Chemical, Biological and Radiological weapons can kill loads but so can a well placed conventional explosion.

I don't think nuclear weapons should be used if you are the ones invading. All depends on the situation though. If the reason for you invading was WMDs, well, you could use WMDs to retaliate.

If your troops were nuked though, that would be a completely different situation. Still you probably wouldn't nuke large cities just to create civilian casualties. Politically that sends a very clear message but in terms of military, what good is it? -- You aren't taking out an airfield or naval base.

Anyway, I agree with weirdo. If America really thought a country had what they call 'WMDs', they wouldn't put troops at risk until they had destroyed the capability by air and missile strikes first.

The UK still has 'tactical' nuclear weapons available. Apparantly, you can change the yield of the warhead to 1kt, 10kt or 100kt. Because the Vanguard submariness took up the entire nuclear role of ther UK, they have some Trident missiles armed with only one warhead, ideal for a tactical strike. These could be lauched on short notice in exactly the same the strategic weapons could be.

[edit on 22/8/04 by Hyperen]

due to all the liberals and bleeding hearts in the usa, its highly unlikely that we'd ever use nukes in warefare again, short of missiles being shot directly at us. sorry to say it but its the truth, do u know that well respected generals have stated that an invasion on a normandy scale couldnt occur today becuase of the media and liberals in this country, well think of nukes- if a basic invasion gets them angry, u bet u a$$ nukes would also..

Originally posted by imAMERICAN
due to all the liberals and bleeding hearts in the usa, its highly unlikely that we'd ever use nukes in warefare again, short of missiles being shot directly at us. sorry to say it but its the truth

So what, you would like the usa to start nuking countries they invade?

Nukes are so powerful politically and what stops the nuclear states using them is the deterrant value.

Once someone uses one, that sends a message of them being OK to use and before you know it we'll all be gone.

These 'liberals' and 'bleeding hearts' seem to have some sense.

Anyway it's not them stopping the USA from using nukes. It the fact that nukes would lose their political meaning. And if the USA started nuking people, other countries would get really annoyed.

How'd you feel if someone nuked a country close to you?

yeah u do have point.. but also if the usa did start nuking, besides all the radiation and such. every other country not backing the usa would try (lack of a better analgogy) "cut our balls over militarily" and that COULD lead to the usa not wanting to, (i mean cmon we wouldnt listen to the UN would we) but that could lead to a ww3 with a massive invasion of north america leading to either : a massive nuclear war, or the usa fighting off half the free world, or the usa falling

Originally posted by weirdo
Depends on the enemy and threat level.If America was to strike near another Nuclear armed country that would pose a threat too that countries economy and population.This could cause a nuclear response fron that country.I don`t believe nuclear weapons will every be used for that reason.

Assuming that they could hit us. And if they hit one of our allies, well, you know about the Gulf War and Hussein's missile attacks on Israel. But using nukes is like choosing between the lesser of two evils. You can let millions die, or you can use the most terrible weapon ever created once or twice, kill a couple hindred thousand, and end the war right there. I think that if there is one more terrorist attack, we should respond in kind to the Muslims. For example, another 9/11 would result in a plane being loaded with explosives, a terrorist would be put in the cockpit, and the plane would be put on a crash course to Mecca. Then maybe they would think twice about murdering our civilians.

Originally posted by weirdo
Depends on the enemy and threat level.If America was to strike near another Nuclear armed country that would pose a threat too that countries economy and population.This could cause a nuclear response fron that country.I don`t believe nuclear weapons will every be used for that reason.

Assuming that they could hit us. And if they hit one of our allies, well, you know about the Gulf War and Hussein's missile attacks on Israel. But using nukes is like choosing between the lesser of two evils. You can let millions die, or you can use the most terrible weapon ever created once or twice, kill a couple hindred thousand, and end the war right there. I think that if there is one more terrorist attack, we should respond in kind to the Muslims. For example, another 9/11 would result in a plane being loaded with explosives, a terrorist would be put in the cockpit, and the plane would be put on a crash course to Mecca. Then maybe they would think twice about murdering our civilians.

Originally posted by Hyperen


It all depends on how 'bad' the chemical weapons attack was. IMO the only WMDs are nuclear weapons. Sure Chemical, Biological and Radiological weapons can kill loads but so can a well placed conventional explosion.

[edit on 22/8/04 by Hyperen]

Some Biological weapons could kill more then any single nuke could ever hope too. And these weapons could be carried in your pocket.

Bio weapons created Viruses are far more deadly and scary then any Nuke IMO

Originally posted by: ShadowXIX
Bio weapons created Viruses are far more deadly and scary then any Nuke IMO

I agree whole heartedly on this, if such a weapon were to be used prematurely...well we've all seen scifi movies about such scenarios.

However in my opinion a nation has to be relatively advanced to pull of a successful Bio WMD attack. No bio weapon (to the best of my knowledge) has ever been successfully used in a WMD capacity. Finding a suitable dispersal method has never been easy, which is why no one has ever successfully pulled it off. I think if they were easily utilized they would have been already. Its not like they can be traced back to you if they are used in a covert capacity making them the perfect weapon in a "Cold War".

Mind you I'm not saying they are not a threat just that they are less of a danger then the media makes them out to be.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Some Biological weapons could kill more then any single nuke could ever hope too. And these weapons could be carried in your pocket.

Bio weapons created Viruses are far more deadly and scary then any Nuke IMO

As I said, IMO nuclear weapons are the worst, if they were used I would feel more scared than if bio weapons were used.

I agree with that dispersal thing. If a nation was advanced enough to find a method of dispersing the stuff with missiles, they should be advanced enough to have nuclear weapons anyway.

Nuclear weapons are just scary. They destroy buildings and you can't hide from them. If someone knows where you are and they have nukes, they will get you. You can protect yourself from bio weapons can't you?

If terrorists had either of these kinds of weapons though, any would be just plain scary.

Originally posted by Shadowtrooper90
Assuming that they could hit us. And if they hit one of our allies, well, you know about the Gulf War and Hussein's missile attacks on Israel. But using nukes is like choosing between the lesser of two evils. You can let millions die, or you can use the most terrible weapon ever created once or twice, kill a couple hindred thousand, and end the war right there.

What the hell are you talking about?

When have millions been killed by missile attacks on Israel?

The using nukes to stop a war like WWII is possibly justifiable but when is a long war between powerful nations going to happen?

Originally posted by Shadowtrooper90
I think that if there is one more terrorist attack, we should respond in kind to the Muslims. For example, another 9/11 would result in a plane being loaded with explosives, a terrorist would be put in the cockpit, and the plane would be put on a crash course to Mecca. Then maybe they would think twice about murdering our civilians.

That's very 'kind' of you considering most Muslims are peaceful and the ones who aren't are angry because the West has been killing so many people for so long.

The one point we are missing is the fact that the people controling the missiles ie the politicians are in that position because they are career minded and want to get re- elected.If Bush or any other leader was to use nuclear or another WMD where civillians were killed this would (unlike the atom bomb on Japan) be comitting career suicide and would make them a target for revengefor the rest of there lives.Japan was after a long bloody war that could just be sold as the correct and only means of ending the war,that argument could never be used today.

Originally posted by: weirdo

The one point we are missing is the fact that the people controling the missiles ie the politicians are in that position because they are career minded and want to get re- elected.If Bush or any other leader was to use nuclear or another WMD where civillians were killed this would (unlike the atom bomb on Japan) be comitting career suicide and would make them a target for revengefor the rest of there lives.

This is exactly why I dont understand why people are actingly like Iran getting nuclear weapons is the end of the world. The ayatollah is infinitely more focused on preserving his own skin than with destroying israel or america.