"David E. Powell" wrote in message
s.com...
On May 14, 10:47 am, "Arved Sandstrom"
wrote:
fudog50 wrote in message
[ SNIP ]
Here's a clue. Aircraft carriers are fair game for weapons - they don't
have
diplomatic immunity. And nuclear weapons are just weapons. You sound like
a
medieval knight who was shocked - shocked!!! - that rabble shot at him
with
crossbows.

Nuclear weapons are political as well as military. Also, ti would not
be just a question of replying to Iran here, it would be a precedent,
because if the US did not reply in kind to one nuclear attack, what
would it tell anyone else?

I am pretty sure that the response doctrine has been pretty solid for
at least the past 50 years. As for whether that is stupid, it is
intended to make the idea of anyone using a nuclear wepon on the US a
stupid idea.

Response with nuclear weapons to the use of nuclear weapons, yes, that's
always on the table. But what hasn't usually been on the table is to
obliterate every city, town and village, every grassy field (read "ersatz
airfield"), every factory, every military base, etc etc, just because one or
two nuclear weapons took out some major combat units of yours.

Let's be clear. If some Second-World country with nuclear capability wiped
out a carrier or Tico or LCS or LHD with a single atomic bomb, and a couple
of USN ships and 2000-5000 sailors and Marines got killed, do you seriously
think that POTUS would consult the SIOP and select "let's launch every
f**king thing we have?"

Which is what those jokers were suggesting.

It's entirely possible that the US would not respond with any nuclear
weapons of its own in that situation, or if it did, they would be restricted
to limited counterforce ... "tit for tat", with a somewhat heavier "tit".
;-) It might be counterproductive for the US to use any nuclear weapons in
response, because by this day and age nobody out there thinks the US
wouldn't use the damned things if it really wanted to...it would be more
effective to capitalize on the strike by the enemy to put in a truly massive
conventional assault.

The latter would actually be much more damaging to the enemy...imagine half
a dozen US CSGs off your coast, a bunch of ESGs, Army units teady to move in
after the Marines. One to two months of incessant bombing and missile
strikes, and then the world's most powerful military lands on your coast and
starts dissecting you. You have to remember, once the lines are drawn by
using a nuclear weapon, this is not Iraq - this is Germany 1945.

The US wouldn't have to use a nuclear weapon at all. They'd be much more
frightening by doing a colossal conventional invasion, and leaving people to
guess how bad it would be if the US decided to fire off a couple of hundred
SLBMs or ICBMs.

AHS