So, you are JFK

[AvivaSimplex]

When JFK became president, the USSR only had 4 (yes, 4!) ICBMs capable of reaching the US. In this situation, we would have millions of Americans dead, but it wouldn't be the end of civilization. No doubt Soviet tanks would simultaneously be flooding into Western Europe. In this case, the choice isn't between allowing the Soviets to win and thus maintaining civilization or revenge for the sake of revenge. Instead it's between choosing to fight a winnable war or capitulating because we don't want to kill Soviet civilians, and that's a pretty easy choice for most people.

Incidentally, the 4 ICBM thing is why missiles in Cuba were such a big deal--it dramatically expanded the Soviets' ability to damage us with nuclear strikes.

[hmkpoker]

If you don't re-raise your marginal hands heads up, you give your opponent the best of it because he'll raise you every time.

[AvivaSimplex]

This is a one-time encounter. Shaping the opponent's future behavior has no value.

[Beer and Pizza]

Marilyn...

Is Marilyn here?

Get her to the oval office right away...

We've got some loving to do.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
When JFK became president, the USSR only had 4 (yes, 4!) ICBMs capable of reaching the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

The USSR's Hotel class subs entered service in 1959 with each carrying 3 ballistic missiles. Hotel II entered service in 1963 with same complement of missiles. I don't know how many of each were in service during the missile crisis, but they rated to have been able to launch more ballistic missiles on the US than the number you give when stationed off our coasts.

[BobbyArmani]

Pearl Harbor = Cuban Missile "Crisis" = September 11

Scare the living [censored] out of your own people, it makes them much easier to control, they go right back to sleep.

[Exsubmariner]

No brainer. All in. Let the chips fall where they may.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you retaliate back?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. That way the vast majority of the worlds nukes are destroyed. The rest of the world won't have to live.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

[Cyrus]

The confrontation assumes rationality on both sides. (We'll come back to that later!) This means that you are rational and the Soviets are rational, i.e. everybody behaves logically, does not want to die, does not want to cause war without reason, etc etc. Not only this, but you also assume that the Soviets assume you are rational, while the Soviets assume that you assume they are rational. And so on.

Now, in order for nobody starting no damn nucular war (which also means obliging each side to make totally sure there is no accident!), eveyone must be convinced that starting a war means annihilation for both sides.

If, at any time, the certainty about one side's intentions crumbles, the other side gains the advantage --not in starting a war, but in gaining advantages elsewhere through the threat of nucular war. (E.g. allies will abandon you and slide over to the stronger side.)

This certainty can be manifested in a number of ways, such as continuous, chest-thumbing statements, belligerent posturing, etc. In any case, each side must be convinced that the other side will retaliate massively if attacked by nukes. (We see a similar, "showy" behavior in most opposing male chimps.)

But suppose someone launches an attack, as you describe! Then what happens? Well, the reasonable thing to assume (barring Strangelovian communication and developments) is that a mistake occured. I mean, why the (rational) other side would endager the world, since we always retaliate? Therefore, there's no sense in dooming mankind on account of a mistake. That would be irrational.

But what if it is NOT a mistake?? What if there is a violation of rationality from their part (our assumpions about their rationality were wrong)? Or what if they rationally assume that as soon as the nukes are launched, there is nothing rational about America retaliating??

"Worse" yet, what about if it turns out to be a false alarm, e.g. what if the Soviets can, and do in fact, turn the nukes around? If you have NOT retaliated, if you have shown that you will NOT retaliate, then you have ultimately shown your hand. The adversary has the upper hand in the confrontation! (Viz. FTOP.)

In order to prevent, as much as possible, such a "probing", it is proper to adopt a less-than-fully-rational posture. In other words, it would be beneficial for the United States if it would appear to be rational enough not to start a nuclear war just like that --- but, at the same time, not totally rational. This would be "proven" through America's non-nuclear actions (e.g. military adventurism), statements (e.g. public debate about FIRST USE), irrational" behavior in secondary matters, etc.

The optimal stature would be one that would worry the Soviets enough so that they don't get any ideas about FIRST STRIKE, but also not so much as to misunderstand or over-react to American actions. (Note: This was indeed what American Cold War leadership was supposed to and tried to do but they mostly over-played their hand, and used the "half-crazy" stand to excuse all sorts of overly risky endeavors. The basis for such behavior had a lot to do with the --correct-- assumption that the Soviet Union was much less inclined to rumble than the United States.)

--------------------

REAL WORLD SCENARIO, YOUR SCENARIO:

RESPONSE:

TOTAL AND MASSIVE RETALIATION WITH ALL WEAPONS AVAILABLE!

I'm obliged to say this, playing the role of the United States, because this is actually not a real-world, actual scenario but a hypothetical scenario. If and when it becomes reality, the leadership will have to make a decision NOT on the basis of "what the other side will think" (this will have become obsolete, we will be dead in a short while) but in consideration of other factors as well, of real-world factors. I never said that.

[Darryl_P]

Congratulations! You succeeded in creating a thread in which both BCPVP and Cyrus made posts I agree with 100%. You've thus extended the realm of what I thought was possible. Amazing.