a non-nuclear war?

mgnme said:

If anyone were ever to attack the US, and it were to turn into a war, is there any possibility that it would not escalate to a nuclear war?

Click to expand...

Depends. Do they have any oil?

Unless Uncle Sam were winning handily he'd nuke the attacker until their cities were slag. Then probably send a few more nukes to their neighbors just in case anyone escaped.

Really though, there's nobody who could stand against NATO these days. It might have been a fight in the '60s-'80s with the Russians, but unless they team up with China and a few others... Really, even then, the US firepower is overwhelming. America's military budget is 1/2 of global defense spending. What you're proposing is pure fantasy.

If the situation were like the stand-off between the U.S. and the USSR in the 1960's, and the U.S. thought that it could win without nukes, and using one nule would result in MAD, then a non-nclear war would be possible.

It is interesting to think about. It would be a could premise for a speculative novel.

Every see the movie Red Dawn? Watch it and that will give you some idea only the premise that a massive force could approach our borders without foresight is a bit of a stretch. The more likely idea is the war within. You know donkeys against elephants, poor against rich, race against race, etc. Yeah, just like whats going on today.

Red Dawn was always a load of crap. It was an intentionally right-wing propaganda movie. The Russians never had close to the number of airplanes required for that kind of air bridge, even if they could somehow shut down all American radar. Not to mention they would have had a real fight with American and NATO forces without having to deal with every gun-toting maniac in the United States as well.

I still enjoyed it at the time mind you.

Don't think we'd use nuclear in anything except a MAD fulfillment scenario. We also would not have a viable enemy able ans willing to use more than one or two weapons which not breed nuclear retaliation. The retaliation would be massive, but not nuclear.

We will just continue conducted small scale war when we have something to gain, as we do now. Next stop .. wiping out Iranian nuclear capability, which essentially already under way.

Logistically I don't think an invasion of the US is possible, particularly with the massing of troops needed to pull it off. D-Day could probably not have been pulled off with today's satellite coverage being available then, and that was small scale compared to what would be needed to invade either US coast effectively.

Too far from reality to suspend it for a story like that.

A weaponized virus or other biological agent is an alternative to a nuclear attack. Combining bioterrorism with a cyberattack on targets such as financial institutions, utility companies, etc. would be devastating.

The impact on the civilian population would depend on how virulent the biological agent was and how widely it was dispersed ... same with the cyberattack. But thanks to training from my "day job" as the public information officer for a public health district, I can tell you that when something like the 1918 Spanish Flu hits again, it will shut down schools, hospitals, transportation and governments just like it did back then. We aren't prepared to cope with a pandemic. Spanish flu had a mortality rate of around 12%, I believe ... and it claimed millions of lives.

I understand that a researcher just basically "weaponized" avian flu. It has a mortality rate of >60%.

More likely that future invasions will use "bugs" rather than human bodies, IMO.

mgnme said:

And what would it be like for civilians? For instance, would people do blackout drills...

Click to expand...

No blackout drills. That was to reduce an invading air strike's ability to see cities. Visually.

Cwm said:

A weaponized virus or other biological agent is an alternative to a nuclear attack. Combining bioterrorism with a cyberattack on targets such as financial institutions, utility companies, etc. would be devastating.

The impact on the civilian population would depend on how virulent the biological agent was and how widely it was dispersed ... same with the cyberattack. But thanks to training from my "day job" as the public information officer for a public health district, I can tell you that when something like the 1918 Spanish Flu hits again, it will shut down schools, hospitals, transportation and governments just like it did back then. We aren't prepared to cope with a pandemic. Spanish flu had a mortality rate of around 12%, I believe ... and it claimed millions of lives.

Click to expand...

Oooh, I have a question for you, CWM: How did your work handle the Swine Flu? Because I know people were all panicky over that (no thanks to the media hype), and before it was figured out what it really was, there was some speculation that it was the re-emergence of the Spanish Flu.

And that's lovely that someone weaponized Bird Flu.

Should also be on the lookout for nanobots in the future! -- well, you can't actually see them.

mgnme said:

I don't mean like with Iraq, with us sending troops overseas. I mean with the US being a place where people are sending their troops and continuously attacking, for whatever reason.

Click to expand...

Off hand, how many places have enough troops, equipment, and supplies to attack a country the size of the US? You'd have to hit all four sides and the middle, pretty much simultaneously, or people just fall back, re-group and counterattack. It's hard to do much damage to a really big country.
See: Napoleon vs. Russia, Hitler vs. Russia.

Drachen Jager said:

Unless Uncle Sam were winning handily he'd nuke the attacker until their cities were slag. Then probably send a few more nukes to their neighbors just in case anyone escaped.

Click to expand...

This.

mgnme said:

If anyone were ever to attack the US, and it were to turn into a war, is there any possibility that it would not escalate to a nuclear war? And, if it *were* not a nuclear war, what would it be like - what tactics would be used?
And what would it be like for civilians? For instance, would people do blackout drills or be issued gas masks or have to deal with rationing, like in world war 2? Or would there be other, different changes to daily life?
Thanks!

Click to expand...

You should have a read of Alex Scarrows 'Afterlight' novels, it's about what happens when the oil supply is cut off - panic, war, and a country in tatters. It's very interesting, and alarmingly scary about the breakdown of society and the 'every man for themselves' mentality that occurs in wartime, espeically when that war if fought on your doorstep.

An actual attack upon the US by another nation/state would precipitate a massive response. It would be naive in the extreme to suppose that weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, etc.) would not be part of the response package. The weapons of today are far more powerful and sophisticated. There is no place on the planet the US can't obliterate.

Remember, the US is the only nation to have ever deployed and actually used nuclear weapons against an aggressor.

It would be foolish to think it couldn't happen again, were the US to be so provoked.

If someone were to attack the west how would nukes help? They can't nuke themselves to destroy the attackers, and nuking their home country so they hate the US even more, have less land to live on back home and more need for resources is unlikely to help....

That's why we have lots of nuclear nations right now, lots of wars, and no mushroom clouds.

veinglory said:

If someone were to attack the west how would nukes help? They can't nuke themselves to destroy the attackers, and nuking their home country so they hate the US even more, have less land to live on back home and more need for resources is unlikely to help....

That's why we have lots of nuclear nations right now, lots of wars, and no mushroom clouds.

Click to expand...

The invading force would be dealt with conventionally, for the most part. The aggressor's homeland would be subject to massive retaliation to eliminate the source of resource supply. As for being concerned about the aggressor hating the US even more - that issue would be moot.

There are reasons we haven't had a nuclear conflict since the 1940s. No country wants to be the one to fire first. Use of nuclear weapons affects more than just the nation that's bombed--it can seriously affect ally countries, too. The pressure on the US to refrain from going nuclear would be tremendous. Non-nuclear therefore seems more likely.

veinglory said:

If someone were to attack the west how would nukes help? They can't nuke themselves to destroy the attackers, and nuking their home country so they hate the US even more, have less land to live on back home and more need for resources is unlikely to help....

That's why we have lots of nuclear nations right now, lots of wars, and no mushroom clouds.

Click to expand...

Winning wars is all about being able to occupy ground. You can't win unless you either push an invading force back across the border (therefore friendly forces re-occupy the invaded land) or you invade and take control of a piece of land (your forces dismantle and replace the armed forces and government of the now-conquered area).

Occupying ground, however, is all about supply lines because you have to be able to resupply your forces if they're going to hold position or continue to move forward.

One way to defeat an invading army is to destroy their supply lines, and nuking their home country into a parking lot accomplishes that.

If there were ever a true massive invasion of continental US soil (which is unrealistic for reasons given upthread), I suspect the response would be nuclear for exactly this reason.

Aerial

ironmikezero said:

The invading force would be dealt with conventionally, for the most part. The aggressor's homeland would be subject to massive retaliation to eliminate the source of resource supply. As for being concerned about the aggressor hating the US even more - that issue would be moot.

Click to expand...

That assumes the desire to wipe the military, civilian, and ecosystem of the invading country off the face of the map--and I can't think of very many wars that had that goal.

In order to cut supply lines, conventional means are more precise in space and time.

IMHO the only proven advantage of nukes is more morale based. But the humane issues seem to pretty much counter-balance that?

ironmikezero said:

Remember, the US is the only nation to have ever deployed and actually used nuclear weapons against an aggressor.

Click to expand...

Not really true. At the time Japan had already agreed in principle to surrender. The use of nukes was purely chest-beating to scare the Russians. It had little or nothing to do with the Japanese.

Yes, Japan attacked the United States first, but since they were on the defensive (and had in fact agreed to surrender) at the time I don't think you can characterize the use of nukes as 'against an aggressor'.

veinglory said:

If someone were to attack the west how would nukes help? They can't nuke themselves to destroy the attackers, and nuking their home country so they hate the US even more, have less land to live on back home and more need for resources is unlikely to help....

That's why we have lots of nuclear nations right now, lots of wars, and no mushroom clouds.

Click to expand...

Name one nuclear equipped country which has lost a war on their own soil.

You can't.

There were skirmishes over Kashmir (which cannot properly be considered 'wars') and the Falklands (which was a rout for the British), but there has never been any kind of serious stand-up fighting on land owned by a nuclear power.

Drachen Jager said:

Name one nuclear equipped country which has lost a war on their own soil.

Click to expand...

That is more a case for winning war by not using nukes than winning wars buy using them (which is exactly my point). The point of nukes it to have them, not to use them.

Not that wars really get won or lost these days, nor are they typically invasions, or between nation states, or if they are that the war is limited to invader and invadee. That whole notion is rather retro, really.

Can you name any war in the nuclear age only between an invader and invadee nation state that was won or lost in any clear cut manner?

America has been attached and did not escalate to nuclear war. On 9/11 we did not drop nuclear bombs on anyone. I'd study the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If it goes into a world war, sooner of later one of the losing countries will threaten to use the bomb unless everyone retreats.

A war without nuclear? There are large conventional bombs that are close to nuclear bombs, they will just use those in its place.

veinglory said:

Can you name any war in the nuclear age only between an invader and invadee nation state that was won or lost in any clear cut manner?

Click to expand...

Off the top of my head.

Iraq invaded Kuwait before being kicked out by outside powers. The United States and allies invaded Iraq. US invasions of Grenada and Panama. Hungary and Czechoslovakia were invaded by the USSR. The invasion of Gaza by the Israelis.

I am sure there are many more examples.

Drachen Jager said:

There were skirmishes over Kashmir (which cannot properly be considered 'wars') and the Falklands (which was a rout for the British), but there has never been any kind of serious stand-up fighting on land owned by a nuclear power.

Click to expand...

The Falklands was a 'police action' until it was won and a war ever after. Go figure.

Also, a rout by the British, surely? We did win.