Response or Responce?
Response: Up until now I always forget & my spellcheck doesn't work & I have to google it.
Hypothetical scenario: Accidental nuclear launch from Russia or the US,how'd the party under "attack" respond?
I have to doubt an accidental launch would be met with full scale retaliation, especially today. Not sure if someone else up there meant this as a troll or not, but yes, if the US had been allowed by Congress to develop and deploy an effective anti-missile defence system (SDI, Densepack, etc.) such a launch would be nothing but a news byline and not the end of a city. What there is though: While the Reagan era Strategic Defense Initiative was intended to shield against a massive Soviet attack, the current National Missile Defense has the more limited goal of shielding against a limited attack by a rogue state. The George W. Bush administration accelerated development and deployment of a system proposed in 1998 by the Clinton administration. The system is a dual purpose test and interception facility in Alaska, and as of 2006 is operational with a few interceptor missiles. The Alaska site provides more protection against North Korean missiles or accidental launches from Russia or China, but is likely less effective against missiles launched from the Middle East. The Alaska interceptors may be augmented later by the naval Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System, by ground-based missiles in other locations, or by the Boeing Airborne Laser. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballis... may be adequate for the Western Hemisphere, at least.
If Russia launches a targeted nuclear strike against military installations in Poland, what should the USA do?
Forget the military aspect of that. What would it do to Russia financially? It would NOT just be the USA that would take action. NATO would have to become involved as well as the UN and the EU. Russia is one of the 5 permanent members of the security council. I do not think that even China would be supportive of Russia in this type of event particularly since they have a border with Russia and would have to worry about themselves as well. What would be the environmental impact of that as well? Would they use a nuclear weapon so close to home? Please remember the events that occured in Chernobyl and understand that even the Russians themselves are not intreseted in risking a strike like this.
Strategically, when should China launch a preemptive strike against Trump-controlled U.S. forces?
Personally, I think this is a loaded or poisoned question. The author of the question has made comments that show he doesn’t want Donald Trump to become the President of the USA and seems to be willing to accept defeat or humiliation of the USA if Trump had become its President. He seems to think that a Presidential candidate who likes to tweet things is worse than a Presidential candidate who is not careful with her secured emails.The question seems to have been asked in a way that it is acceptable for China to attack the USA once Donald Trump becomes its President and Commander-in-Chief. Does this mean that if Hillary Clinton becomes the President, China (or any other country or armed group) won’t attack the USA? Isn’t the USA already under attack by Al-Qaeda and ISIL and drug-exporting coutries even now? What had Hillary Clinton done to prevent or stop those attacks on US territory or interests while she was still serving in the US government? What would be the best strategy to stop these types of attacks?Would the US military six months from now be able to defend the USA if China or another nation launched an attack? It should still be able to despite being reduced in effectiveness compared to its capabilities of eight years ago.To answer the question, China may not see a need to attack the USA because it can just continue what it is doing now and try to profit by manipulating its currency exchange rate and using its wealth to buy off African and Latin American countries. China will try its best not to threaten Russia because President Vladimir Putin is a known hardcase who will not let Russian interests be diminished by anybody.China actually prefers to attack and intimidate its immediate neighbors to its south and east, some of whom are US allies. If China miscalculates and gets into a war with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, and perhaps India or Pakistan, then the USA may have to intervene or lose control of the situation. In such a case, it may not matter who the US President is because the range of response options will be provided by expert strategists and the US Presdent, whoever he or she is, will just select what they collectively think will serve US interests better.
What are the protocols for launching a nuclear attack?
OK 2ND one 1st. NO. There is no requirement to consult or contact Congress for a Nuclear Weapons Release. Now on to the other one. All actions involved in the use, movement, or maintenance of Nuclear Weapons require the use of the Two Man Rule. This means that no SINGLE person is in control of a nuclear weapon. If the US is involved in a situation where we are under incoming attack, such as a Soviet Launch in the 80s. The President may order a nuclear weapons release with the Head of NORAD in Colorado or Strike Command in Omaha serving as the 2nd man. This is the ONLY situation where the military can be the 2nd man. The Football serves as both a Command Unit and to confirm the presidents Identity. The codes are held in 2 pieces in 2 separate computers at NORAD. These computer were in the 70's and early 80's called Frank and Oscar. When the Order is sent out these 2 computer both send their half of the code out. In the case of a US First Strike the Order from the president MUST be confirmed by another person who is on a list of people whose Appointment has been Confirmed by Congress. Such as the Director of the CIA, or a Supreme Court Justice for example. If this person does not confirm the order, the order is Invalid, and not followed.
If North Korea successfully launches an ICBM at the US, and it is shot down, will the US retaliate with a strike of its own?
North Korea doesn’t have any ICBMs. And unless you ‘shoot it down’ during the launch phase (first four to five minutes after it is launched), you simply are NOT going to shoot it down. In the terminal phase of its flight, it will be going seven to nine times the speed of sound (4300 to 6300 mph) and almost impossible to shoot down.So the question is moot. The United States doesn’t have missiles near enough to Korea to shoot down a missile launch, especially since they don’t know what it is aimed at at that point. So they wont be able to shoot it down.If North Korea develops an ICBM (they don’t have any yet) and decides to fire one at the US, it will hit the United States. What the United States does in retaliation is unknown. They might launch several nuclear missiles back (you don’t need that many for North Korea or they many just high explosive and bomb North Korean that way. Either way, North Korea is destroyed.
How many nuclear missiles would the US launch in a counterattack?
We might use what is called a "controlled response." And this would likely entail the launch of a single missile at one of Russia's similar sized or similar purpose cities. Something the Russians might not try to prevent. Especially if their strike was accidental. However, if it was not accidental, there is no reason for the Russians not to attack us with a full compliment of their missile strength. A single missile would be useless. If it is a massive sneak attack, we would launch as many of our land, sea and air based missiles as we could before ours were destroyed. And we have thousands of nuclear weapons. Very likely some of our nuclear submarines might be ordered to either hide under the Arctic ice cap or roam the deep oceans to launch a second strike. Or act as a protective guard against any strikes by other nuclear powers hoping to finish us off. We have enough nuclear subs with enough nuclear missiles on them to destroy anyone (and even everyone) else on Earth. Just one of our nuclear subs has the potential to destroy most of China's or India's major cities. And literally all of North Korea. One would assume that if the Russians did attempt such an attack, their first goal would be to destroy all of our aircraft carrier based naval battle groups. A good sized thermo-nuclear explosion could very well accomplish this. Especially those with a 50 mile explosive radius. Which the Russians are believed to have. Most likely a massive air and land invasion of Europe by Russian forces would also begin simultaneously. It is arguable what the European nations with nuclear weapons might actually do over their own territories. However, the use of nuclear weapons on certain parts of Europe might be inevitable. The most likely scenario involving nuclear weapons would be a so-called "terrorist" attack on one or more American, European or Israeli cities. Even this would have dramatic and shocking consequences.
If Russia swiftly attacked all satellites and US military targets, could the US respond in time or lose most of it’s airforce, nuclear force, army and all communications with their response falling on empty Russian bases, silos and airfields?
The first answer given is comprehensive. I would just like to add that no country yet possesses a reliable and deployed satellite destroying satellite. Certainly not in numbers to be able to take down every USA orbiting satellite. There are simply too many. Additionally if you wanted as Russia to attack ground bases that coordinate and link with vital USA and allies’ military satellites you would have to attack the countries in the 5 eyes.Look up the 5 eyes, it is a vital military intelligence sharing alliance in which military and asymmetric force threat information is shared between 5 nations. They are very open with each other and are spread around the globe at key locations to be able to cover the skies. They have fought together in every major conflict since WW1. They are the USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Great Britain. 3 are very large countries in area so cover wide sections of sky and 2 are in the southern hemisphere and as such are indispensable.Particularly Australia, our input for the USA makes us essentially their most important ally. UK is also nuclear armed. So imagine Russia being able to simutaneously and secretly hit ground bases in Canada, Uk, New Zealand and Australia! They are miles away on the other sides of the world. Russia has 1 carrier. It just isn't possible. Unless with an all out nuclear attack, and that would be seen in time and produce a return launch, and no matter how the first part went down nuclear submarines would finish off the rest. MAD is still very real and even Russian generals aren't crazy enough for that. So no they couldn't do an effective simultaneous conventional strike.
If North Korea used a nuclear weapon that hit the United States, how many nukes would the US likely launch in a retaliatory strike?
It poses some particular problems. I hope someone in the think tank has done some brainstorming on this.First of all there is little of value in the country to strike… the bombs are more valuable than what they will destroy. The city of Pyongyang and the seat of government and military is obviously a target. One historical problem is that if you decapitate a hostile government, there is no one left to surrender.Other than the major cities, I presume electric plants would be a target, without the overstrained plants it has the country would be in the dark ages; it already is as there is chronic shortages and blackouts everywhere in the country. Power plants could probably be taken out by conventional weapons. Industries - military weapons and coal is about all they export. Agriculture is the main other product and they are chronically short of crops as well. But it is so spread out that it is not a candidate for a nuke.The issue of killing millions of North Koreans who really have little to do except accept by forced propaganda the regime’s constant warnings that America is out to get the country… will probably come true if we nuke it. But for the most part the people are innocent.Lastly, how much nuclear fallout are you prepared to rain on nearby southeast Asian countries, esp. nearby South Korea?So there are a lot of problems with retaliating to a NK attack. The best would be to shoot down the attack and then deal with them later. There’s not a lot you can do with an irritating neighbor who has officially done nothing provably wrong in a court of law.Raining nukes on NK is sort of like hiring JJ Watt to come and beat up the 9 year old next door kid and his parents and brother and sisters and dog, when the annoying kid spray painted your garage door.It would really behoove the government to make sure that NK does not ever drop a Nuke on an American city - there’s no number of nukes dropped in retaliation that can make up for it. I see three ways of doing that (and the problems in parenthesis):decapitate the govt. (He’s very paranoid and probably hard to kill and will give him every excuse to attack in return)preemptively strike the country’s offensive weapons (I’m sure they are all well hidden and deeply buried in deep bunlers)have the defensive capability to shoot down any missiles (doesn’t guard against smuggling a nuke bomb in a container into LA harbor).
What's the most rational action for the President to take if the U.S. was nuked by another country?
I agree with attacking back as Dan Holliday proposed, but I quite disagree with the application method. The goal behind attacking back is as Don said: stop the bully and make warning for others. But you have to consider the destruction caused by the first nuke upon innocent people. Now do you really want to replicate that? This hypothetical scenario is two governments' clash, not kill or be killed of two entire populations. I believe (with the power the U.S. holds compared to any other country currently) the U.S is more than capable of surgically destroying targeted government and making a horrifying example of it without the use of nukes. And remember U.S. is not alone, it has very powerful friends. Actually the most powerful friends you can imagine.Consider this, you're kid in school and you're very skilled with martial arts. A bully attacks you and causes a serious damage, you almost die. Is it rational for you to use your full power to damage the other kid? It's natural, reflexive and expected, but that doesn't necessarily mean rational. Isn't your main goal at this point to stop this from ever occurring again? Cannot that be done by severe non-life-threatening punishment? How about physically stopping the other kid at the moment of action and start bullying the kid back for the rest of his school years as a lesser of two evils? Would accomplish the desired results without going extreme measures. The self defense mechanism most animals hold (as well as power systems that are run by and for human), is extremely effective and important for survival and have always been. However, I think you'd agree that it exists independently from intelligence, i.e unintelligent animals also successfully carry and apply this mechanism. Since we as specie carry intelligence that can strategize to outperform the old-school self defense mechanism, I'd say let's use it.An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. A nuke for nuke, well, wipes it clean. Remember we have only one world here.