Would Trump deploy a nuclear strike?

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

I'm very concerned now.

[Sumner 1868]

Against Russia? No. Against China? Quite possibly.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm generally a sceptical type and I don't think there's greater risk than under any other 2016 candidate.

At most I can see him deciding to employ tactical, low-yield nukes agains certain valuable ISIS target. Kind of like a bunker bust bomb, and back in 2003 it was widely assumed the US may employ these in Iraq.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Against Russia? No. Against China? Quite possibly.

Well, speaking of this possibilities, using a nuclear weapon against Russia would be a suicide, since Russia is the only country with means to respond with total nuclear committment against the U.S.

China, on the other hand, has less nuclear warheads than France (about 260 to be precise, fourth largest stockpile) and hardly such means for a total, intercontinental strike as Russia. In fact, their nuclear arsenal was developed primairly to keep the Soviets in check along the border.

In case of a full-blown war, the U.S. would have a clear advantage. In smaller-scale conflict I can only see tactical nukes being used (if there's a mess in the South China Sea), still using even tactical nukes is seen as a serious threshold.

Unlike the west, though, it is no secret Russian military doctrine allows using tactical nukes in early stages of a serious conflict, not seeing it as so provocative as the West does.

[dead0man]

At most I can see him deciding to employ tactical, low-yield nukes agains certain valuable ISIS target. Kind of like a bunker bust bomb, and back in 2003 it was widely assumed the US may employ these in Iraq.

In the same way it was widely assumed Dubya was going to attack Iran in late 2008 to stay in power forever?

No, just no.

Against Russia? No. Against China? Quite possibly.

Well, speaking of this possibilities, using a nuclear weapon against Russia would be a suicide, since Russia is the only country with means to respond with total nuclear committment against the U.S.

China, on the other hand, has less nuclear warheads than France (about 260 to be precise, fourth largest stockpile) and hardly such means for a total, intercontinental strike as Russia. In fact, their nuclear arsenal was developed primairly to keep the Soviets in check along the border.

In case of a full-blown war, the U.S. would have a clear advantage. In smaller-scale conflict I can only see tactical nukes being used (if there's a mess in the South China Sea), still using even tactical nukes is seen as a serious threshold.

Unlike the west, though, it is no secret Russian military doctrine allows using tactical nukes in early stages of a serious conflict, not seeing it as so provocative as the West does.

This is all true....well, the last part isn't 100% accurate.  The west does see them as provocative, not doubt, but we'd sure as sh**t use them if we had to.  Unless 3/4ers of our friends leave us in the next 4 years (plausible I suppose.....uggg Trump), there is no likely situation that I can think of where it would come up though, so no, Trump.....probably (uggg) nuke somebody.


(and like I've said before, just because Trump might want something nuked it doesn't mean it's going to get nuked.  He's not magic and he's not a king.  There are humans, real thinking humans, lots of 'em, that has to do things, lots of things, before the PLA's fleet gets to see our canned sunlight.  It's not going to happen for a stupid reason.)

[PresidentSamTilden]

China still has 60 or so ICBM's...enough for 50 million + casualties. Nothing like Russia, but not a walk in the park either. Most areas that wouldn't get hit are economically dependent on areas that would...it would destroy the US as we know it.

[dead0man]

They only have 60 nukes, they aren't going to waste them on population centers.  (or if they did they are dumber than Trump)

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

At most I can see him deciding to employ tactical, low-yield nukes agains certain valuable ISIS target. Kind of like a bunker bust bomb, and back in 2003 it was widely assumed the US may employ these in Iraq.

In the same way it was widely assumed Dubya was going to attack Iran in late 2008 to stay in power forever?

No, just no.

I remember the whole media buzz on bunker bust nukes back then and one Israeli expert (can't remember his name) predicting in the interview with Polityka it'll "certainly be used".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In case of general warfare, decision whether to use tactical nukes or not can be devolved to the field commanders, right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Heh, I'm pretty sure every President had at least one moment like "ugh, I wish I could just nuke them right now".

[PresidentSamTilden]

They only have 60 nukes, they aren't going to waste them on population centers.  (or if they did they are dumber than Trump)

China has 300 + nukes, actually - they have 60 or so ICBM's, which have the range to hit the continental U.S. I'm talking about Armageddon scenario, not tactical usage. They could destroy the U.S. in retaliation if we all out launched.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

They only have 60 nukes, they aren't going to waste them on population centers.  (or if they did they are dumber than Trump)

Yep. That would mean a certain retaliation in kind, since this would leave U.S. strategic force largely intact. ICMB's are, in a large part, for a precise targeting of key military targets, like missile silos, bomber bases, command centers, etc.

It was a classic scenario during the cold war: in the first strike your ICBMs are to disable the enemy's ability to retaliate. It remained theoretical, of course.

[Beet]

60 nukes isn't going to take out America's second strike capability, so if the Chinese are pushed to that point, targeting population centers might actually make more sense. Military targets have only utilitarian value if destroyed, but destroying population centers delivers "vengeance" or "justice" which will probably be the overriding concern on both sides if it reaches that point.

[Cashew]

I'm very concerned now.

Considering the number of threads you have made about this, "now" is an understatement. Get help for your sleeping pill problem.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I'd say it's completely impossible to take out America's or Russia's ability to retaliate. Not only can jets be scrambled, but there's always going to be SSBN's at sea.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'd say it's completely impossible to take out America's or Russia's ability to retaliate. Not only can jets be scrambled, but there's always going to be SSBN's at sea.

Yes, that's pretty much the whole point of detterent.

A while ago I saw this vintage video dealing with the possibility of a successfull first strike, that destroyed one superpower's ability to retaliate. It's obviously very theoretical and would require a perfect luck.

Normally it's pretty obvious you'll have at least some bombers in the air, a number of subs at the sea. Odds of totally destroying your ability to retaliate are extremely slim. William Prochnau's novel "Trinity's Child" is a good literary picture of this.

One theoretical scenario had been explored some time: exploding a couple of nukes in the ionosphere to produce a massive electormagnetic pulse, which would destroy the enemy's grid and thus take away the ability to retaliate without massacring the population centers/troops. I think it would take a perfect luck to pull this one out too.

During the Norwegian rocket incident in 1995, the Russians were suspecting there's a single ICMB on the route to Moscow to explode in higher altitude, produce enough EMP to disable their defences before main strike. Fortunately it was just a damn test sounding rocket and Yeltsin decided not to launch the counterstrike, despite his nuclear briefcase being activated.

[I’m not Stu]

Highly unlikely.

[dead0man]

They only have 60 nukes, they aren't going to waste them on population centers.  (or if they did they are dumber than Trump)

China has 300 + nukes, actually - they have 60 or so ICBM's, which have the range to hit the continental U.S. I'm talking about Armageddon scenario, not tactical usage. They could destroy the U.S. in retaliation if we all out launched.

You think 60 nukes can destroy the continental US? No, just no.  60 nukes couldn't destroy California.

[Virginiá]

One theoretical scenario had been explored some time: exploding a couple of nukes in the ionosphere to produce a massive electormagnetic pulse, which would destroy the enemy's grid and thus take away the ability to retaliate without massacring the population centers/troops. I think it would take a perfect luck to pull this one out too.

That is more for destabilizing the fabric of their society. Even back in the 60s, the Minuteman launch complexes and command bunkers were shielded from EM surges and a lot of the components were not even vulnerable due to a lack of transistors. Today, much more of our military infrastructure (at least in America) is shielded. I'd venture a guess that in many nuclear states, the same is true to varying degrees. It's not very hard to protect against that - it's just somewhat tedious.

For an advanced industrialized country that doesn't have long-range nuclear capabilities (or any at all), a high-altitude EMP strike would be quite successful at bringing down the country, perhaps permanently, at least relative to what it had been before. Think about America: what happens if at the same time the water stops, food delivery is halted, communications break down, emergency services cease to function, cars stop working and the ability to fix the power grid is greatly stunted due to the sheer size and lack of functioning factories/machinery to produce new transformers. People would turn on each other almost immediately, and the result would be one of the most horrific periods of time we have seen. Personally I'm not convinced we could recover from that, at least not in any way that suggests 'recovery.'

[The_Doctor]

He won't. Trump will never deploy a nuclear strike for the simple reason that history would record that nuclear war broke out because of his temperament. Once again Donald Trump values himself, his reputation, his ego, and a careful approach to preserving all these entities and nuclear war damages all of these.

[Blue3]

Guys, you know he can use nuclear weapons against a NON-nuclear state, right?

I can see him dropping nuclear bombs on ISIS bases, for theatrical effect, for instance.

[DPKdebator]

Although it is extremely unlikely Trump will go to war with a major power, if it did happen that major power would definitely not be Russia.

[Antonio the Sixth]

We have 4 years to find out.