If New York was nuked, would that precipitate WWIII/the end of the world? (Iran, weapon)

[Trimac20]

It's an unimaginable scenario, some crazy Iranian or South Korean dictator decides to start World War III by sending one or a few thermo-nukes to hit Manhattan. The immediately impact kills at least a million. NYC is evacuated, but millions more die from radiation. The US retaliates by obliterating Tehran. Would this spell World War III and perhaps the end of the world as we know it?

[PullMyFinger]

Originally Posted by Trimac20

It's an unimaginable scenario, some crazy Iranian or South Korean dictator decides to start World War III by sending one or a few thermo-nukes to hit Manhattan. The immediately impact kills at least a million. NYC is evacuated, but millions more die from radiation. The US retaliates by obliterating Tehran. Would this spell World War III and perhaps the end of the world as we know it?

I think if it was a wingnut country like Iran or North Korea it could be contained. I think the US would retaliate in a measured way. I don't think we would wipe out their whole country because of the deeds of their government.

I do think we would nuke the capital and then it would be total war against that country until they surrendered and I don't think any other country would come to their aid, especially if they hit us first.

We would also go after any other country with Nukes who isn't an accepted nuclear power by the international community.

Let's pray nothing like this ever happens.

[jtur88]

Of course. The Americans don't care how many people they needlessly kill in retaliation and to "honor" the memories of those who already died. It's all about closure. Ahd the OP is correct, the US would obliterate Tehran, no matter who bombed us. The US is just sitting here itching for a pretext to nuke the unilaterally-declared " Axis of Evil", the doctrine that supercedes all other policies.

Of course, in the real world that we live in today and the foreseeable future, neither Iran nor North Korea could imaginably have a means of delivering a nuclear weapon to New York. So the argument would need be made in the context of a totally different balance of world powers. providing a complex of conditions that cannot be predicted..

[cpg35223]

I think the moment we figured out what rogue nation did this, we would likely obliterate it. And there's no country on the planet who would stand in our way.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by Trimac20

It's an unimaginable scenario, some crazy Iranian or South Korean dictator decides to start World War III by sending one or a few thermo-nukes to hit Manhattan.

As many times as I've read this "scenario" I can't possibly fathom what WWIII has to do with anything. Where are the interlocking alliances what would trigger such a conflagration? Where is the mutual suicide pact between Iran and anybody? Sure North Korea provides nominal protection for North Korea but I just don't see an ideological or strategic reason why China would jeopardize its economy by entering in a full fledge war on Korea's behalf? Alternately, if there were a preemptive nuclear strike against the U.S. I can't foresee see a single nation of any significance even raising political objections to an American conventional counter-strike.

[cpg35223]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

As many times as I've read this "scenario" I can't possibly fathom what WWIII has to do with anything. Where are the interlocking alliances what would trigger such a conflagration? Where is the mutual suicide pact between Iran and anybody? Sure North Korea provides nominal protection for North Korea but I just don't see an ideological or strategic reason why China would jeopardize its economy by entering in a full fledge war on Korea's behalf? Alternately, if there were a preemptive nuclear strike against the U.S. I can't foresee see a single nation of any significance even raising political objections to an American conventional counter-strike.

This.

Right before we turn Pyongyang or Teheran into a skating rink, Russia, China, and pretty much everybody else on the planet would say, "Okay, knock yourself out. Just try to keep the fallout to a minimum."

[PullMyFinger]

I actually believe that there is a chance that we wouldn't necessarily nuke anyone. We may accomplish our goal through conventional war. There would be no stopping however, we would send a million troops and with our technology we would overwhelm the country and I think leave a pretty bad trail of destruction in anger. We may hold back on the nuclear option if there is no chance of another nuke strike from the same country. Not using a nuke would win us much support throughout the world, especially from countries who may get the fallout.

[cpg35223]

Originally Posted by Anthony45

I actually believe that there is a chance that we wouldn't necessarily nuke anyone. We may accomplish our goal through conventional war. There would be no stopping however, we would send a million troops and with our technology we would overwhelm the country and I think leave a pretty bad trail of destruction in anger. We may hold back on the nuclear option if there is no chance of another nuke strike from the same country. Not using a nuke would win us much support throughout the world, especially from countries who may get the fallout.

Maybe, given how one terrorist attack led to our invading not one but two countries.

However, if we invaded, it would likely be the equivalent of Roman taking Carthage in the Third Punic War. No building would be left standing. Salt would be sown on the earth so nothing could grow.

But I really think that's the least likely scenario. It would be Biblical, if for no reason other than to give any other nation pause before trying it.

[PullMyFinger]

Originally Posted by cpg35223

Maybe, given how one terrorist attack led to our invading not one but two countries.

However, if we invaded, it would likely be the equivalent of Roman taking Carthage in the Third Punic War. No building would be left standing. Salt would be sown on the earth so nothing could grow.

But I really think that's the least likely scenario. It would be Biblical, if for no reason other than to give any other nation pause before trying it.

I think the country would cease to exist. I'm not saying we would kill everyone but I think once we were done we would wipe out their borders and give it away to friendly countries and the war crimes trial we would stage would be epic and sweeping. In other words if it was North Korea it would either be handed to China or South Korean (if they would want it) but the war criminals put to death would number in the hundreds I would guess.

Iran I think we would wipe out their existence for sure, make new countries out of it or just occupy it for good as the 51st State. Imagine the national guard of that state!

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by cpg35223

I think the moment we figured out what rogue nation did this, we would likely obliterate it. And there's no country on the planet who would stand in our way.

Are you saying that using a nuclear weapon defines one as a rogue nation?

The current population of Iran is 72-million. Would that be enough obliteration and incinerating civilian alive, or would more be needed?

What would be gained, besides closure.

Originally Posted by cpg35223

However, if we invaded, it would likely be the equivalent of Roman taking Carthage in the Third Punic War. No building would be left standing. Salt would be sown on the earth so nothing could grow. .

Sounds more like Genghis Khan. We pick strange role models.

And you haven't even started talking about the pre-emptive attacks the US would carry out against perfectly harmless bystanders who have governments that don't obey Washington.