How Would The U.S. Respond To A Chemical Weapon Attack On U.S. Troops?

Discussion in 'Nuclear, Chemical & Bio Weapons' started by Dayton3, Jan 1, 2012.

  1. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,101
    Likes Received:
    276
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Say in a future war, a renewed Korean conflict perhaps, the North Koreans attack U.S. (and ROK) troops with several hundred chemical weapons (nerve gas).

    How would the U.S. respond? I know the U.S. claims that it would respond with nuclear weapons to such an attack as chemical weapons are considered WMDs, but does anyone really think the U.S. is going to start hitting the North Koreans with a bunch of 10-50 kiloton warheads just because of a chemical attack?

    Not to mention the South Koreans and Japanese would probably object to any first use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. regardless of the circumstances.

    so short of nuclear weapons, how does the U.S. respond to a chemical attack?
     
  2. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The problem there is that the US has said that it will respond to attacks by WMD with nukes and if the US doesn't then it opens the door for countries to hit the US.
     
  3. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,101
    Likes Received:
    276
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Do you really think the U.S. would though?

    Is an American president really going to order the first use of nuclear weapons in 67 years just because a few thousand American troops were attacked by nerve gas halfway around the world?
     
  4. obediant_consumer

    obediant_consumer Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Messages:
    587
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    um....they will dawn their MOPP 3 gear
     
  5. KSigMason

    KSigMason Banned at Members Request Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    11,505
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'd turn the hypothetical country into a thing of the past and wipe it from the map.
     
  6. F4lln

    F4lln New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Its not as if a biological attack is a big deal for American troops. Each soldier is equipped with protective gear and can operate in a contaminated area if needed. Also chemically trained units are capable of dealing with any known threat in a timely manner and establishing counter measures

    As to whether it would open the door to nuclear strikes is another question entirely. I believe that it would be an option but given the tenuous political situation with the rest of the world it would most likely be passed over for other less extreme measures.

    All in all, a successful biological attack is extremely difficult to execute. There are to many variables and natural detractors to make it a very effective weapon. There would be talks of using nuclear devices. Since nuclear devices destroy much more than just life as biological weapons the U.S. cannot afford to set a precedent of greater than equal retaliation. So no, I don't believe the would be used. Whether or not the should be used is another question that I don't have an answer for....

    At least that's my opinion, and I've been wrong about lesser things.
     
  7. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,101
    Likes Received:
    276
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I said nothing about biological weapons.

    Chemical weapons! Chemical weapons!!
     
  8. mikezila

    mikezila New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    23,301
    Likes Received:
    241
    Trophy Points:
    0
    NBC is NBC. one is as good as the other.
     
  9. marbro

    marbro New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2011
    Messages:
    1,581
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    0
    America has proven time and time again it is more than willing to react to attacks with brute force and overwhelming superiority. They will go to war and if China intervenes it will be a nuclear holocaust.
     
  10. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,101
    Likes Received:
    276
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Except the OP SPECIFIED "chemical" weapons and the U.S. response.

    Not nuclear. Not biological.
     
  11. mikezila

    mikezila New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    23,301
    Likes Received:
    241
    Trophy Points:
    0
    6 of one, a half dozen of the other. it matters not, the offical reponse will be the same-the hammer will fall.
     
  12. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,101
    Likes Received:
    276
    Trophy Points:
    83
    It is common knowledge in the U.S. that the United States will NEVER respond to a nonnuclear attack with nuclear weapons.
     
  13. Black Monarch

    Black Monarch New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,213
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I suspect that we'd start lobbing backpack nukes via artillery. We apparently have nuclear ordnance that small.
     
  14. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,101
    Likes Received:
    276
    Trophy Points:
    83

    "backpack nukes" are a bit of an overstatement.

    Only if the "backpack" weighs nearly 300 lbs. Which is the minimum size of any known nuclear weapon developed.

    Ironically that is also about the same weight as the current most advanced ICBM warhead that yields 330 kilotons deployed by the U.S.

    Though of course the ICBM warhead if far bulkier.

    Reminds me when people talk about the Russian "suitcase nukes".

    "Suitcase" in Russian terms is more like the size of a "Frigidaire" than "Samsonite".

    Meaning that though the Russians did build nuclear weapons that LOOKED like a suitcase, the "suitcase" was actually the size of a small refrigerator.
     
  15. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why would he care if a few thousand foreign troops were killed halfway around the world in a U.S. response?
     
  16. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's wrong. Obama changed the policy saying that he wouldn't use nuclear weapons again nonnuclear powers in response to chemical/biological weapons......but he made some exceptions (N.K., Iran etc.). He also left a caveat that if the weapon possessed a significant enough threat nuclear weapons could be used. In essence, its all depends on the situation. However, I suggest you look at the U.S. response to Pearl Harbor and 9/11. The U.S. has never been known for taking direct attacks lightly.
     
  17. Really People?

    Really People? New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    13,964
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We have the same set of guidelines in place for all NBC attacks...

    And we would respond very forcefully, to answer the question...
     
  18. Albert Di Salvo

    Albert Di Salvo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    25,739
    Likes Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What would America do? Nothing. The fight isn't overseas. It's here.
     
  19. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,101
    Likes Received:
    276
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The U.S. response to 9-11 was pretty mild.

    We dropped about as much food on Afghanistan early on as we did bombs.
     
  20. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So two wars with hundreds of thousands of troops was pretty "mild".
     

Share This Page