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

Originally Posted by Dayton3

Except the OP SPECIFIED "chemical" weapons and the U.S. response.

Not nuclear. Not biological.

6 of one, a half dozen of the other. it matters not, the offical reponse will be the same-the hammer will fall.

Originally Posted by mikezila

6 of one, a half dozen of the other. it matters not, the offical reponse will be the same-the hammer will fall.

It is common knowledge in the U.S. that the United States will NEVER respond to a nonnuclear attack with nuclear weapons.

I suspect that we'd start lobbing backpack nukes via artillery. We apparently have nuclear ordnance that small.

Originally Posted by Black Monarch

I suspect that we'd start lobbing backpack nukes via artillery. We apparently have nuclear ordnance that small.

"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.

Originally Posted by Dayton3

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?

Why would he care if a few thousand foreign troops were killed halfway around the world in a U.S. response?

Originally Posted by Dayton3

It is common knowledge in the U.S. that the United States will NEVER respond to a nonnuclear attack with nuclear weapons.

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.

Originally Posted by Dayton3

Except the OP SPECIFIED "chemical" weapons and the U.S. response.

Not nuclear. Not biological.

We have the same set of guidelines in place for all NBC attacks...

And we would respond very forcefully, to answer the question...

What would America do? Nothing. The fight isn't overseas. It's here.

Originally Posted by IgnoranceisBliss

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.

The U.S. response to 9-11 was pretty mild.

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

Originally Posted by Dayton3

The U.S. response to 9-11 was pretty mild.

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

So two wars with hundreds of thousands of troops was pretty "mild".