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

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.

excuse me? up until 1995, when i left, official doctrine was that "we've used them before and we'll use them again if we need to".

the Pershing II wasn't a MAD weapon, it was anti-armor.

Originally Posted by Dayton3

"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.

i think the Davy Crockett was a bit smaller than 300lbs?

yep-51lbs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Cr...nuclear_device)

Originally Posted by mikezila

excuse me? up until 1995, when i left, official doctrine was that "we've used them before and we'll use them again if we need to".

the Pershing II wasn't a MAD weapon, it was anti-armor.

"Official policy" regarding the use of nuclear weapons has always been meant to be a deterrent in itself by making it appear that the U.S. is far more willing to use nuclear weapons than it actually is.

And Pershing II was a strategic nuclear missile with theatre range. Designed to give the West Germans effectively an arsenal of ballistic nuclear missiles that could directly threaten Russian territory (including Moscow) though the U.S. controlled the missiles of course.

Originally Posted by mikezila

i think the Davy Crockett was a bit smaller than 300lbs?

yep-51lbs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Cr...nuclear_device)

But it was bulky compared to the "backpack" or "suitcase" nuclear weapon people talk about.

Originally Posted by Dayton3

But it was bulky compared to the "backpack" or "suitcase" nuclear weapon people talk about.

51lbs is quite comparable to a suitcase. if you don't believe me, come carry my sister's luggage the next time she flies in from FL.

Originally Posted by Dayton3

"Official policy" regarding the use of nuclear weapons has always been meant to be a deterrent in itself by making it appear that the U.S. is far more willing to use nuclear weapons than it actually is.

And Pershing II was a strategic nuclear missile with theatre range. Designed to give the West Germans effectively an arsenal of ballistic nuclear missiles that could directly threaten Russian territory (including Moscow) though the U.S. controlled the missiles of course.

that's a negative, Ghost Rider-the US Army never had anything but tactical nukes.

Originally Posted by mikezila

that's a negative, Ghost Rider-the US Army never had anything but tactical nukes.

Pershing IIs were "tactical" only in the sense of range restrictions (less than 2,000 miles).

But their warhead size (400 kilotons IIRC) and accuracy were both effectively strategic weapons capable of destroying the most hardened Soviet targets.

Originally Posted by Black Monarch

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

We have no nuclear artillery. We have not had any since the last of them were decomissioned in 1992

So you are incorrect. We had nuclear ordinance that small, 20 years ago.

How would the US respond?

The exact same way it responded the last time this happened.

It is no real secret that in 1991, Iraq used chemical weapons against US and coalition forces. Chemical detection equipment from multiple countries were constantly going off during that war, and many units were in their chemical protective suits for days at a time. And they were used in rockets, artillery, as well as in mines.

http://www.gulfweb.org/report/riegle1.html

However, the decision was made to not "go nuclear" on Iraq, but instead destroy their military through conventional means. So any alerts or findings were either downplayed or censored. And we have over a quarter million veterans who got "Gulf War Syndrome" to one degree or another.

So how would they respond? With nothing. Unless the other nation started to be stupid and admit to the world what they are doing. Then who could say what would happen.

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.

Good thing the response was mild. If we bankrupted the country with a mild response where would we be with a heavy response ??