US Nuclear Guarantees to Allies

[Jopo1980]

OK, as you are probably all aware, the United States extends a nuclear guarantee to its NATO and other allies. What this means is that if a non-nuclear allied nation is threatened or attacked with nuclear weapons (or other weapons of mass destruction), the United States is obliged by these guarantees to retaliate with its own arsenal. This arrangement serves to guarantee that allied nations do not have the need to develop their own arsenals of nuclear weapons.

 

 

So, let us presume that Finland someday joins NATO and receives these guarantees from the US government and then Russia our age old enemy, which is never officially stated by the military but which is known to everyone as there can be only one direction the enemy is coming from and it is not west (Sweden), nukes us and we request the United States use its arsenal to avenge us, but needless to say, President Obama or whoever it is at that time, gets a phone call from Kremlin stating that any retaliatory action by the United States will be met with a massive strike on US cities (civilians).

 

So what will the president do? does he order the retaliatory strike on Finlands behalf or does he tell the Finnish government to bite their tongue and accept their losses as he is not about to risk devastation on American homeland to avenge a few dead Finns.

 

So when the push comes to shove, would these guarantees amount to anything?

 

Also, do you believe that these guarantees are justified, risking American civilian lives to guarantee the safety of other nations.

 

If you do not believe that these guarantees should exist, then what would you suggest other nations do? Build their own bombs perhaps? If these guarantees are the price of nuclear non-proliferation, then is it worth it?

[ub3rman123]

Anyone remember how WW1 began? Mm-hm.

[Jopo1980]

Yes I know about Gavrilo Princip, the shots of Sarajevo and the resulting plays of international alliances that led to WW1.

 

So what are you saying?

 

That a minor conflict in say Finland would lead to a larger conflict pulling the major powers in and voila WW3?

[ub3rman123]

Indeed. Two countries start a war and soon the whole world is dragged into it. Not something we need.

[Jopo1980]

What if one of those countries is an ally of the US? Surely you would support upholding the United States treaty obligations?

[HeyYou]

What if one of those countries is an ally of the US? Surely you would support upholding the United States treaty obligations?

 

The US doesn't have a very good track record on upholding their treaties. After all, look what we did to the Indians....... We broke EVERY treaty we ever made with them......

 

That said, if it came right down to it, avenging an attack on Finland, with nuclear weapons, would effectively start WWIII. We would launch, a couple, (or send a couple bombers, or cruise missiles, or whathaveyou....) Russia would launch, either a couple, or a BUNCH, and then the show would really start, and missiles would fill the sky. Would some of the other nuclear powers want to get in on the action? Would they be able to avoid it? Never get a better opportunity to get their licks in...... And the world would be a dramatically different place when all was said and done in any event. Both the US, and Russia, (and Finland.....) would be nuclear wastelands, with the survivors not caring a wit about what was going on in the rest of the world, day to day survival would be at the top of the list, and the bottom of the list, and every entry in between. Instant power vacuum. Oh, wouldn't that be fun......

[Kuraikiba]

Actually, countries don't really nuke, because then EVERY country with nuclear ability can fry them. So any country that nukes... gets emptied by nukes.

[McclaudEagle]

I don't think it will happen to be honest. It's been proven that nuclear weapons act more as a deterrent than a direct weapon. If nations follow the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) theory, then neither Russia or the US would see it best to begin a nuclear war. To help those who don't know what the MAD theory states, it basically means that if Russia used nuclear weapons on the US, the US would fire back and as such, both nations would cause immense damage to each other and as a result, it wouldn't be worth the risk.

 

For the MAD theory to apply to a nation, that nation must have a nuclear arsenal, and must be able to actually fire back at the attacker.

[HeyYou]

I don't think it will happen to be honest. It's been proven that nuclear weapons act more as a deterrent than a direct weapon. If nations follow the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) theory, then neither Russia or the US would see it best to begin a nuclear war. To help those who don't know what the MAD theory states, it basically means that if Russia used nuclear weapons on the US, the US would fire back and as such, both nations would cause immense damage to each other and as a result, it wouldn't be worth the risk.

 

For the MAD theory to apply to a nation, that nation must have a nuclear arsenal, and must be able to actually fire back at the attacker.

 

The trouble is, some of the more fanatical countries, that don't CARE about MAD. N. Korea. Iran. Others. An absolute dictator, or theocracy, could easily justify use of nukes, and the repercussions thereof, as the citizens patriotic/bannedtopic duty. There is also the specter of nuclear terrorism. It doesn't have to go BOOM, and erase a city in a few short seconds, simply distributing some manner of radioactive material over an area would be just as effective as blowing it up. Maybe even worse, as it would not be immediately apparent, and how much damage would it do in the time before it was discovered.....

 

I think it is a higher likelihood that terrorists set up the next bomb, rather than some nation.

[Aurielius]

MAD is a concept that is all sword and no shield, tactically and strategically it is as appealing as appeasement to any rational military thinker. As much as it is derided a land, space and sea interception method of incoming missiles is the only real surety, to say that it is currently not tactically viable should just be a spur to make it a concrete reality instead of what it currently is. Our danger is not our conventional foes but newer states that have less scruples about the concept of the use of nuclear weapons.