AHC: ICBMs Used Against a Non-Nuclear Power

[CthulhuFhtagn]

Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to create a scenario where a nuclear power armed with ICBMs uses said ICBMs against a country which does not have them.

It doesn't count if it's a World War III "Everybody dies" scenario (for example, the USSR lobs a nuke at Italy or Belgium during a war against NATO).

 

[Dustin]

First of all it is very rude to lob a nuke at a non-nuclear power.

Now on to the actual question. I think that Israel is the most likely option to do this against one of its neighbors like Egypt or Syria. Even Iran or Iraq.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

First of all it is very rude to lob a nuke at a non-nuclear power.

Now on to the actual question. I think that Israel is the most likely option to do this against one of its neighbors like Egypt or Syria. Even Iran or Iraq.

They don't have ICBMs. really, only the US, Russia, and China have ICBMs. Israel has IRBMs (shorter range). What would be your scenario re. Egypt?

I doubt that Israel would nuke Syria or Iraq (say if the IS is involved) unless a non-nuclear WMD was used against Israel. Such as chemical weapons. Israel attacking a non-nuclear Iran is unlikely. Serious scenarios featuring an Israeli pre-emptive attack on Iran to destroy a potential nuclear capability always have featured non-nuclear weapons. Israel's military is strong enough to ward off a conventional existential attack by any country likely (or not so likely) to attack Israel. Hence, I don't see the semi-mythical "Samson Option" as being put into play.

A state sanctioned terrorist non-nuclear WMD used on France, the UK, the US, Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan, or India is all likely to end with the same result: a nuke lobbed at the sponsoring nation or a territory holding terrorist group such as ISIS.

 

[oshron]

They don't have ICBMs. really, only the US, Russia, and China have ICBMs. Israel has IRBMs (shorter range). What would be your scenario re. Egypt?

I doubt that Israel would nuke Syria or Iraq (say if the IS is involved) unless a non-nuclear WMD was used against Israel. Such as chemical weapons. Israel attacking a non-nuclear Iran is unlikely. Serious scenarios featuring an Israeli pre-emptive attack on Iran to destroy a potential nuclear capability always have featured non-nuclear weapons. Israel's military is strong enough to ward off a conventional existential attack by any country likely (or not so likely) to attack Israel. Hence, I don't see the semi-mythical "Samson Option" as being put into play.

A state sanctioned terrorist non-nuclear WMD used on France, the UK, the US, Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan, or India is all likely to end with the same result: a nuke lobbed at the sponsoring nation or a territory holding terrorist group such as ISIS.

i thought India had some ICBMs, too?

i'd say one possibility would be the use of an ICBM by a radicalized US against a Middle Eastern power like Iran. it may be more to the effect of Germany using a V-2 rocket "against" New York City in Fatherland--more a demonstration of power than an actual attack. "Hey, Khamenei! See this? *ICBM detonates above Tehran* Don't fuck with us!" more like that.

another one, perhaps more likely, would be in the event of a much more serious threat by North Korea against South Korea or even Japan to similar ends: lob an ICBM at North Korean airspace as a show of force, especially if it's REALLY close to Pyongyang

 

[Michel Van]

That depends on scenario
ICBM with Nukes are counterstrike weapon on weapon of mass destruction.
The AHC was about Nation "which does not have them".

So what about that "evil" Nation use Bioweapon or chemical weapon on nation who got ICBM.


And there were this insane proposal in Pentagon
use ICBM without Nukes, but with heavy rods as kinetic impactor against terrorist strongholds

 

[Herzen's love-child]

i thought India had some ICBMs, too?

India has started developing one and N. Korea is trying to perfect a shorter ranged member of the species that could reach Alaska.

 

[aktarian]

Britain against Argentina. (NB: OP didn't say ICBM has to have nuclear warhead)

 

[Have Blue-117]

There was a novel I read some time ago, I believe it was a Tom Clancy about Iranian agents unleashing weaponized Ebola into the US at convention centers across the country. Would the US lob a couple Minuteman III's at Iran in response to an attack like that?

 

[Delta Force]

There are two types of strategic nuclear targets. The first is counterforce, which is military and leadership targets. The second is countervalue, which is a nice way of saying cities and other civilian targets. The threshold for a strategic nuclear attack is obviously much higher than for a tactical nuclear attack, which already has a rather high threshold.

I think a tactical nuclear strike is far more likely to occur than something strategic level, and things would have to be very grave indeed to let the nuclear genie out of its bottle again even for tactical use. In some ways, tactical use is even more dangerous, because it risks becoming a norm in warfare, and thus nuclear attacks in general risk becoming a norm.

Then you have to consider that a terrorist group can't really be deterred by nuclear weapons because they don't care, and that the average person has nothing to do with the decisions that the state leadership makes, and you can't even really make a case for nuclear strikes in retaliation for chemical and/or biological attacks. Assuming that the military and political leaders of a nation want to minimize casualties on both sides, I think they will likely resort to tactical nuclear strikes against military targets, ideally any forces that deployed or have the potential to deploy chemical and/or biological attacks.

If you're really looking at a strategic level attack, I could see a nuclear power executing such a strike to prevent a non-nuclear power from crossing the nuclear threshold. It would be an extreme action, but if a country is considered dangerous or radical enough and the site or sites are in a remote area to minimize civilian casualties and fallout, it might be more politically acceptable than otherwise.

I should also point out that there is the concept of the nuclear taboo, which says that the threshold for nuclear weapons use (and thus the likelihood of use) has continued to increase every year that there hasn't been a nuclear attack. I think that prior to 1970, the nuclear taboo might be loose enough to make a nuclear strike a real option. It would be only 25 years into the nuclear era, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty won't have entered into force yet. It's going to be rather difficult to maintain the NNPT if nuclear powers are using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.

 

[Laqueesha]

Britain against Argentina. (NB: OP didn't say ICBM has to have nuclear warhead)

I thought the U.K. only has SLBMs?

 

[HongCanucker]

There was a novel I read some time ago, I believe it was a Tom Clancy about Iranian agents unleashing weaponized Ebola into the US at convention centers across the country. Would the US lob a couple Minuteman III's at Iran in response to an attack like that?

Ah, you mean Executive Orders? Considering how the United States has had crazier individuals than Jack Ryan in office IRL, depending on who's in office, what events happened prior, and a buttload of other factors, it could very well happen.

 

[Apollo 20]

Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to create a scenario where a nuclear power armed with ICBMs uses said ICBMs against a country which does not have them.

It doesn't count if it's a World War III "Everybody dies" scenario (for example, the USSR lobs a nuke at Italy or Belgium during a war against NATO).

This one's easy and it doesn't take much of an alternative timeline to achieve. United 93 wipes out the Capitol and the rage that accompanied 9/11 is greater than OTL. Intel picks up that bin Laden is in the vicinity of a certain place (Tora Bora?) and the US tosses a nuke or two his way.

 

[aktarian]

I thought the U.K. only has SLBMs?

Aren't SLBMs a type of ICBMs?

 

[Delta Force]

Aren't SLBMs a type of ICBMs?

Only if they have an intercontinental range of over 5,500 kilometers (3,400 miles).

 

[aktarian]

Only if they have an intercontinental range of over 5,500 kilometers (3,400 miles).

Which Tridents have

 

[NHBL]

Weapons of mass destruction

I can only see an ICBM used against a non-nuclear power if that power has used a weapon of mass destruction against the nuclear power, and uses it on a large scale. If a nation-state inflicts huge casualty counts with such weapons, especially against civilians, then massive retaliation is all but inevitable. Currently, the only WMD the USA has is nuclear...

An ICBM is a low risk delivery vehicle, as well as leaving no doubt in anyone's mind what happened...

 

[Escape Zeppelin]

Britain against Argentina. (NB: OP didn't say ICBM has to have nuclear warhead)

Actually that's not bad idea and is certainly reasonable as a solution to the challenge. As a demonstration of power during the Falklands War Britain fires a non-nuclear ICBM at an Argentinian naval base. Assuming that is they warned the USSR about what they were doing ahead of time so that they didn't start WWIII. There's be a huge uproar over it both for and against but I can see it happening if the war went worse for both sides.

 

[Johnrankins]

The big problem is that the other nuclear powers will detect an ICBM launch and are likely to panic and think it is the start of WWIII. A more likely scenario is to use cruise missiles which won't cause a panic.

 

[aktarian]

The big problem is that the other nuclear powers will detect an ICBM launch and are likely to panic and think it is the start of WWIII. A more likely scenario is to use cruise missiles which won't cause a panic.

Would it? Wouldn't they quickly detect in which direction missile is flying and see it's not aimed at them? Not to mention it would be small number of them. And UK would give heads-up to relevant powers ahead of time with launch and target coordinates

 

[GarethC]

This seems like a big stretch, to be honest.

One for the Future History forum might be the PRC preemptively striking a Japanese WMD programme.

US vs Iran or DPRK... More likely to be B-2s, I think. Maybe if there's an expectation that Kim is going to make Tokyo glow in the dark and there's no other asset that can hit an identified launcher in time.

I vaguely recall that the Soviets had a deep-penetrator warhead for one of their ICBMs designed to defeat Cheyenne Mountain - if the US had something similar, that might be called up to hit an Iranian nuclear programme, I guess.

The Soviet Union might (with an earlier Sino-Soviet Split POD) end up lobbing a demonstrator near Mao pre-1964.

There was some French intervention in Chad to prevent Gadaffi from conquering the country first in 1983 and then again in 1987. The French intercontinental range SLBM didn't come into service until 1991, so this doesn't actually qualify, but if Gadaffi had gone a bit special and decided in 1987 to use chemicals against the French forces in Chad supporting Habré, then France might have used an SLBM or IRBM in retaliation.