In an 1980s nuclear war how many would refuse to launch?
- Thread starter Captain Marvel
- Start date
But in that time, the General wouldn't have been in the chain of command for release like that. And while been awhile since seeing the film, but I don't think the Pilot and Gunner were told of his plan, would need an EAM in flight for the mission. At the time of that, he might have been able to get a tactical bomb and a different craft, but not even the Prez could do a direct command to get a Strategic bomber and a nuke, without going thru SAC HQ at Offut first
A couple of points. First off, every person who is in the action chain for nukes in the US military was thoroughly screened. Obviously this was not 100% effective, but this included folks who maintained the weapons, loaded them etc - not just those who would actually fire them. especially those who would actually employ the weapons had a LOT of time to think the implications of actually doing so. The only way I could see folks refusing would be if they KNEW the president was batshit crazy and was firing stuff off out of his ass, and even then many action folks would not know.
Most of the folks who would actually fire the weapons would not know where they were going - targets would be loaded off premade data. The only folks who would know would be aircraft crews - those firing missiles would load target data and push the button.
At least in the US military, there would be very few refusals to fire under "normal" circumstances. Where you had individuals who refused to do this, there were mechanisms where somebody else could be #2 in the 2-key system, or authenticate an EAM. For those in missile capsules, there were ways for another control center to fire missiles, as a rendundancy in case the primary control center was out of action for some reason.
Aside from the duty motivation, most of the folks in a position to fire nukes would know that their families had been nuked by the bad guys. even in a counterforce strike. Almost all families lived in or near bases where their dads/moms worked, and bases with nuclear capability were right at the top of any target list. Whether or not a control capsule, submarine, or aircraft crewmember lived or died in the war, they could be 99.99% sure their families were dead.
Most of the folks who would actually fire the weapons would not know where they were going - targets would be loaded off premade data. The only folks who would know would be aircraft crews - those firing missiles would load target data and push the button.
At least in the US military, there would be very few refusals to fire under "normal" circumstances. Where you had individuals who refused to do this, there were mechanisms where somebody else could be #2 in the 2-key system, or authenticate an EAM. For those in missile capsules, there were ways for another control center to fire missiles, as a rendundancy in case the primary control center was out of action for some reason.
Aside from the duty motivation, most of the folks in a position to fire nukes would know that their families had been nuked by the bad guys. even in a counterforce strike. Almost all families lived in or near bases where their dads/moms worked, and bases with nuclear capability were right at the top of any target list. Whether or not a control capsule, submarine, or aircraft crewmember lived or died in the war, they could be 99.99% sure their families were dead.
You cannot ascribe morality to war since by it's very nature it intends to do harm to others. You can debate the reason for conflict and you can judge the actions of those responsible, but war is moral ambiguity at its finest. Luckily we as a species have largely matured past the idea of casual war.
jus ad bello and jus in bellum - a just war, justice in war. The question being proposed here is, in the face of a nuclear attack - and even a decapitation/counterforce strike against the USA will result in millions of deaths from the actual blasts and fallout and a large number due to secondary problems like infrastructure destruction, disease outbreaks, famine etc - is it more moral to surrender or to respond.If the "moral" response is to surrender, then logically one should destroy the nukes you have and give in to the "enemy". In fact, you should never have built them in the first place, or at least in the case of the USA ceased research and production after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If you are never going to use them, even if attacked building them is pointless and a waste, this is different from hoping never to use them.
thats a very...unique view. I find little problem in saying commiting a genocide during war is morally bad,or killing endless numbers of non-combattants is bad,or you know don't burn every hospital,school and crip in every city. I also don't think thats particulary uncommon.
What is "casual war"? The term suggests a disregard for about methods or consequences of war, in contrast to "non-casual" war, which presumably involves greater thought and care. I would say that one of these is more moral then the other, and thus morality can be ascribed to warfare.
SsgtC
Banned
I think he's referring to the way in which nations used to go to war to settle almost all their differences instead of it being somewhat rare now.
I agree with all of this. There is only one caveat that I can think of. I can imagine that after an initial exchange that survivors might choose other options, depending upon circumstances. I am thinking of the so called letter that is left for British sub captains which supposedly give directions in the event the leadership has been decapitated. Apparently there is some leeway for the captain to follow his moral compass. But this is all heresay.
The one scenario implied but not explicitly discussed is the "Fail Safe"/"By Dawn's Early Light" scenarios. I expect orders would be followed to the end in both scenarios. What's interesting is that for both, and Crimson Tide, the stories emphasize absence of information as the factor that creates the moral dilemma. I tend to believe that most people, beyond just highly trained and highly screened military personnel, will continue with orders. Would you like your family nuked in a follow up strike because he hesitated? The greater moral dilemma, in my opinion, comes after an exchange where knowing many of the facts causes the commanding officer to question the order etc. Regardless of your opinion of the situation, I think Clancy had this in one of his books (the ending of the Sum of All Fears?). But I can imagine a highly ranked military officer acting similarly if they deemed circumstances warranting.
Jack Brisco
Banned
I'll join the chorus. On the US side can't see anyone not turning the key. Wasn't a missile launch officer, but all of us are trained and conditioned to follow lawful orders. Any order to launch, as previously stated, would have come from the NCA and been authenticated.
Couldn't see anyone on the Soviet side not turning the key. Likewise, trained and conditioned to follow orders. And there were political officers to monitor these men, and most likely KGB agents in certain settings to make sure those keys were turned.
Couldn't see anyone on the Soviet side not turning the key. Likewise, trained and conditioned to follow orders. And there were political officers to monitor these men, and most likely KGB agents in certain settings to make sure those keys were turned.
It just doesn't matter. If you press a button and kill a million people, then you've murdered a million people. It's not about winning or losing, defending or aggressing. You've just murdered a million people. Every other fact, every other bit of context falls apart in the face of that.
It will not matter that you liked dogs, or put out your recycling, or that you were a vegan. It will not matter that you were nice to little old ladies, or went to church on Sunday. It will not matter that you won or lost, that you were a good guy or a bad guy. It won't matter that you were following orders. Or that you thought you did the right thing. It wouldn't matter if by murdering a million people that you saved a billion more. All that is... commentary.
You pressed a button, you murdered a million people. Own it.
And hope like hell that there's no god and no afterlife.
Depends on who set the targeting of the ICBM, rather than the crew, yes?
They don't know how many of their birds will be Counterforce or Countervalue.
Hitting silos at Kozelsk is different than downtown Moscow
Were Paul Tibbets, Truman, men who flew raids on Dresden and Japanese cities, Charles Sweeney all murderers? Or were they people giving very difficult orders and/or carrying out missions that look horrible but probably saved many more lives in the long run?
Last edited:
Own what you do. Make someone dead, own it, don't justify it, don't excuse it.
Eh, it matters. No one on here is advocating a nuclear war = good position, but there's a difference between a counterforce strike that is done with the intent of degrading your adversary's ability to conduct nuclear war against your cities, and indiscriminate counter value 100 warheads at Moscow/nuking Sibera to start forrest fires type stuff. But, the leaders that allowed this type of conflict would be among the most despised historical figures, if recorded history were to continue post conflict.
It's the overall number then.
Kaluga Oblast, where those missile fields I mentioned are located, is roughly the size of Maryland with a pop. of 1 million, though the area proper has maybe 50,000 in the immediate area.
The same area of Moscow has your millions