Nuclear Weapons & War Discussion Thread

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

There's a scenario that I've been toying with in my head and I'd like to see how people here would respond (if this thread isn't too dead).

In short:
Let's say there is a conventional war between red and blue. Both sides are major nuclear superpowers. During the war, red uses a single low yield nuclear weapon against a major blue military asset (logistics hub, airbase, etc.). How should blue respond?

I think it depends on doctrine and other factions (geography, conventional military power, etc.), as well as the actual situation.
A tac-nuke out of desperation to try and turn the tide in a backsliding conventional military situation presumably warrants a different response than does a nuclear warning shot designed to force negotiations/de-escalation.

 

[Jewthulhu]

I think it depends on doctrine and other factions (geography, conventional military power, etc.), as well as the actual situation.
A tac-nuke out of desperation to try and turn the tide in a backsliding conventional military situation presumably warrants a different response than does a nuclear warning shot designed to force negotiations/de-escalation.

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is what the "third option" is. Going MAD is completely non-credible in response to a small attack, and tit-for-tat doesn't always work, especially when fighting defensively.

Massive conventional retaliation is an option, but during a war, how much more "massive" can retaliation get, assuming the conflict is already high-intensity?

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

I'll just wait in Mount Yamantau. Nothing bad happens in there, right?

Only one of the most boring vidya levels I ever had the displeasure of playing.