What is a justified use of nuclear weapons?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Scenario 1: a global exchange of weapons has almost crippled the west, and badly hit the governments of China and Russia (who struck first while west was unprepared). The US still has enough second strike ability to cripple both governments as revenge, by striking their remaining regional capitals and military bases.

Scenario 2: Russia invades Lithuania, bombing with conventional weaponry, due to a recently passed law they claim leaves the Russian minority  as second class citizens. Should the US strike Russian forces using tactical nuclear weaponry?

Scenario 3: China has massed troops in Fujian province, hoping to threaten Taiwan, which is preparing a unilateral vote of independence projected to win with 60 percent of the vote. Following an attempted assassination of the Taiwanese President, believed to be a work of the Chinese secret service, the US severs all relations with China. Advisors believe war is inevitable, and a unilateral series of tactical strikes on the massed Chinese army could cripple their ability to attack the US and its allies in the region, as well as save Taiwan from a land invasion.

Scenario 4: Isis have a stronghold over its beseiged remaining city, but it seems to be becoming looser with tribal grumbling and paramilitary forces going unpaid. The US, hoping to force open rebellion amongst Isis ranks via the carrot and stick meyhod, announces that if the leaders of Isis were arrested by their subordinates, there would be reconciliation; if not a single nuclear warhead would be dropped. This strategy doesn't work. Should the US follow through with its threat (area contains civilians)?

[OSR stands with Israel]

1 is justified

2 and 3 is unjustified .Either of those just needs deployments to other places in the Pacfic to deter China, or on the new Russian border to deter furthur aggression while funding rebellions in both those countries.

4: is unjustified

[DavidB.]

Only 1.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

None. At best, only 1 would have a decent argument for it.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Only 1, though I'm not sure about it either, while the other 3 are completely mad and unjustified.

[Cashew]

1. Justified.
2. Absurd escalation.
3. Taiwan is to blame for upsetting the status quo.
4. Unjustified.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

One is absolutely justified, the others not so much. I'd authorize dropping a tactical battlefield nuke on Raqqa in response to any ISIS sponsored terror attack on American soil.

[Goldwater]

Only 1.

[Person Man]

We kind of have to with 1. 2 and 3 could eventually go that way but not yet. 4 seems like a dumb thing to get stuck in.

[Crumpets]

Fun fact: The amount of nuclear bombs required to destroy a reinforced nuclear silo to the point where you can be absolutely sure of unusability given current bomb accuracy is such that more people would end up dying as a result of the fallout than would be killed if you just dropped one tactical nuclear bomb in the middle of a heavily populated area. So, if you're going by number of collateral deaths, it's actually better to drop a few bombs on civilian targets than to unload your entire arsenal taking out military targets and plunging the world into nuclear winter.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

We kind of have to with 1. 2 and 3 could eventually go that way but not yet. 4 seems like a dumb thing to get stuck in.

It would be, but numerous republicans have stated that it would be good to use nuclear weapons on Isis, so.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Only 1.

[Illiniwek]

Only 2, just because I gotta stick up for my Lithuanian draugai.

[dead0man]

How'd I know this was going to be weird?

only the 1st one makes sense

[Cory]

Only 1.

[Dr. MB]

The only acceptable use of nukes is to destroy extraterrestrial threats (alien invasion, rogue comet or asteroid, etc.)

[LLR]

There is no justified use.