The Immediate Nuclear Response: US vs Russia with 100 Missiles

One of the most critical aspects of nuclear strategy in modern warfare involves the immediate response to a nuclear strike. If Russia or the United States were to receive a nuclear attack, say 100 missiles, the response would be swift and likely encompass the full arsenal of each nation. This is not an outcome that can be altered by any contingency planning; the attacked nation would launch everything they had, knowing that the enemy will try to neutralize their remaining nuclear capability.

The Psychological and Strategic Dimension

At the moment of receiving the missiles, the attacked nation would have no precise information on where the missiles would strike. They would have to assume that a significant portion of those missiles are targeting their own launch sites and silos. This uncertainty drives the necessity for a blanket response, to prevent the enemy from achieving their objective and to minimize the impact of the counterstrike. Thus, the immediate response would be to launch everything, regardless of the number of missiles received, recognizing the probable all-out nuclear response.

The Rationality Behind an All-Out Nuclear Response

The principle behind any nuclear strike is the prevention of the other side's ability to counterstrike. This is a core tenet of deterrence, and it is the reason why any launch or detection of incoming missiles would trigger an automatic all-out nuclear response. The fear of losing the capability to retaliate makes any non-proportional response risky. Whether the initial strike includes one or a hundred missiles, it is nearly certain to precipitate a full-scale nuclear retaliation.

Nuclear Trigger Happiness and Instability

Given the current geopolitical climate, there is a real concern about the stability and rationality of nuclear holding nations. The presence of unstable governments with a propensity for nuclear escalation poses a significant threat. This is why the nuclear response to any attack is predefined and automatic, to reduce the risk of human error and misinterpretation.

Target Prioritization in a Nuclear War

The objective of a country hit by nuclear missiles would not be total destruction. The primary goal is to neutralize the enemy's ability to retaliate. This is why military targets would be the first priority, followed by airports and energy production. Once these strategic points are neutralized, the enemy's capacity to respond meaningfully is greatly reduced.

Conclusion: A Rational Response?

The logic behind an immediate and full nuclear response to a 100 missile strike is clear: it is a tactic designed to ensure mutual deterrence and prevent the escalation of a nuclear conflict into a devastating exchange. Whether this strategy is rational or simply a dangerous game of nuclear war is debatable, but it highlights the pressing need for international cooperation and dialogue to prevent such conflicts from ever becoming a reality.

For further insight into this issue, you may want to watch the film Nuclear War. It provides a thought-provoking exploration of the potential outcomes of such a scenario, offering a perspective that closely aligns with the strategic principles discussed here.