Would Obama use a nuke in retaliation?

[stevenleser]

52. This is a very difficult question that has ramifications beyond the Koreas

My hope is that the President would find a way not to use a nuclear weapon in response and yet still send the necessary message, but it sets a dangerous precedent and not just for the US.

If it is known that a rogue state with a few low yield nuclear weapons can get away with using nuclear weapons against big nuclear powers or their allies simply because the rogue state is a very minor nuclear power, then the chances that something like that will happen again become much greater. And let's be realistic, the chance that the world will again see hostile use of nuclear weapons is much higher in terms of minor power/small state use than that by Russia or China or the US against someone else or each other. So this is something we really need to think about.

I've noticed that many of the people saying how horrible it would be for us to respond with WMD are also some of those saying that even if Iran went nuclear, it wouldn't be a big deal because they would know if they used one against us or our allies, they would be annihilated. Well, no they wouldn't, not if we would react to the use of nukes by North Korea by not responding in kind.

The big fear of using a nuclear weapon is that said use will result in a nuclear weapon being used against you. If we remove even some of that fear, what message does that send and what are the dangers of that message?

So this would be a really difficult issue. I voted other. I think the President would have to get on the phone with Moscow and Beijing and the three countries would have to talk out the response. I would bet in that discussion that Putin and Xi Jinping would advise and/or support a retaliatory strike for the reasons I have outlined.