There are serval strategic and political layers to the assumption a single nuclear attack against a nuclear power leads to total retaliation.
Between powers, of one hits the other and the other doesn’t hit back, a precedent has been set for the “line” which it is ok to use force without retaliation. If Russia can nuke Essex UK or Galveston USA without reprisal- why can’t they nuke another city in that nation, or why can’t they use Nuclear weapons against non nuclear powers like Ukraine? Power imbalance is created not only when one cannot respond with equal or greater force. The only equivalent force to a nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon or genocide. Other forms of retaliation lack the long term and related harms of nuclear weapons that extend beyond the initial devastation and can burden and deprive for centuries or eons.
Politically- most citizens would take offense or withdraw support for a government that allowed such an attack and didn’t give a response that would satisfy the peoples emotional needs. Intelligence and common sense indicated that Bin Laden didn’t present a serious future or long term threat to the United States, but the general sentiment of justice through vengeance and a need for accountability coupled with other factors meant that to satisfy the people the US government had to hunt him down and wage war. This both helps appease and assuage people feeling loss, insecurity, or anger and sends a message to others that regardless of circumstance or scope, there will be great personal and larger cost for transgressions.
On the practical side, a defender in a nuclear exchange has almost every disadvantage. Nuclear arsenals are generally not kept in a constant state of total readiness to deploy and take time to get the authorizations and carry out the physical processes required to launch.
The attacker could have prepared their entire arsenal ahead of time and be 100% launch ready.
The amount of time between a single fist strike and subsequent deployments can be relatively short- shorter still in the age of hypersonic missiles.
If you detect a single missile and do not launch, you could find a larger attack inbound and lose your ability to strike at all. By the same token that a mass launch shading a single missile could trigger a mass launch by the original attacker- a a failure to launch at all in response could signal weakness or technical issues to exploit- if the enemies systems are down. It would be prudent to launch at least against their tactical facilities to blunt or eliminate…
.. retaliation capabilities. While books can be written and are on the subject- but it gets down to strategy and tactics and game theory. We can philosophically say that destroying the person that destroys you doesn’t change your destruction, and this is true. It is however the fear that if they attempt to destroy you that you will destroy them which deters someone with the capability to wipe you from the earth from doing so. If you don’t actually follow through that becomes an empty threat and the danger of your destruction increases.
Consider that conventional military action incurs risk. Soldiers will die and infrastructure may be lost even for the attacker. When deploying armies one must consider their own losses or potential losses. A nuclear missile is consumable. You expend a tactical asset but there isn’t the risk to your human population directly. There is very little risk of the nuclear weapon “failing” its task.
You essentially get to unleash the destructive power of an army without a single troop or piece of materiel other than the nuclear device being at risk or lost. Such power free from direct consequence is only balanced out when there is danger of indirect consequence. Nuclear weapons can be perceived as a double edged sword. An army sent to destroy a target will succeed or fail, it can take an enemy capital and your capital remains safe.
A nuclear weapon sent against the capital of another will see a nuclear weapon sent to your capital. The concept of response makes it so that if you use a nuclear weapon you can expect the incur the same or similar loss to what you inflict. This makes the weapons not generally “worth” using if you value self preservation.
A single launch is likely to create multiple launches on these principles and others. If country A launches against country B, country A has a perceived reason. They feel wronged or like country B somehow deserves the attack. So B may retaliate against A under the principle that A wronged them- it’s “even” in the eyes of B because a wrong has been committed by each against the other. The “score” is 1-1. That said- from the perspective of A, they launched because they already felt the “score” was 1-0. In the eyes of A, when they launched it was 1-1, so the retaliation by B makes it 2-1 and now A needs to retaliate again… and so on.
So for all these reasons and more it is valid to assume a single
Launch could trigger total nuclear war.
Of course reality indicates perhaps otherwise. We need to remember that historically, even where countries or their nuclear doctrine have demanded swift and specific nuclear response, the individuals involved in the process have often hesitated or refused. There are several known and notable “close calls” where malfunctions or misunderstandings have led to near nuclear launches. Examples include a time where nuclear bombers which couldn’t be recalled were actually on the runway taking off when someone was able to flag them down and stop them because systems problems had triggered a false alarm that nuclear attack was underway and retaliation was required.
We’ve seen cases in the past where nonnuclear aggressive acts or accidents have occurred and not resulted in decisive retaliation. When possible most powers tend to prefer to take deliberate approaches to perceived aggression. If a single nuclear weapon was launched, leaders are aware that immediate or disproportionate retaliation could turn an accident or act of treason into total destruction. They would most likely prefer if it seemed prudent, to first attempt to understand or confirm the details of the incident. A single nuclear strike that was somehow an “accident” of sorts such as rogue elements within a government or terrorists somehow gaining control etc- that might lead to political and economic or other consequences other than total nuclear war or nuclear retaliation for example.
Wether it would or wouldn’t would depend on many factors such as the proclivities and disposition or judgment of those in power over a decision on nuclear response, relationships between the involved parties, or tensions; that last one being a major factor. The US and France are friendly and have low tensions for example. A nuclear launch from France against the US of a single missile would seem to come out of nowhere. Communications between nations would likely be good and trust in the others words and intentions strong.
Where the governments and citizens of countries have existing conflict or ill feelings, the response would tend to reflect that. As an example- if your best friend who is very kind and loyal has seemingly betrayed you, you are more likely to take time to consider the situation and try to sort out the facts than if someone you know hates you or wants you to die were to do the same thing.
If someone has been sending you death threats for months and shows up with a knife as you exit your home, you’ll probably act quickly and swiftly to defend yourself and assume they want you dead.
If you see your mom outside your door with a knife in her hand it may seem odd, but you probably won’t assume she is trying to kill you (unless your mom is THAT person who has threatened you- in which case I’m sorry.)
So I mean- it’s very circumstantial but a nuclear attack doesn’t necessarily lead to total war but it’s highly circumstantial and might even come down to a single persons decision down the chain of command.
The psychology is pretty simple- most individuals don’t want to take an action that will lead to mass death and suffering. Ban individual may be detached or removed from larger strategy or politics and their own personal morality, ethics, or compassion might influence their actions in ways that deviate from orders or policy.
Between powers, of one hits the other and the other doesn’t hit back, a precedent has been set for the “line” which it is ok to use force without retaliation. If Russia can nuke Essex UK or Galveston USA without reprisal- why can’t they nuke another city in that nation, or why can’t they use Nuclear weapons against non nuclear powers like Ukraine? Power imbalance is created not only when one cannot respond with equal or greater force. The only equivalent force to a nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon or genocide. Other forms of retaliation lack the long term and related harms of nuclear weapons that extend beyond the initial devastation and can burden and deprive for centuries or eons.
The attacker could have prepared their entire arsenal ahead of time and be 100% launch ready.
The amount of time between a single fist strike and subsequent deployments can be relatively short- shorter still in the age of hypersonic missiles.
If you detect a single missile and do not launch, you could find a larger attack inbound and lose your ability to strike at all. By the same token that a mass launch shading a single missile could trigger a mass launch by the original attacker- a a failure to launch at all in response could signal weakness or technical issues to exploit- if the enemies systems are down. It would be prudent to launch at least against their tactical facilities to blunt or eliminate…
Consider that conventional military action incurs risk. Soldiers will die and infrastructure may be lost even for the attacker. When deploying armies one must consider their own losses or potential losses. A nuclear missile is consumable. You expend a tactical asset but there isn’t the risk to your human population directly. There is very little risk of the nuclear weapon “failing” its task.
A nuclear weapon sent against the capital of another will see a nuclear weapon sent to your capital. The concept of response makes it so that if you use a nuclear weapon you can expect the incur the same or similar loss to what you inflict. This makes the weapons not generally “worth” using if you value self preservation.
So for all these reasons and more it is valid to assume a single
Launch could trigger total nuclear war.
Where the governments and citizens of countries have existing conflict or ill feelings, the response would tend to reflect that. As an example- if your best friend who is very kind and loyal has seemingly betrayed you, you are more likely to take time to consider the situation and try to sort out the facts than if someone you know hates you or wants you to die were to do the same thing.
If you see your mom outside your door with a knife in her hand it may seem odd, but you probably won’t assume she is trying to kill you (unless your mom is THAT person who has threatened you- in which case I’m sorry.)
So I mean- it’s very circumstantial but a nuclear attack doesn’t necessarily lead to total war but it’s highly circumstantial and might even come down to a single persons decision down the chain of command.
The psychology is pretty simple- most individuals don’t want to take an action that will lead to mass death and suffering. Ban individual may be detached or removed from larger strategy or politics and their own personal morality, ethics, or compassion might influence their actions in ways that deviate from orders or policy.