What If...?
RyoOhki
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
<div class="IPBDescription">A scenario to discuss</div> The year is 2004, the month Feburary. On the 16th day of this month a ship enters New York harbour. It's manifesto shows it to have a load of electrical appliances from Taiwan. However, the ship had been boarded in the Atlantic and taken over by a cell of terrorists. They brought with them a single nuclear bomb.
The ship does not dock at it's designated area, and instead continues past the port towards Manhatten. Police and harbur authorities call for the ship to halt, and when their calls go unanswered, they decide to investigate the matter with force.
Just as the patrol boats start towards the ship at 8:57 am the bomb is detonated. The ship was no more than 1 kilometer from Manhatten. The yeild of the device on board is some 5 megatons.
Most of central New York is utterly destroyed. Peak hour traffic and the weekday date ensures the maximum number of casualties. Initial estimates run as high as 9 million dead.
A furious US begins to track down the culprits. After a few weeks the group has been identifed and traced to camps in Asia. However, the catch soon comes as the final analysis of the nuclear material comes through. The bomb was made in the People's Republic of China.
US diplomats confront the Chinese over the issue. China says it regrets the incident and promises to try and find the people who made the sale. The US though is still horrified by the events of Feburary 16th. The public across America is looking for a target for their anger, but then on March 6th the nightmare occurs again. A nuclear device, again of Chinese origin, is detonated in San Fransisco, killing over 5 million instantly. The US now faces a choice which it thought it would never have to make: the possibility of war with a major nuclear power.
Terrorism has, thankfully, not yet reached the levels mentioned above. However, the possibility of powerful nation-states such as China or Russia providing nuclear weaponry to terrorists is one which could make such a scenario reality. Whether the states knew their weaponry had been sold or not, the US in such a situation would not be able to undertake an action such as was taken against Iraq. Or could they? In such a scenario as described above, the US would have to make a decision: attack China and elimate the nukes permenantly, or try and co-operate with the Chinese to find the buyers and sellers. However, with 14 million dead and millions more dying, how much patience could one country have?
The ship does not dock at it's designated area, and instead continues past the port towards Manhatten. Police and harbur authorities call for the ship to halt, and when their calls go unanswered, they decide to investigate the matter with force.
Just as the patrol boats start towards the ship at 8:57 am the bomb is detonated. The ship was no more than 1 kilometer from Manhatten. The yeild of the device on board is some 5 megatons.
Most of central New York is utterly destroyed. Peak hour traffic and the weekday date ensures the maximum number of casualties. Initial estimates run as high as 9 million dead.
A furious US begins to track down the culprits. After a few weeks the group has been identifed and traced to camps in Asia. However, the catch soon comes as the final analysis of the nuclear material comes through. The bomb was made in the People's Republic of China.
US diplomats confront the Chinese over the issue. China says it regrets the incident and promises to try and find the people who made the sale. The US though is still horrified by the events of Feburary 16th. The public across America is looking for a target for their anger, but then on March 6th the nightmare occurs again. A nuclear device, again of Chinese origin, is detonated in San Fransisco, killing over 5 million instantly. The US now faces a choice which it thought it would never have to make: the possibility of war with a major nuclear power.
Terrorism has, thankfully, not yet reached the levels mentioned above. However, the possibility of powerful nation-states such as China or Russia providing nuclear weaponry to terrorists is one which could make such a scenario reality. Whether the states knew their weaponry had been sold or not, the US in such a situation would not be able to undertake an action such as was taken against Iraq. Or could they? In such a scenario as described above, the US would have to make a decision: attack China and elimate the nukes permenantly, or try and co-operate with the Chinese to find the buyers and sellers. However, with 14 million dead and millions more dying, how much patience could one country have?
Comments
<-- pinches fingers together and says "this much".
A better question is, how many Nations will sit idley by and mumble things like "Haliburton" and "McDonalds"?
Another question:
What if someone stole an American-produced bomb and set it off a la "Sum of All Fears"? We couldn't very well go to war with ourselves...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Whether the states knew their weaponry had been sold or not, the US in such a situation would not be able to undertake an action such as was taken against Iraq. Or could they? In such a scenario as described above, the US would have to make a decision: attack China and elimate the nukes permenantly, or try and co-operate with the Chinese to find the buyers and sellers. However, with 14 million dead and millions more dying, how much patience could one country have? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The reason that an attack on China would not be viable is because it's a slightly different scenario than in Iraq. In Iraq, no one had actually produced a nuclear weapon yet. Many states don't consider biological and chemical weapons on the same level as nuclear weapons, so they for the most part wrote it off as Bush being a typical arrogant unilateralist American. However, in China, there is already a well-established nuclear program. If America were to attack them, conventionally or otherwise, each country with nuclear weapons would immediately feel a risk to their country's security. After all, if America sets a precedent by invading one of the Security Council members, then what is to keep them from invading Russia? Or pressuring Britain and France into giving up their nukes? Not only would the risk of being invaded, but of also losing their nuclear deterrent most likely cause these states to band together in another "triple alliance" against the U.S., it would greatly increase the chance of nukes once again being used in anger - having no nuclear deterrent *and* leaving the U.S. with its own nukes is an unacceptable proposition.
Yet it is a decision that would have to be made. Invading small states without much capacity to defend themselves is one thing, but what do you do when you're facing a "rogue state" with hundreds of nuclear weapons and a standing army in the millions?
Not saying how that's how it <i>should</i> end, I'm saying that's most likely how it <i>would</i> end.
Or perhaps that boondoggle known as the B-2 Stealth Bomber would make a few passes over China, dropping nuclear weapons on all known Chinese nuclear installations (there aren't that many - they really are small potatoes in the atomic area). That way there would be no more chances. And a lot of jobs would come back to America, I reckon.
Not saying how that's how it <i>should</i> end, I'm saying that's most likely how it <i>would</i> end.
Or perhaps that boondoggle known as the B-2 Stealth Bomber would make a few passes over China, dropping nuclear weapons on all known Chinese nuclear installations (there aren't that many - they really are small potatoes in the atomic area). That way there would be no more chances. And a lot of jobs would come back to America, I reckon. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I tend to think that this kind of response would make Russia, and to a lesser extent Britain and France start feeling *very* queasy, which can lead to all sorts of bad things, including a "new Cold War", which may end up with massive nuclear exchanges. Thing is, if you're going to bomb missile silos in one country, you're gonna have to bomb the silos in every other country which you don't completely trust...which means every other country with missiles.
I believe the saying "trick me once, shame on you - trick me twice, shame on me" applies here. If the U.S. did not completely shut down its ports due to the first incident, well...
And MonsE, don't be hating on the Chinese - they make your shoes! And probably the parts for the monitor you're looking at right now <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
In any case, jobs coming back to the U.S. > No, they'd move to Mexico and South America.
<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
If your country gets attacked twice with nuclear weapons, other country's opinion on the event are frankly of zero consequence. Your roll as the federal government is first and foremost to prevent anything bad happening to your citizens. So right before you all resign your posts to acknowledge that you're incompetent, you should have the courtesy to prevent any further attacks. I can assure that China would not be providing anyone any more nuclear weapons after this response, in either of my scenarios.
EDIT: And I know about the shoes - hence my comments. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> I waaannnaaa beeee like Chooiiiii...
<a href='http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/dirty-bomb.cfm' target='_blank'>Pascal’s New Wager: The Dirty Bomb Threat Heightens </a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A Jan. 30 report from the British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC) claims al Qaeda's attempts to manufacture a 'dirty bomb' are much more advanced than was previously known. The report was based on previously undisclosed evidence released to the BBC by the U.K. authorities, including intelligence reports from British agents who had infiltrated al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda training manuals detailing how to best use dirty bombs were also uncovered — as was a quantity of radioactive materials. <b>According to the BBC, officials at the Porton Down defense research center in Wiltshire, England, where these materials were analyzed, concluded "al Qaeda had a small dirty bomb but probably not a full blown nuclear device." 1 </b> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Still think invading Afghanistan was a bad idea?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You only shut down the ports until you can get your security agencies to make absolutely sure that there isn't another terrorist with nukes out there. Isn't that what happened after 9/11? We put soldiers in airports and in planes to keep another hijacking from happening.
What else can we do, you say? Lean on the Chinese - hard, and with the threat of nukes - to disclose fully its supposed inventory, and to go and actually physically count each warhead. Knee-jerk nuclear responses are unacceptable, in my opinion. Any use of nukes is unacceptable. Look at the timetable for the attacks - they are barely more than 3 weeks apart. Surely you can keep your ports closed that long, even if it does mean severe economic slowdowns? Nukes have to be a last-chance gamble. I think, MonsE, that you're jumping the gun and saying that diplomatic resolutions and the use of conventional weapons won't work and won't deter any further use of the weapons. Well, I'd rather not try that approach at first blush.
Motives/Causes:
Case A) China sells its nukes to a terrorist cell in order to undermine global security and weaken American dominance on the world stage.
Case B) China had its weapons stolen by terrorists, or a low-level party member in charge of the silo goes corrupt and tries to grab wealth for himself.
Case C) China sells blueprints and the technological know-how on nuclear weapons to terrorists.
Reactions:
1) That's not exactly a very good plan on their part, because now that America has been attacked by nukes, it basically can claim every right to respond with nukes. That actually strengthens America's position. America would then lean *VERY HARD* on China, not only to pay reparations, but also to either rid itself completely of nukes, or if they were not willing we would probably get rid of their nukes for them.
2) Enh... I can't speculate on what to do in this case. We would probably pressure them to heighten security and allow third-party and US inspectors. If they refused, we would probably get rid of their nukes for them.
3) War (Hopefully conventional, but I can see tactical nuclear weapons being used here)?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
EDIT: And I know about the shoes - hence my comments. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> I waaannnaaa beeee like Chooiiiii...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
LOL
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's from an ICBM attack - you don't get that kind of warning with a "suitcase bomb" or somesuch.
If nuclear weapons were employed, we would not waste time with conventional forces. That is contrary to US doctrine since 1945.
It was the 'bright flash of light'. If we saw a 'bright flash of light', we were supposed to duck and cover. 1KT backpack nuke or Soviet SS-25 MIRV, it made no difference. We were told to expect no warning.
It was the 'bright flash of light'. If we saw a 'bright flash of light', we were supposed to duck and cover. 1KT backpack nuke or Soviet SS-25 MIRV, it made no difference. We were told to expect no warning. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh. I stand corrected. But I never learned any such tactic when I was in school <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> Most we did were fire and tornado drills.
Well if New York and San Fransico are attacked with nuclear weapons, the first affect would be economic. The American economy would be serverly damaged and then that would spread across the world.
Also, the Russian Federation wouldn't sell any nuclear weapon to a terrorist group, nor would they take part in a plot against the United States. As the 'old guard' dies out and NR's take their place, you'll see greater Russian-
American cooperation.
Now, as you stated, the nuclear weapons were traced to China, the US would ask them (and probably the whole world) to completely disarm all their nuclear weapons. If the Chinese don't comply, then there will most likely be a war.
If there was a war, it would be one of three scenarios. One, the US retaliates with nuclear weapon(s), which is somewhat unimaginable, but possible. China would either back down or attack with its 20 (soon to be 32 in 2010-2020) nuclear missles (if the US didn't already target and destroy) capable of hitting American soil, and most might be intercepted. Two, the US launches a full air and naval campign, effectively destroying the Chinese air force and navy. Then they attack military bases and government infrastucture. Also, economic sanctions and embargos are placed. Three, the US plans to 'take over' China. This is rather simple, but very very cruel. If the US does what Russia has plans (just incase Russia is attacked by China, it's nothing preemptive) for, they will dominate the air and sea, then target ALL agricultural and food resources. This means farms, food processing plants, and food storage areas would be completely distroyed. Then major cities are bombed and all industry is destroyed. If this doesn't force a Chinese surrender-then the ground forces come in, almost unopposed. This plan would cause the starvation of up to 100-200 million Chinese in the first year. Then up to 400-800 million the next.
Also, if any country posed any risk to the United States or its allies, there would be immediate and sevre action taken.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is true, and is the underlying theme of deterrance. However, when dealing with a non-state entity such as a terrorist group deterrance often fails; namely because such groups do often not fear retaliation. Hence the problem: China in my scenario may have been entirely innocent: a corrupt or rouge general could have sold the 2 devices to the highest bidder and from there they reached terrorist hands. However I very much doubt that the US would be satisfied by the Chinese government locating and imprisoning/executing the general, namely because there's now 14 million + Americans dead as a result of China's security lapses.
The problem of attacking China is that whilst as you said a small scale SDI defense may be in place by early next year such system's arn't infalible; one or 2 missiles might slip through. Second is the American intrests in the region; China has plenty of shorter rangnuclear weapons capable of hitting US bases across Asia. China might also use the oportunity to launch nukes against Taiwan. I think that a full scale nuclear exchange would be out of the question; if the US did decide to use force, could a force of convential weapons eliminate China's nuclear capacity? Problem with using nukes against China is that it automatically allows China to use nukes back, and that could send the entire region into chaos. if you destroyed all of China's nuclear arsonal in the first wave then perhaps the nuclear option is viable. But here's the catch: in my scenario, there's no proof that China willingly supplied the weaponry.
I chose China for my scenario because it is, like you said, not as big a nuclear player as say the US. But for a spin, let's change things slightly. Same scenario, but the nukes came from Russia. What does the US do in response?
What do you mean from Russia? Did the Russian Federation supply them, did a rouge military officer or group steal and sell them, or were they stolen from a Russian military facility? Either way, there most likely wouldn't be war, since Russia has more nuclear weapons than the United States; IIRC- 22,000 vs 16,000. So, a nuclear response is completely out of the question, although a conventional war might be possible. It depends on Russia's condition in the future. In a few years Russia is upgrading to new, and in different fields, superior equipment. Also, Russia can draft up to thirty million men, the US can draft more, but they won't be able/willing to send 30 million or more soldiers to combat. If the government did supply the nuclear weapons, then most likely the government is still being run by the 'old guard', and there might be a coup to overthrow them and then cooperate with the US. But what I believe what would happen is that Russia would cooperate, we could most likely repel an American invasion, though we wouldn't want to find out if we actually could.
Same as the China scenario: it's an unknown. Any of the above could have happened; the only things known for certain are that the nukes came from russia. Russia denies any knowledge of the affair, expresses their regret at the incident and promises to find the perpetrators.
Here you savages! <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <a href='http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj97/win97/parrin.html' target='_blank'>M.A.D.</a>
To use Russia as the example is far more realistic to be honest, as they have a near chronic inability to keep track of their nuclear devices and equipment due to the general disorder of the Russian economy in the past, oh, 50 years of nuclear poweredness. I think it falls under slightly different circumstances there, as Russia is an ally (China is not). Much as if a bomb made in the UK somehow disappeared. China or other small nuclear powers are bad examples, as they have much stricter control of their arsenals due to their small size and limited capability. Russia has 10,000 warheads to account for in a huge country run by the mob. I just think it would be too incredible for people to believe that Russia had intentioanlly done such a thing, where as the chinese...
Of course, a bigger part of the problem is determing *where* a nuclear device really did come from. There are no remains for forensics of any kind, and you would have to compile an awful lot of evidence to condemn a nation if a missile wasn't tracked on radar. You may end up being able to blame no one. If it boiled down only being able to pick out a specific terrorist organization, I rather imagine that any nation that had the slightest affiliation with those terrorists would become outlaw nations and probably be attacked by a coalition of pretty much all other nations. Sort of a macro-variant on the 2nd Gulf War...
However, from my understanding of reading on the subject, the risk of a terrorist getting their hands on a completely functional nuclear device (such as a missile warhead), and being able to detonate it by hand is frankly pretty low. Which makes all of this an interesting but largely fantasy-inspired. The real risk is with 'dirty bombs', which do not require much expertise or materiale, and which do not cause massive deaths and instead cause massive disruption for a short period of time. A different topic though. You could ask the Russians about those, as they found one in Moscow in 1996, left as a gift by Chechnyans, due to the Russian bumbling vietnam-style quagmire that is that part of the world...
Hmmm... I have no good answer. You heard it here first.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is true, and is the underlying theme of deterrance. However, when dealing with a non-state entity such as a terrorist group deterrance often fails; namely because such groups do often not fear retaliation. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think generally we hold the leaders/country responsible. We held Afghanistan responsible when we learned that the Taliban was giving "safe haven" to Al Qaeda, and I don't see a reason why we wouldn't do so to China.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> a corrupt or rouge general
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
please get it right, it's <b>rogue</b>.
Thank you.
Yes, tactical nukes are small-payload devices designed to be used during combat to "thin out" or destroy military targets on the battlefield. Basically think about it as *edit* ahem, having the effect of *edit* a huge clusterbomb with radioactive fallout. And no, the redeemer has nothing to do with it.
Raze the world...
Make it a barren place...
For you, and for me, and the entire human race.
There aren't people dying, if we don't hurry up an kill them all.
Make it a barren place for you and for me...
Seriously... US will demand action. We'll link it to a country or a supporting country and rape that nation, and pretty much expand the 'war on terror' to any nation.
I'm also aware of the low possibility of terrorists actually getting their hands on the nuclear weapon, however this action in Iraq got me thinking. Sure it's unlikely, but if the US is willing to go to war because they believe that a state is going to supply terrorist groups with WMD then it would be interesting if the state turned out to be one with real power. I probably wouldn't put Russia in the same catagory as say Britian; relations between Russia and the US have been turning sour of late with Russia's refusal to back the Iraq war and the US pushing NATO through into Eastern Europe. There's also the Georgia situation which Russia is apparently getting quite annoyed over.
Now the tricky thing is Monse, and I'm sure you appreciate it, is that if you can't for certain determine where the bomb came from what do you do? the US would be trapped in a nightmare situation, with 2 of it's cities in ruins it would be greatly fearing a third attack, yet the only way to ensure that would never happen would be to eliminate the nuclear arsonals of the entire planet, an impossible task. As you said, there is no good answer, merely a hope by the US today that something akin to this scenario never occurs.
As a side note I recall reading about some Soviet-era "backpack nukes" in around the 1-2 kiloton range that were designed to look like suitcases. According to what I read the Soviets made 130 of these weapons, but in a recent stocktake they were only able to find 80. That means there's 50 or so devices out there that constitute a terrorist's dream weapon. I only hope they're sitting in some disused warehouse in Sibera and simply got forgotten about.
Ok, lets play switcheroo. The US has lost how many nukes at the last count? 14? 21?. Same scenarios as above, but a European nation is attacked. A nuclear power. In the current climate, I'm going to go for France, just for effect.
France is hit by a low yield suitcase bomb (leaving the strontium/cobalt dirty bomb aside for the moment)hidden in a backpack. France investigates, the bomb turns out to be US in origin. 20 days later, it happens again, again the origin is the US. We have no info about whether its a sekrit plot or a corrupt general selling to the highest bidder. After the first detonation Bush is apologetic fury, stating he'll find the culprits of this heinous crime against humanity. After the second, eyes turn to Chirac, how does a nuclear nation respond to the threat? by "raping" the government of the nation "harbouring" the culprits? Would you have France judge you by your own yardstick? Would you feel they were justified in doing so? I'm sure that its more than probable that any pre-emptive strike by France would result in a less pleasant outcome for France than America, but we're talking hypothetically.
EDIT: Comparison- the Hiroshima bomb was roughly equivalent to 12,500 tons of TNT (12.5 KILOton yield.) The bomb weighed just a hair under 10,000 lbs, 140 lbs of that was the enriched uranium combo. Now a five MEGAton bomb means an equivalent of five MILLION tons of TNT. Or, a bomb 400 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. Doesn't really sound like a backyard project, or a James Bond accessory someone grabbed from an empty warehouse. Someone had help, which means, there will be no bargaining or discussion.
A true suitcase sized bomb would probably be like Monse was talking about, 1-2 kilotons. That's like 10 or 15% of the yield of Hiroshima on paper, but substantially less in reality because the thing will be detonated on the surface, wasting a lot of its energy into the earth. (The line of sight changes drastically as the blast center approaches the surface- draw it out on paper.) The ground zero zone of intense heat would be small, and not encompass the entire island of Manhattan. The radiation fallout would depend on wind and other factors. The overpressure damage would interesting to study, because a modern skyscraper probably reacts differently to overpressure than a wooden shack.
Obviously the blast would be bad news if it was on your block, but it's not by any means certain what would happen to Brooklyn, Queens, Jersey, or even Harlem for that matter.
//EDIT
As MonsieurEvil has said, the doctrine of the U.S. in terms of response to ANY nuclear attack is not a mystery. I don't have a source to quote, but I believe the policy is to respond "in kind", which means no holds barred, to any large scale nuclear, chemical, or biological attack, either on its soil, or its interests abroad. It might even include allies, not sure about that.
If a five megaton bomb went off in Manhattan on February 16th, it would be a very different world by the time March 6th rolled around. Are you kidding? The entire civilized world would become a police state instantly, out of the need to have a vice grip on people moving around. There would be National Guardsmen checking every possible route in/out of cities, ships would be searched 20 miles offshore, etc etc at the very least. (Although I think it might be simplistic to think the Coast Guard doesn't have some minimum failsafes already in place to verify a ship hasn't been outright pirated in the Atlantic, but I don't know.)
A five megaton bomb probably would not be something terrorists could fabricate on their own, for lack of materials. If they had one, I think it would probably mean a government outright handed them large quantities, and if that were the case, why bother- they'd just hand over a pre-made small tactical nuke. Either way, the U.S. would not be asking whether to attack, just who, and how. If the choice came down to two or three countries and they didn't know which? Guess what? They have a lot more ammunition than they have time to investigate.
The only nation that would possibly give us pause is Russia, due to their ability to return fire. China only has the ability to launch a limited number of ICBMs, which, since in this scenario they didn't fire, would probably be destroyed in their silos simultaneously without warning by ballistic missile submarines. (Why wait for them to make it official?) As for the rest of their infrastructure, I don't think it would be necessary or prudent to just "wipe the slate clean", unless done for political reasons of instilling utter terror. My guess would be that there would be a heavy bombing campaign of everything nuclear related in China, and anything military that stood in the way. With sea-launched Tridents, nothing stands in the way, so maybe it wouldn't be necessary to attack anything else. Maybe they would simply use small tactical nukes to instantly obliterate all nuclear facilities and supporting industries, and weather the criticism of pollution and civilian loss with the threat of further, more complete destruction. But unless nuclear materials are stored in downtown Beijing, I doubt there'd be any reason to nuke it, other than political. Blanketting the entire country with MIRVs would not have any added effect to removing the offending installations, so it shouldn't be assumed that would be the obvious goal of using nuclear weapons. (Especially considering that such a large-scale use would practically mandate other countries to attack us, since everyone nearby would have a death sentence. Beyond the radiation, the ecosystems would fail from massive superfires and lack of sunlight.)
EDIT: Sea-launched Tridents would probably be overkill. They'd probably use much smaller tactical nukes dropped from B2s. Might only cause local pollution that way.
China's conventional military only hinders the U.S. if it tries to occupy the country, and of course by threatening nearby interests. (The nearby interests would no longer matter after Manhattan disappeared.) They can't stop us from flying over and breaking their stuff, and I don't think the U.S. would bother trying to occupy them for purpose of containment. They'd simply say "Don't re-build this, we're watching from above" and probably get listened to.
At any rate, the methodical, world-wide debate we experienced with Iraq would not take place in this situation. (IF there was even anything other than government broadcasting).