Nuclear/Biological weapons now the ONLY weapons

[Vanguard]

It seems to me that the Iraq war clearly show the utter uselessness of building anything except nuclear and biological weapons. For any middle grade power, wasting money on conventional armaments is pointless: Iraq spent more on its military than any other middle grade power is ever likely to be able to spend, yet all that money and effort was completely worthless against either the United States or Israel.

Today only technological and numerical superiority in the air count for anything in conventional warfare. And no one except China, Russia, Europe and, maybe, India have the capability to achieve numerical superiority against the United States. So the only weapons capable of detering US attack are nuclear and biological weapons. And if you can deter the United States than you can deter anyone.

So spending huge amounts of money on Migs, Mirages or Hornets is stupid. They aren't worth anything. If you attack anyone else, the UN will make you pay more than you are willing to. If the US, or anyone else, attacks you, they are useless. The US will take no casualties, and an attack by anyone else will simply result in a war that makes the value of you initial weapons expenditures seem trivial compared to the cost of nuclear/biowarfare deterence----- all in a war in which it is now impossible to gain anything in the way of territory or reparations due to the UN.

Nothing short of nukes or bioweapons is worth anything anymore. Only they have deterent value, so buying anything else is pointless.

[DinoDoc]

Re: Nuclear/Biological weapons now the ONLY weapons

Originally posted by Vanguard
Iraq spent more on its military than any other middle grade power is ever likely to be able to spend,

North Korea has them beat. Hands down.

[Arrian]

Ok, but the main point I think is valid:

For middle grade powers, there are essentially two options: don't even try to defend yourself (spend very little on defense) or go nuclear.

The first leaves you at the mercy of the whims of the UN if you get attacked by a regional foe (since you will have no army and need help). The second puts you on the US hitlist, so you better hurry up & get those nukes before the US flattens you.

-Arrian

[My Wife Hates CIV]

'And no one except China, Russia, Europe and, maybe, India have the capability to achieve numerical superiority against the United States.'

still does not mean anything if what you're talking about (man power, air power) is worthless.

and as the years continue to pass by even nuclear weapons will mean less.

[Traianvs]

Yup Vanguard, you're quite right.... North Korea is being attacked by diplomats and stuff, but hey they're pretty invulnerable to those, they have a regime that consists of people that won't listen to what other people
Anyway they're still in power, and Iraq, without WMD, but with a big army, is done for (Well Saddam is out I mean)

[Drake Tungsten]

Vanguard's post is correct, but about 12 years behind the times. Rogue states learned this lesson after the first Gulf War and have been after nukes ever since. What do you think the "Axis of Evil" and Bush doctrine were a response to?

[Robert]

Pherhaps it's a good thing.
If the US are that powerfull that all other countries will see that they can't harm it anyway, so they'll stop building weapons.

Of course it's dangerous as well,
what if all countries have destroyed their waepons, and some dictator grabs all power in the US......

[GePap]

Nah...Vanguards post is incorrect.

Victory over Iraq, both in 1991 and 2003 do show how advanced Us weaposn are, but Iraq is also a poor testcase for most states. Mainly, it is the sort of terrain best suited to American tactics, flat and open. Even without nukes the US would not start a war with Nk at a whim, since it would be much bloodiers, simply given the level of enemy training and terrain. And lest not even get involved in jungle's......

But the bigger point is that for all the sabre rattling, the US is a far and sitant cop only interested in a few areas. There are 180 states in the world. At most, a sozen live under any level of US threat. The rest have to worry about neigbors. Does anyon here want to claim to India and Pakistan that all the moeny thy spend on conventional wepaons is useless cause they would loose to the US? The threat to them is not the US but each other, or other neighbors, who lack the US's weaponry.

There is, of course, another factor. If no-one else can get thier hands on rpecision weapons, it is because there is a oligarchy of states with the tech level to make them, and all of them work with the US (Europeans and Japan) and don't have the political will to make and sell them to others. This, of course, could easily change.

So, no, the arms business will continue to hum, since all these wonderfully goodies are still what gives one power.

[Drake Tungsten]

GePap is right; Vanguard's point only really applies to the handful of states who are directly threatened by the US. I should have been more clear about that in my previous post.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by CyberShy
what if . . . some dictator grabs all power in the US......

What if?

[raghar]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
What do you think the "Axis of Evil" and Bush doctrine were a response to?

Its an interesting question. There was "major" improvement in ways how can you get cheaply and in uncontrolable ways high concentrations of neccesary components.

It would be somewhat interesting if Iraq would have mortar guided amunition.

well che elections would be sooooooon. More than 10 months of Bush. :ack:

[PLATO]

Let's don't forget that the US is one of the few Nations with Nukes that has never even discussed a "No first strike" position. If regular armies become useless and the US anticipates the use of or is threatened with Nuclear attack, then it has always been its policy to use Nukes. Not that I agree with this, but it is the way it is. Fledgling nuclear powers should take note that the US tech advantage also applies to yields, guidance, and delivery systems.

[raghar]

Yields have decreased, guidance is crapy, and delivery system is bomber or tomahawk. If that missile lose its guidance system it could go everywhere in around 300 nm.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by raghar
Yelds have decreased, guidance is crapy, and delivery sistem is bombrer or tomahawk. If that missile lose its guidance system it could go everywhere in around 300 nm.

Dumb post.

Yields vary depending on tactical use. Guidance is to within a few feet at worst. Delivery systems include everything from a suitcase to an ICBM.

[Sandman]

Biological weapons are grossly over-rated in my opinion. When have they ever been used successfully? The anthrax attacks in America were quite nasty, but relied on the media to cause fear as much as anything. Those snipers caused more deaths and at least as much mayhem.

Suitcase nukes, whether they ever existed in the first place, are probably well past their sell-by date by now. They are also not capable of destroying a city, more like a city block or large building. A packed sports stadium could make a very tempting target.