Who Will Start the Nuclear Holocaust?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Even missile silos are vulnerable to current bunker buster munitions. Which is irrelevant, because the point is to nuetralize these by NOT using nuclear weapons.

Sure, there are targets that CAN be taken out nukes, but so far you have failed to provide a reason WHY they should be taken out by nukes.

I distinctly remember a thread from a few years back on 'Poly, where the Pentagon said it was studying the offensive use of "mini-nukes" as bunker busters. I.e the use of nukes as tactical weapons.

I don't imagine the US military would publicize such a thing if conventional bunker-busters were a sure way of destroying their targets.

[Patroklos]

I distinctly remember a thread from a few years back on 'Poly, where the Pentagon said it was studying the offensive use of "mini-nukes" as bunker busters. I.e the use of nukes as tactical weapons.

When have nuclear powers not studied/designed/deployed tactical nuclear weapons? We have lots of weapons, many of which have never found a need to be used.

I don't imagine the US military would publicize such a thing if conventional bunker-busters were a sure way of destroying their targets.

Has our nuclear arsena not always been publized? I know France likes to trumpet theirs a bit. Despite nukes being the "best" way to bring nations to their knees, have we not been using conventional weapons to do so instead since 1945?

Just because they are a sure way of doing things doesn't mean they are the only or best way of doing things.

[PLATO]

It is very simple if you look at the number of quality airframes that the US has against the number any potential enemy could muster. There is literally no chance that anyone could stop a determined air attack on nearly any target in the world.

While it would probably involve some US casualties, they would be far less than the political cost of using nukes. It is nearly inconceivable that the US would use nuclear weapons first in any scenario other than a massive invasion of Western Europe or North America.

I can see some scenarios where the US would respond to the use of a non nuke WMD with tactical nukes, but even that would be a real stretch and certainly not a holocaust.

Several here say that the US doesn't understand the rest of the world...we let me say that clearly many of them don't understand the US eithier.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Despite nukes being the "best" way to bring nations to their knees, have we not been using conventional weapons to do so instead since 1945?

Even in 1945 there was a strong debate. The Japanese were considered "Godless" people (which is unlikely to ever be in the decision making process again) and there was a strong desire for vengence due to Pearl Harbor (a type of attack that is extremely unlikely to ever suceed against the US again).

That combined with the knowledge of what nuclear weapons do long term that we didn't have in 1945 and combined with the Western policy of trying to avoid civilian casualties (that was not in place in 1945) would make the use of nuclear weapons a highly difficult decision.

As the US has the power to accomplish almost exactly the same strategic results through conventional means makes the use of nukes a very, very unlikely event.

[Patroklos]

And as you said the use of a tactical nuke does not constitute a holocaust unless you hit a city. This is far more true for a bunker buster type nuke, which pretty much contains itself to a good degree.

[Arrian]

Pearl Harbor (a type of attack that is extremely unlikely to ever suceed against the US again).

But 9/11 was another Pearl Harbor!!!111!!



Nothing else to say (and that's not directed at you). Carry on.

-Arrian

[Alexander I]

Heh, and the US government was able to pull the wool a little bit over people's eyes concerning Hiroshima and Nagasaki, identifying them as "military bases" rather then major population centers.

With the omnipresence of the media these days, that won't ever be able to happen again, or at least, it certainly won't be as easy for them to do.

[Arrian]

This is all rather silly.

Nation-states have very little to gain from the use of nuclear weapons. Their purpose is deterrance (this is why I'm not scared of big, bad Iran). It's not 1945 anymore, in a variety of ways.

The worry is "non-state actors."

-Arrian

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by Arrian
This is all rather silly.

Nation-states have very little to gain from the use of nuclear weapons. Their purpose is deterrance (this is why I'm not scared of big, bad Iran). It's not 1945 anymore, in a variety of ways.

The worry is "non-state actors."

-Arrian

Hear hear.

[Main_Brain]

Blow them away.. with sexyness!

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by Main_Brain
Blow them away.. with sexyness!

...that doesn't help much with our current crop of candidates

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Arrian
The worry is "non-state actors."

You know Arnold doesn't have any nukes at his control, right?

[Patroklos]

With the omnipresence of the media these days, that won't ever be able to happen again, or at least, it certainly won't be as easy for them to do.

Unless you are bombing naval bases or industrial centers, it wouldn't be to hard to avoid large scale civilian death (relative). Army bases and major Air Force bases are many times located in remote areas.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by PLATO
As the US has the power to accomplish almost exactly the same strategic results through conventional means makes the use of nukes a very, very unlikely event.

I fully agree that it is very unlikely. But then again I consider nuclear holocaust to be very unlikely.

If it was to happen, it'd require a large-scale attack against a nuclear power. Terrorist groups and North Korea can't pull off such a scale - and potential nuclear users such as Israel are unlikely to target a large nuclear power (I doubt Iran will ever have a world-threatening nuclear Arsenal).

As far as I can tell, the least unlikely scenario of a country launching a large-scale attack would be 1. Pakistan because of their crazies and 2. the US, because they might end up feeling safe from retaliation with their shield technology.

I wouldn't put my money of seeing either event during my lifetime though. Fortunately.

[Patroklos]

2. the US, because they might end up feeling safe from retaliation with their shield technology.

I am still curious as to where you are getting this. It makes as much sense as worrying about of anti-matter cannons or teleportation machines.