Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
If a pre-emptive nuclear attack were to be considered by NATO, it would likely have more to do with gaining resources and strategic control. I think any nation that is willing to go to war (especially a nuclear war) over "values", really needs to question their values.
|
I strongly disagree with this, and I think that there's a misunderstanding about what the concept of first strike means in a nuclear theater.
First strike is based around one of two key benchmarks
1) The fear of an immediate attack by a opposing state where there is a more then likely chance that this strike consists of a strike using weapons of mass destruction (NBC). Usually in that case, Nuclear weapons are the only weapons that can be deployed with the range, the accuracy, the survivability, and the destructive power required to take out the enemies capability
A) Range - Intercontinental ballistic missiles can travel thousands of miles within a short period of time, most countries do not have the capability to detect or stop these missiles in time to launch any significant counter strike.
B) Accuracy - Most of the next gen nuclear weapons whether they are launched from land based silos, sub based launch system, mobile launch systems or ship based systems, have redundant navigation system. The first uses a combination of way point navigation and photo recognition, the second uses GPS systems. A war head can usually land within 50 meters of its designated target.
C) Survivability - Most mirved warheads travel at 100's of times faster then a conventional missile, because of this there is very little in the way of interception technology that proven to work against them. Combine that with the heavy counter measures that accompany a war head and there is a 9 out of 10 chance that your strike is going to reach its target. This survivability is far in excess of conventional missiles or aircraft delivered armaments.
d) Destructive Power - When your going after a nations strategic weapons system they are usually heavily protected. IE silo's are protected by heavy armor, gravel pits and unusually shaped caps. Because of this the best way to ensure that these systems don't fire, or in the case of mobile systems are obliterated is to deliver as much destruction as possible.
2) The second reason to consider a first strike is if a conventional military strike bogs down. In this case its more then likely that tactical nuclear weapons would be deployed against enemy fortifications, supply lines, rail lines or road ways carrying re-enforcements. These are not large weapons and are usually deployed either via air or long range artillery. These are usually fairly clean weapons as its tough for an army to fight in a irradiated environment.
NATO first strike doctrine covers the first two, however the deployment of the dooms day scenario which is the use of city busting weapons is a political decision, and is only approved in the case of either a required governmental decapitation in the face of the deployment or perceived deployment of WMD, or in retaliation for the use of WMD which Nato doctrine instantly calls for retaliation with political considerations.
Nuclear warfare does not work if the intent is to seize strategic assets or resources. First of all because its extremely difficult to fight in a contaminated environment, and second of all it becomes next to impossible for example to harvest or gain use of those resources (every try to pump oil in a nuclear environment). And third of all, its more then likely that beyond fall out and contamination the use of nuclear weapons would destroy the target nations resource base.
As it stands, NATO cannot fire its nuclear weapons on a strategic level without the approval of all nato nations. And thats one of the great weaknesses in terms of Nato doctrine because the battlefield changes, it will take too long to get the approval to deploy for them to be used effectively. Its also the same on a tactical level, a field commander cannot even gain access to nuclear artillary or chemical artillary rounds without the approval of NATOs member nations.