Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
Force projection of the nuclear variety is not a very reliable military strategy because of the blowback that you set yourself up, militarily and politically.
|
From a military standpoint it can be reliable, however the political aspect is what screws it up. I remember talking to a guy at a seminar a few years ago that served as a junior officer in the old soviet rocket forces and the reigning debate was not about using them, but about creating a big enough threat so that you could get away with using them towards achieving a tactical goal and not having the situation going from tactical to strategic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
Using nuclear arms is a good way to completely illigitimize your objectives to those around you.
|
True, but in a concept of true or pure idealogical warfare thats something that you don't neccessarily care about if you have a big enough hammer to defuse retaliation. Again, the question is always if we can use x indiscriminately why wouldn't we use it. The best example of that was the debate immediatley after WWII and before the Soviets got their nuclear weapons. The American's didn't perceive the Soviets as the threat that they would become and thought they could negotiate with a nuclear hammer, when instead if they had the resolve they would have taken Stalin out ahead of time.
Please note I don't believe this, I'm just putting it out there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
You also don't want to be the first to open that can of worms, because you leave yourself vulnerable.
|
It goes to the ability to pose deterance after the first strike. The Soviet doomsday strategy was to combine the removal of American bombers and missiles with nuclear weapons in the 50's along with a plea after the strike that "We can't let this go on". The reason why arsenals got so big was specifically MADD. They didn't need even half the weapons that they had since they could bounce the rubble of a dead world several time, but its the perception of that ultimate doomsday retaliation or first strike that stopped both sides short of using their nukes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
Even during the latest gulf war, there were people pushing for the use of 'tactical' nuclear arms, and the resounding reply was that not only are they a poor tactical alternative because of their indiscriminate nature, as well as their effect of poisoning the terrain (objective), but it is a way of immediately turning the tide of public/worldwide support.
|
Actually thats true and not true. The problem with the use of tactical nuclear weapons is political, the decision to use them cannot come fast enough due to the requirement to get political permission to deploy the weapons. Because the battlefield changes so fast, by the time you get permission through the chain of command your goals and objectives and target groups have changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
The biggest drawback of mass casualty weaponry like nukes is they make the terrain, which is always the objective in every war, unwinnable. What good is a territorial advantage if you are having to avoid it?
|
Not sure I agree with that since warfare has devolved from the holding or occupying of specific territory to engaging and killing your enemy from a distance or tactic distance enough to avoid your own casualties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
These are the mathematical reasoning behind avoiding using nuclear weapons. Tactically, it does not make sense to render the land you are fighting over unusuable.
|
Depends on your objectives. If your fighting a war to seize territory its unlikely that your going to nuke it. If your fighting a war to defeat, destroy and force your enemy to back down, then you care more about kill ratio's and stripping your enemy of his war fighting capabilities and forcing him on reconstuction and survival as oppossed to retaliation and revenge.