Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
Not to be a true jerk, but I don't know if that type of strategy makes much sense.
Tactical Nuclear Weapons - Lets define these as aircraft and artillary and demolition charges. These are designed around smaller warheads and they are battlefield agile. What I mean by battlefield agile is that you can change your use and targeting on the fly based on how fluid your battlefield is. They are effective against things like Fleets, armored columns, logistical and fueling centers. During the cold war for exampled NATO had a stockpile of aircraft capable quick deployment weapons (Even Canadian Fighters were considered nuclear capable). If the Soviets broke through at Fulda for example, you might see Nato using these battlefield weapons to destroy them in place.
Strategic Nuclear Weapons - These are your large warhead ICBMs. They're designed to strike at non moving targets like cities, military bases, naval ship yards, manufacturing facilities and of course Counter force. ICBM's on the whole are difficult to retarget, so you can't really use them effectively against a fleet. They are also more easy to detect so you can move assets. They aren't effective battlefield weapons because frankly by the time you re-target and fire your target has moved or its importance has changed.
Because you have a limited inventory of weapons, you usually pre plan far in advance what your weapons are going to be used for. This is called SIOP or Single Integrated Operational Plan.
So for example if your the president and you decide to nuke Russia, you have to decide on a plan that already has missiles aimed. So if you decide on a SIOP plan called lets say "Red Water" which is the destruction of Russian Naval Capabilities, you would fire missiles that are pre targeted at Russian Ship Yards and manufacturing facilities. Or if you wanted to remove Russia's capability to strike you for example, you as the President would select a plan called "Flat Lands", so all of your missiles that are tasked to taking out Russian bomber airfields, silos, rail way tunnels with mobile launchers etc. If you were a Russian you might want to kill the American leadership, you might select a plan called "Blackout" which means that you use a predetermined missile regiment with hardened missiles to take out Norad Headquarters, radar sites and Washington, but all of those plans and missiles are predetermined and aimed.
For North Korea, lets say that they have 12 missiles, those missiles probably represent one plan called "Frack everything" which means that those 12 missiles are likely pre targeted, so launching a missile into a harbor as a sign of strength doesn't make sense because you rip a hole in your targeting plan and you lose a missile that is better used elsewhere.
Nuclear Weapons are offense in nature even if you use them defensively as well, mainly because unless its an extreme circumstance you have to use them against someone else's territory because you really don't want to nuke your own and risk your civilian base in terms of immediate fallout or damage to a civilian population center.
|
I don't think you are a true jerk...more of a faux jerk
I think that NK is much more rational than is generally believed and that they know that they don't have the guns to play the mutually assured destruction game. They have the tools to blow up Seoul and make any invasion somewhat costly. Any offensive invasion would be a disaster, not only is their kit ancient but they have limited logistical capabilities. They want to make the US look lame and play a long game for reunification.
How they use their nukes is anyone's guess, but using them as I described is what some NK scholars think would make more sense for them (since the continuation of the Kim regime is job #1 for the DPRK).