Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
The thing that scares me is that the talk about nuclear escalation is becoming normalized. A few years ago, any use of nuclear weapons was a big deal and taboo. No we have both sides talking about "tactical" nuclear weapons like it is no big deal really. It's like boiling frogs. While a tactical nuclear weapon doesn't have the same destructive power, the tit-for-tat nature of war will lead to incrementally larger nuclear devices being used.
I almost get the sense that the people in power are resigned to a nuclear war happening and want to normalize the idea to avoid mass panic.
|
I wanted to jump in on this one, because I don't think it has normalized as much as we think. That threat has always been there, we've just since WW2, never had a situation like this in Europe.
But during the Cold War the American's absolutely included the use of Tactical nuclear weapons in their war planning in case of an invasion by Russia, because the perception was as strong as NATO was, in the opening days of a war, they wouldn't be able to stop Russia due to their massive advantage in troops, armor, Artillery, tactical aircraft etc. Also that the Russians would be able to probably for a period of time, disrupt resupply and re-enforcement from NATO. So the idea was using small to medium tactical bombs to attack key road and railway crossings. Logistical centers, vehicle parks, and Russian divisional head quarters, which would then give NATO forces a chance to Rally.
As well during the Cold War Soviet War plans included the use of Nuclear and Chemical weapons to the same effect against NATO troops.
If we would have had a true European conflict at the height of the Cold War we'd have heard the same rhetoric from both sides. especially the losing side.
I mean during the Cuban Missile Crisis one of the Soviet Submarines had loaded a nuclear torpedo and followed the standard war book commands that if it felt it was under attack it could ask for permission and fire that nuke at a US Carrier Group.
A busted radio, and a moment of sober reflection allowed us to survive what would have surely been an escalation to a nuclear exchange as American's don't count on an Aircraft carrier as a tactical asset but a strategic asset, just like they don't count a Missile submarine as a tactical asset, but a extremely valuable strategic asset.
By design the use of tactical nukes is far easier then the use of strategic nukes. In the old days the KGB held command of the warheads. A field commander couldn't just load up that bad boy and fire it without the permission of the KGB and thus the Politburo. It was literally a vote to launch, which to the chagrin of the Field Commanders would mean that it could take time for a "Vote" to pass. Which means that the situation could have changed for the worse or objections change.
In I think 1993 the whole scenario changed. The Russians because of budget cuts realized that their military was vastly inferior to the NATO forces arrayed against them, so the use of tactical nukes in the face of a NATO attack became highly acceptable. Because of that they redesigned their launch procedures on the tactical side and came up with what they called a "Quick draw solution". Instead of the military controlling the launchers etc and the KGB controlling the war head and launch codes. The Russian General staff controls all aspects of launch authorization under the supervision of a guy like Putin who has all the authority and no over sight.
What also exists now with the general staff is the ability to preauthorize launches. So if a situation gets to this point the button is already pushed, and the field commanders who have that pre authorization can launch.
So when Putin is blustering like this, its a warning with some teeth, I would expect that the quick draw scenario with pre authorization has in theory already happened, and Putin can basically push the button in Moscow.
Just some ramblings.