When would nuclear weapons actually be used...

[p_p_man]

In other words, where's the front line nowadays.

Let's say China, the new bete noir of America, invades Taiwan. Would you use nuclear weapons? And where would you actually aim them. Taiwan itself? China with it's massive retalliation potential (according to Bush)?

And how would you justify destroying the neighbouring countries as well with nuclear fallout?

Supposing you shrug your shoulders and say. OK we can afford to let Taiwan go, we're glad to get rid of it anyway. And then China comes down into Vietnam, Indonesia, Japan etc.

Would you use nuclear weapons then? With the same devestating results as before, or would you again turn a blind eye and just make official protests.

And then China invades Australia, New Zealand and so on. Pakistan, India and finally Europe falls.

Would you use nuclear weapons then?

When would you actually use them and under what circumstances?

Because soon the Red Army could be marching down Pensylvannia Avenue and it would be too late to use them unless you wanted to make glass of yourselves.

Is there any point in having nuclear weapons if you're never going to use them?

Even if China has them and America doesn't. That would be the same as both of you having them and America not using hers. The same of course could be said if America was the aggressor and China not using her nuclear arsenal to stop you. But let's keep it simple.

So where exactly would the front line be?

ppman

 

[SleepingWarrior]

Use them as a retaliation for a country firing nukes at us. It's the threat of having your country destroyed along with your target that keeps countries from using them.

 

[badasschick]

That and a screening of "The Day After"

 

[koalabear]

You would fire nukes at China when you want the world to end as we know it.

 

[QuickDuck]

I would like to think never.... but then i have always been told i am naive

/wave
QuickDuck

 

[Azwed]

China has less then 200 nukes. Thats the last number I have heard and that was only a couple of months ago. About 30 of those are on subs that are incredibly easy to track because they are so loud compared to ours. Probably less then half of the rest are on ICBM's. The rest of their nukes are gravity bombs or warheads that are attached to nothing right now.

 

[WriterDom]

In other words, where's the front line nowadays.

Let's say China, the new bete noir of America, invades Taiwan. Would you use nuclear weapons? And where would you actually aim them. Taiwan itself? China with it's massive retalliation potential (according to Bush)?

Good Question. I don't think we'd nuke China over Taiwan. And if we did, we'd kill all the communist son of a bitches. And let God sort out the collateral damage.

 

[beggseee]

They'll never be used

(come back and tell me if I am wrong <s>)

 

[Guru]

 

[paphian]

<snip>About 30 of those are on subs that are incredibly easy to track because they are so loud compared to ours. <snip>

Um... in a word... NO.

I spent active duty time on a fast attack submarine. Tracking any submarine, noisy (in comparison to our own) or not, is not easy. Successful tracking is a combination of acoustic physics, sea state, quality of your own detection gear, quality of your sonar types and the officers directing the tracking effort, and the skill and tactical prowess of the crew you're trying to track, as well as their relative physical plant noise level. A well designed diesel-electric boat is, essentially, noiseless when on battery. No where near the endurance of a nuclear boat, but then, endurance isn't always what's required.

Can it be done? Sure. BTDT in the Atlantic and the Med. against Soviet boats. But easy? Not on your life.

I sure wouldn't bet my continued existence on any surety in knowing where all of anyone's submarines are and my ability to take them all out before they could launch.

 

[JazzManJim]

Actually, nuclear weapons of the kind you're considering aren't for front-line use.

Our nukes have been, in the past (and I presume, still are generally so) targeted on several categories of places, none of them potential front-line combat areas. Nukes aren't all that easy to retarget, contrary to what most would think.

The traditional target list involve strategic military targets such as command and control centers, military bases and such; military infrastructure such as weapons factories; civilian infrastructure such as power plants and dams; then governmental centers such as the capitol, places where the government might go in case of a war, and local governmental seats (such as State Capitols might be in the US). Lastly come large population centers - the largest cities. Those are inevitably the last missles to fly, after all the others have been used, in case the enemy still wishes to continue the battle.

Contrary to popular opinion, the US nuclear policy has never been "let all the missiles fly at once". There's a layered launching order, and it's structured to be done one considered step at a time.

Now, if your talking tactical nukes (one megaton downward), that's a different story. Those are meant to be used in direct combat, launched from artillery.

 

[p_p_man]

Actually, nuclear weapons of the kind you're considering aren't for front-line use.


Now, if your talking tactical nukes (one megaton downward), that's a different story. Those are meant to be used in direct combat, launched from artillery.

I wasn't really considering any kind in particular. Nuclear weapons are nuclear weapons.

The co-called clean weapons of tactical nukes (as you say one megaton downwards) still, individually create a lot of fallout.

So 1000 one megaton shells amounts to a fair amount of fallout which will still be uncontrollable no matter how it's delivered. A war front no matter where it was in the beginning would soon be extended beyond the boundaries of the original enemy.

I can't see an answer to the question only to hypothesise that all countries capable of using nuclear powers know full well they will never use the weapons at their disposal. And that they are only kept for sabre rattling.

Which I suppose brings me back full circle. Why bother having them in the first place?

ppman

 

[JazzManJim]

Well, you won't like the answer to the question, but it works.

It's the strategy of "Mutually Assured Destruction". You get a big stick and say "If you use the big stick that you have, I'm going to hit you with my big stick as I'm going down and then we'll both be dead".

It's a powerful disincentive.

 

[p_p_man]

Well, you won't like the answer to the question, but it works.

It's the strategy of "Mutually Assured Destruction". You get a big stick and say "If you use the big stick that you have, I'm going to hit you with my big stick as I'm going down and then we'll both be dead".

It's a powerful disincentive.

Yes we lived under MAD for about twenty years. But if MAD hadn't been in place would nuclear weapons have been used.

I'm beginning to think no. Unless by a madman.

 

[JazzManJim]

Yes we lived under MAD for about twenty years. But if MAD hadn't been in place would nuclear weapons have been used.

I'm beginning to think no. Unless by a madman.

Well, we've had a couple of those, and we've been to the brink at least twice with nuclear weapons.

I think had MAD not existed, yeah, they would have been used. How could you stop them? It would have worked exactly like Hiroshima did.

 

[p_p_man]

Well, we've had a couple of those, and we've been to the brink at least twice with nuclear weapons.

I think had MAD not existed, yeah, they would have been used. How could you stop them? It would have worked exactly like Hiroshima did.

I think of MAD as putting into words what the leaders knew already. They just formalised it.

After all it was only a piece of paper. Nobody was going to bomb anyone in a hurry before or after it was written.

All parties would have had too much to lose.

America with, at that time, no experience of any destruction caused by a modern war, on the home front. To you it would have been unknown territory and you had too much to lose in a solid, rich society, to throw it away on the unkown.

And any enemy, with probably more experience in total warfare, knowing only too well what the destruction of their homland would really mean.

So, again, is there any point in having a nuclear arsenal in the first place.

There's no front line, there would be too much damage to other countries (probably allies), and the economic destruction would be too great.

 

[koalabear]

But we have the neutron bomb.......oops no we don't......no we don't!

 

[JazzManJim]

So, again, is there any point in having a nuclear arsenal in the first place.

There's no front line, there would be too much damage to other countries (probably allies), and the economic destruction would be too great.

As I've answered it, Yes, there is.

That genie is out of the bottle and there's no putting it back.

The nuclear bomb was developed as a humongous weapon - a super weapon. It was used to brutal effectiveness during World War II as an alternative to an invasion which, though it would have ended the war, would have cost at least a million lives, just on one side.

Unilateral disarmament is an insane concept, akin to sending a nake virgin though an unguarded prison ward. The current rate of disarmament between the US and Russia seems sensible, but still some nuclear weapons are going to be needed, for MAD reasons with countries such as China and North Korea.

Right now, they are an incredibly effective deterrent. If you could convince everyone to never build them, that'd be cool, but until that happens, it's prudent for the US to have them.

 

[p_p_man]

The nuclear bomb was developed as a humongous weapon - a super weapon. It was used to brutal effectiveness during World War II as an alternative to an invasion which, though it would have ended the war, would have cost at least a million lives, just on one side.

That's another point we disagree on...

But as we're going around in circles on this one I'll retire with as much dignity as I can muster.

See you on the next thread.