Quote:
Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II
This is good old MAD theory. One must wonder how many nations really subscribe to it any more.
It is probably true, considering our indoctrinated nuke antipathy, that anyone that has crossed his mental barriers and used a nuke is probably more likely to launch ICBMs, but frankly, if I really believe that, I'll probably be more reluctant to provoke him (if he has ICBMs as well).
Ultimately, while nuclear deterrence depends on everyone pushing a fierce face that this is the position they'll be taking, it is far from clear that anyone will take such a step should some leader be "brave" and step into the unknown world.
|
Tactical nukes are a dicey topic because nobody really knows what will happen when you use them.
ICBMs are comforting in away, because everybody knows how they work. If you use them against a nuclear nation, they'll reply with an all-out nuclear strike. Simple.
With tactical nukes, it's not that clear. Will they respond with tactical nukes of their own? Will they launch a limited nuclear strike? Or will they jump straight to Armageddon, do not pass Go, do not collect $200?
I remember a professor telling us about how he participated in a wargame in the Reagan Administration. One side tried a limited ICBM strike, leaving out certain targets. The hope was that such a strike would not provoke an all-out retaliation from the other side.
They immediately received a message from the other side, reading "May you burn in Hell as you burn on Earth." You can guess what happened next.