Quote:
|
Originally Posted by miker42
Now that I think about it, I guess the point really is to use that kind of threat as a deterrent more than anything else. It's what we do with our boomers on patrol. Peace through superior firepower, I suppose.
|
Not even superior firepower but equal. No nukes have been used in anger since 1945 because of NATO-Soviet nuclear parity - the system that if either side launched on the other, retaliation (or "second strike") was guaranteed and both sides would be obliterated.
Historically, you run into problems when the scales start to tip to give the advantage to one side or the other. The Cuban Missile Crisis put nuclear forces uncomfortably close to American soil and heightened the potential of a "decapitating" strike on U.S. command structure with negligible warning, providing a threat comparable to the U.S. missiles in Turkey. That's part of the debate against anti-ballistic missile systems; the dissuasion to avoid using nuclear weapons shrinks if you become impervious to counter-strikes, and your opponent has less incentive to hold anything back because he wants to overwhelm your ABM system. It tips the scales and makes people sweat.
Boomers exist[ed] to eliminate the chance of a decapitation strike because while the enemy may easily locate and then attack and destroy your nuclear assets on land, he can never be 100% sure in practice where your nuclear assets at sea are located.
