Nuclear War: Go Ahead Justify It

[Gerald]

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Growler

More on topic: Interesting discussion, but I have to fall back on another movie quote:

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"

War Games.

[Raptor1]

Justifying nuclear war is easier than you think. It only takes comparatively little provocation for the use of tactical nuclear weapons in total war, one side only needs to believe it gives it enough of an operational advantage. During the Cold War, both NATO and the Warsaw Pact had plans that would've practically guaranteed use of tactical nuclear weapons if war broke out in West Germany (Some sources I heard hold that a Warsaw Pact offensive would've used them right from the start. If this didn't happen, Warsaw Pact use of chemical weapons would've prompted NATO to immediately counter with nukes). From there, it will likely quickly degenerate into either a limited or total strategic nuclear exchange as both sides try to crush the enemy's ability to hurt them as early as possible.

If you're looking for a moral justification for launching a strategic nuclear exchange, there isn't one. If it happens, it will not be because somebody thought it was justified, or, for that matter, because somebody "pushed the button" at all.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Oberon

[McCarthy] Nuclear war is the only justifiable option in dealing with the threat of international communism! [/McCarthy]

In all seriousness though, tactical nuclear warfare is perhaps an option in a extreme environment, for example during a Soviet overrun of West Germany and France. I believe there was a particular line past which if overrun would prompt the use of tactical nukes, and I think that the West German government would be clamouring for something to stop the Soviet advance if they crossed the Rhine.
Also, the warplan 'Seven days to the River Rhine' called for widespread first use of tactical nuclear weapons to destroy airbases after a NATO nuclear first strike.
The beautiful (and scary) part of the Cold War is that both sides spent most of it under the impression that the other side would launch a first strike, which meant that neither side actually did, although they came close on several occasions.

Of course, the problem with tactical nuclear warfare is that eventually one warhead is going to land near a city, since a lot of airfields and bases are near populated areas, which means that a city on the other side would receive a nuke in retaliation...and then it's the bombing campaign of the Luftwaffe and RAF all over again but with nuclear weapons.

There can be no moral justification for the use of nuclear weapons, just as there can be no real moral justification for the use of violence. There are plenty of strategic and tactical justifications for the use of nuclear weapons, chief among which is retaliation. Once upon a time the fear of MAD stopped the need for retaliation. However in the age of fanatics and radicalism...I'm not so sure that fear of MAD is still around in some nations.

You(and Raptor1) have the same idea as me pretty much they are really only good as a counter to another who has weapons and in that case you cant use them in a non-strategic manner because the other guy will likely go ahead and go full scale the moment you do.And you cant really use a nuclear bomb to kill a terror cell(or similar target) because you'd kill lots of innocent people and then you just gave the terror cell what they desired more people on their side.

[CaptainMattJ.]

shall we play a game? Let's play Global Thermonuclear war

[Gerald]

[the_tyrant]

you know, wouldn't theaterwide tactical warfare be more entertaining the global thermal nuclear war?

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

you know, wouldn't theaterwide tactical warfare be more entertaining the global thermal nuclear war?

Yes, this was the image from the film..

[Growler]

DEFCON

Too much fun, for Armageddon.

I find it endlessly fascinating that since Nagasaki the think tanks and talking heads have worked overtime trying to develop scenarios where the use of nuclear weapons might result in a military victory. This would be followed by the generals and admirals converting these theories into deliverable weapons that would be deployed, become obsolete due to technology advances or rendered useless because of political changes and attitudes. And then the cycle begins again...

The USSR's rationale on nukes was always far more pragmatic than that of NATO. There was no place in the Soviet nuclear lexicon for "tactical" nuclear war, we didn't believe that was the case during the Cold War of course but there's plenty of evidence that limited first use by Nato would either of provoked no retaliation or massive strategic retaliation and the the "escalating threshold" held dear by NATO pundits was an illusion.

But see:

http://www.armageddononline.org/doomsday_device.php

and

http://www.slate.com/id/2173108/

Fortunately we never got to test that theory.

After completing courses in nuclear targetting and fireplanning with tactical nuclear weapons one tended to become very cynical and measure the distances between West German villages in kilotons rather than kilometres. It's amazing that we thought so glibly that nuclear release could be not only justified but necessary.

Cooler heads prevailed though.

It is said (possibly apocryphally) that when President Kennedy used the phrase "full retalitory response" in his 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis speech, (see below at about 2:00 minutes) brother Bobby asked him later if he was really willing to kill many times more people than Hitler and Stalin together ever did. If true, it would seem Kennedy wanted the threat of nuclear war so very real and unambiguous that Krushchev would know it would be carried out. This threat coupled with the secret promise to remove the obsolete Thor IRBM batteries from Turkey gave the Soviets an out although it arguably cost Krushchev his job.



Later, once the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction took over it became anathema to NATO nuclear strategists who turned to weapons like "tactical" cruise missiles, enhanced radiation weapons (anybody else around here remember the uproar over the so-called Neutron Bomb, that killed people but saved property, at least in the popular imagination). Such weapons allowed them to create situations where nukes could be successfully employed without the end of civilization as we knew it. We should be able to see now that it was all a pipe dream.

The biggest ironey regarding nuclear weapons is that they make lousy weapons if war is a political act taken to a controlled level of violence. They were created at a time when the wholesale destruction of cities and cultures were considered acceptable and were designed solely to make that destruction easier, cheaper and with greater shock value than a thousand B-29's or Lancasters dropping incendiaries and high capacity HE. Only if the mindset where killing millions in their beds is the political price one is willing to pay will nuclear weapons first use be justified. As for retaliation, it works as a deterrent only so long as those who wish to deter believe that you will actually follow through with the threat. During the MAD years, there was never any doubt that all those well trained young men who held the keys would turn them if ordered, Hollywood's Wargames notwithstanding.

For some excellent books on the subject see Richard Rhodes Dark Sun, on early nuclear strategies and Arsenals of Folly on the latter stages of the Cold War, the nuclear arms race and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Apologies for the $0.02 wall of text.

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by Randomizer

Apologies for the $0.02 wall of text.

No apology needed. Post more often.

[Bakkels]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

No apology needed. Post more often.

I second that! Interesting read Randomizer.

The thing that keeps fascinating me about nuclear bombs is that they're the only weapons that arguably saved more lives than they took.
I often wonder how many more wars there would have been if the a-bomb (and the immense threat that comes with it) hadn't been invented.