posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 03:43 PM
I too do not believe in the viability of tactical nuclear weapons. But their conception was at a time when US military strategy was entirely different
from what it is today. In my opinion however tactical nuclear weapons would have been much more likely to start an actual nuclear war, with large
yield devices, during the Cold War than at present. I do think you are off the mark regarding the Korean scenario however. The US would be very
unlikely to unleash even tactical nuclear weapons in the event of a North Korean invasion into South Korea. The reason for this is mainly because
simulations and planning have shown that after the initial North Korean surge, the Northern forces would be repulsed. Their main advantages would come
from surprise and force concentration. Surprise is negated if a considerable advantage is not maintained, and the attacking force essentially has to
keep the initiative or advantage. The force concentration is great, and alone can win some battles, but an invading North Korean force would quickly
get bogged down.
If my instincts are correct the US will take a multi-faceted approach, led by establishing air superiority and essentially bombing the invading forces
night and day. There would definitely be a US ground presence, as evidenced by the fact that we have troops in South Korea for just such an invasion,
and these US forces would supplement South Korean forces, with more US troops being sent over time. I estimate that the initial invasion would bog
down within a week. The US would never open a war with the use of nuclear weapons, even tactical nuclear weapons. I have mentioned in the past that my
belief is that a nation will be most likely to use nuclear weapons when they are on the verge of defeat.
If you want a historical example, the Korean War is a good one. US forces were pushed back to what essentially amounted to the southern edge of the
country. We had nuclear weapons at that time, and it would have been a great time to use them, and this is quite similar to the scenario you propose
for the Korean peninsula. Lines of defense do not tend to evaporate all at once. You will generally have a break in one or more portions instead of a
dissolution along the entire front, due to the mass thrown at a particular area as well as the strength of the defense. And any decent commander would
not allow portions of their lines to remain in place once a breakthrough occurs. In fact, a single breakthrough, if it is not thought it can be
plugged, calls for a strategic evacuation of the entire front. It would depend on the force concentrations and dispersement of course, but as a
general rule you pull back. The US would likely fight a sort of defense in depth, or a fighting retreat. This is a tried-and-true strategy because a
rapidly advancing enemy, who is advancing at a fast pace because they are pursuing and have "got the scent," will usually tend to overextend itself.
They will outrun their supply lines, although this is not really a concern on the Korean peninsula imo, but they can easily get bogged down at the
very least. They essentially open themselves up to a brutal counterattack.
I do think that China's actions will play a large part in the US decision making process. Will the US continue to push into North Korea, or will they
simply force NK out of SK? Many countries would be upset over the use of any nuclear weapons in my opinion, and such usage could provoke China, as
might a US incursion into North Korea. But, I am thinking that China is a bit fed up with North Korea at present. I'm not sure they would come to
their aid. I just really do not see the US being the first to use nuclear weapons. The only nuclear weapons ever dropped in anger were of course
dropped on Japan in 1945, and I think the US learned a great lesson here. Which was that Japan barely even took these two bombings into account when
they made their decision to surrender. Everyone seems to think that these two atomic bombs were the reason Japan surrendered, but this is not the
case. So anyway, I just do not think there is a need for tactical nuclear weapons. The same thing can be accomplished with conventional munitions,
without the stigma that comes with using actual nuclear bombs, missiles, torpedoes, etc.