posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 12:31 AM
Snowen this is another thing to take into account on the survival of the United States, and that is that there are several theories on how a nuclear
holocaust will occur. There have been two basic types of thought that are covered by Strategic Doctrine and The American Defense Policy, first let me
say that in avid study of modern warfare many people to day skip the Sun Tzu and look to Clausewitz, which I find to be a big mistake, as Clauswitz
can be quite esoteric in nature and any intelligence estimate or military planner should recognise and identify that not only can the wrong doctrine
lead to disaster, but the breakdown which can occur under stressful situations can cause complicated in place tasking to fail. A third thing to take
into consideration while looking at modern warfare scenarios are that Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, Waskow, Gilpatric, Hoag and even Napoleons Maxims of War
are not modern, but a flank by any other means is a flank.
So lets take a look at what the military says might happen, once again I will reiterate there have been two basic military concepts and philosophy
around a nuclear war/nuclear strike that are envisioned I will stick to the traditional doctrine of thoughts produced from the cold war era.
1. The Counter Force Theory; and
2. The Combined Deterrent Theory
First the Counter Force Theory: I will quote Arthur Waskow in his work "The Theory and Practice of Deterrence". "A number of officers and
administrators, mainly in the Air Force are convinced that thermonuclear war is possible, conceivable, acceptable and that it will be won or lost in
the classical sense"..."In either case this group expects the action of the United States to be Counter Force action. They would expect American
attack to be directed not against populations or industry but against the atomic capability of the enemy" Ok so the basic thought here is that any
initial attack would be countered by attacking the originating source of the nuclear attack, and that if in return the counter force was sent against
opposing populations, that the enemy would still have the capability to and would retaliate. In other words you would attempt to eliminate your
opponents Center of Gravity rather then leave yourself open to another attack, especially one that is being reciprocated from a nuclear response to a
nuclear attack on a states population. Such an attack on a population would most likely cause similiar attacks on the opponents population, perhaps
even after the destruction of enemy atomic capability. The advantage, if there is an advantage to nuclear war, is that destruction of both opposing
forces atomic capability could bring such nations into talks, based on an initial battle damage assessment or would cause a war to continue under a
limited war involving conventional forces.
2. The Combined Deterrent Theory: this thought generally accepted by the US Army and US Navy was that nuclear war was unacceptable and inconceivable
and that preparing for such a war was not the awnser but prevention through deterrence was. Again I will qoute Arthur Waskow, "It is the Navy's
theory that if both the United States and its chief enemies have great masses of the population open to atomic attack (in a sense being held as
hostages) and that if, on both sides, the forces to mount such an attack are theselves invulnerable the attack will never be mounted"..."the
invulnerable deterrent with vulnerable population sould stabalize the international situation"..."In addition the argument runs that the situation
would cause a plateau in the arms race. It is suggested that when both sides reach the level of invulnerable deterrent that they can tacitly agree to
arrest the arms bulid up while understanding the difficulties, they attempt to negotiate"
I know it all sounds very esoteric, but if you look at it close you can see a combined guideline that was followed during the cold war, and as
Henry Eccles (retired) Rear Admiral USN stated "No military theory can stand alone; it must be related to both political and economic theory" (Which
is different then Clausewitz stating that "War is a continuation of politics by other means." which is wrong, war is a failure of politics by other
means" The question is why is all this important? We must know the thought of the people that will push those buttons, and why is it important to go
back to the cold war era to decipher what is now? I will tell you why, because the question could America survive a nuclear attack has its very roots
in the post World War II era and Cold War. The current Navy situation is the exact same, the changing face of warfare is causing the Navy to change
from a bluewater to a brown water tactical structure, causing a loss of knowledge in its Commanders that it will soon need.
So to move on with my answer without mentioning Contradiction and Paradox or semantic aspects and excluding the idea of a terrorist attack with
multiple nuclear detonations in CONUS. A full scale nuclear attack on the United States, Prima Facie, would not only dessimate the population of the
United States but would most likely kill at least two thirds of the population, if not more. Even a limited nuclear attack, lets say fifteen would
economically shatter us. This Country in not even close to being able to handle that type of disaster. I do not care who says otherwise. Just look at
the number of Nuclear devices I offered you; fifteen. Example, lets say for instance you only had one nuclear explosion and say it was in Washington
DC, then imagine seven 9/11 type incidents and seven Hurricane Katrinas all at the same time. I mean talk about the population control committe at the
United Nations jumping for joy.
I will offer that after initial nuclear det plotting and fall out even with a limited nuclear event their might be pockets of human life but after the
full addition of radiation sickness just a handfull here and there. Now I am no graduate of a prestigious citadel or an illustrious academy, but I
have had Colonels and Captains on both sides of the spectrum tell me my knowledge far surpasses most officers they know. I am not saying it would be a
for sure death but you will wish you were if you are unlucky enough to survive it.