Originally posted by Warpspeed
The problem with nukes is they make such a damned mess. And all you are going to do is make someone real mad, who is then going to retaliate.
All the massive bombing in WW2, or even in Vietnam or Iraq did not end the war. Pearl Harbor did not make the US give up.............
The way to destroy a country these days is economically, and that can be done in a variety of ways. It can also be done in such a way that the victim
cannot either blame someone directly, or retaliate.
The USSR was not beaten militarily, nor was ancient Rome. The US will be beaten the same way eventually, it is happening now.
As far as better weapons go, how about weather modification ? How about HAARP and those Tesla Scalar weapons that supposed to induce earthquakes and
massive exploding fireballs without radiation afterwards? and how about EMP weapons that destroy electrical systems ?
An ancient doctrine of warfare is that you never contaminate ground you intend to occupy yourself later. Nuclear and biological weapons are weapons
of last resort when you can retreat no further. That is a situation you try to keep well away from.
Ok well I know that many are misunderstanding of Nuclear War, this is a classic example.
First, Nuclear War is not a war between cities. There are two strategies I'll explain first to give you the lessons why.
Counter-Value and Counter-Costs.
Counter-Cost is what we'd use on China...or China on us.
Counter-Value is what we'd use on Russia, or Russia on us.
The reasons are as follows.
Counter-Value is a war between two nations who have so much Nuclear Power, that they can not only take out your Nuclear capabilities, but have enough
left over to destroy your people's way of life.
Therefore, your ONLY GOAL, is to take out your enemy's Nuclear capabilities. If you do that you have won, there is no reason to kill their people
they must submit to you or die...
Counter-Costs is when a nation has so little in the way of Strategic Targets, all you could do is blow-up their people...armies, civilians, whatever.
A nation with a few Nukes will employ this as a deterrent from Nuclear Attack. "Yes you can conquer us, but we will make it difficult for you. Are
you willing to pay the price?"
The Soviet Union in 1980 released a new "Strategic Warfare Doctrine" that stated they lost 20 million people in World War 2, we believe we will not
lose more than that in a Nuclear War with America so we are willing to pay the price for a victory in a Nuclear War.
This is a primary reason Regan's SDI got pushed through to becoming a practical threat to all Russian Strategic Capabilities. Because Russia might
be willing to lose 20 million, Americans certainly weren't.
Also, Nuclear War can conquer anyone.
I really don't care about the resources of Iraq, if I were a nation like the Soviet Union, and the undisputed ruler of the World, I'd simply Nuke
baghdad and say "any other takers?"
Then return to continue an occupation.
It is this difference between the Soviet Union and the United States, that people don't understand, and it is because of this difference that the US
is the good-guys and the rest of the world is either the bad-guys or ignorant. The ignorant don't realize that there are people who would solve
internal problems with nuclear weapons if it didn't mean US would retaliate, and the bad-guys are the people who would use such weapons to solve
See Nuclear Weapons mean total destruction...bombs do not.
If an air-raid occurs maybe my house will be hit, maybe it won't.
Let's compare it to tornadoes.
People live in tornado alley because most will live.
Do you really think people would live in Kansas if every year the entire top soil was sucked off and blasted 30,000 feet in the air, trees and rocks
weighing up to 500 lbs being blasted no less than 15,000 feet in the air, and foundations and root cellars being shattered or blasted at least 1,000
feet in the air.
No, no one will ever live in a place like that.
Nuclear Weapons give us the ability to make a region like that, so those people, will not say to themselves, "Maybe I'll get through this."
They will say to themselves only this, "Will they do it?"
And a few examples will set a lasting image for future possible rebels or enemies and so forth.
It is the fact that both America and Russia knew that we'd do it, that we didn't use our Nuclear Weapons. We knew the others would retaliate and
had the capability to try.
Anyways, I can make a whole post on this, and probably should, understanding Nuclear Weapons helps you to understand current global politics of
Nuclear Weapons are why despite Europe joining in a Union, they will never be a global power because all they can do is request the US or Russia to do
things their way.
Both the US and Russia can demand Europe to do things their way, the only balance is EU can appeal to the other when one of these two great powers
tries to force their way.
Without America, or Russia, Europe would be owned by the other. The difference is America has no territorial interests, Russia does.
If China becomes a Strategic Power, that's introduces a whole new part of the game.