To nuke, or not to nuke.

[USMCDevilDog]

This is an example of why nuclear powers don't attack each other. You either figure out a way to coexist, or everybody dies.

Kinda sucks that the world has come to that ultimatum. But ey, if we gotta fight, we gotta fight.

 

[Hamiltonian]

Here’s a related question: is a first strike with nuclear weapons ever morally justifiable? For the moment, let’s assume that the end of WW2 is not part of the question. Under the conditions that currently exist in the world, is it ever morally justifiable to use nuclear weapons in a first strike? Can such weapons only be morally used in retaliation? NATO did not think so, when the Warsaw Pact and allied armies were squared off across the plains of Germany during the Cold War. If the Soviets had then rushed our defensive lines, their numerical superiority was such that after a few days of conventional combat, our only way to avoid catastrophic defeat would have been to initiate first strike nuke attacks. Was this a morally justifiable position?

I wouldn't say the Soviets would have easily won the war and been done with it. Many people in their Army had never recieved any sort of basic training, and the Soviet armed forces did horribly in the wars they did participate in.

I don't think that nuclear weapons will be a winning solution to any war. You can't really win anything by using them unless you use them against a country that doesn't have them. I don't see a moral or strategic point in using them very much except to have as a deterrent to war.

 

[onedomino]

I wouldn't say the Soviets would have easily won the war and been done with it. Many people in their Army had never recieved any sort of basic training, and the Soviet armed forces did horribly in the wars they did participate in. Incorrect. Perhaps you should ask the German survivors of the Battle of Kursk, the largest armored engagement of all time. They will tell you how badly the Soviets fight with tanks in a conventional war. I don't think that nuclear weapons will be a winning solution to any war. Except of course WW2 in the Pacific. You can't really win anything by using them unless you use them against a country that doesn't have them. That depends on whether the engagement escalates from tactical to strategic. And how many nukes are possessed by the enemy. Can India, for example, fail to plan for tactical nuclear combat against Pakistan or China, simply because of the vague thought that "you can't really win anything by using them?" Obviously not. I don't see a moral or strategic point in using them very much except to have as a deterrent to war. Again, it depends on how many nukes are possessed by the enemy and its ability, or lack thereof, to deliver them on target. What does morality mean for a nation defeated in war, especially when it is the victors who write the history books?

The military history of the NATO-Warsaw Pact confrontation on the plains of Germany during the Cold War is clear on this topic: the Warsaw Pact had an overwhelming numerical superiority in tank formations. Moreover, the Soviets are historically excellent with armored vehicles; just ask the German (who were also superb with tanks) survivors of the retreat from Russia during WW2. NATO defensive forces could have slowed the Soviets down, but only for a few days. It was the military doctrine of NATO that if the war continued for even a short period of time, then first strike tactical nukes would have to be used against the Soviet tank formations, or defeat would have been inevitable. There would not have been enough time for sufficient combat power to be moved from the US to conventionally counter the Soviets. That is one of the reasons that Reagan put tactical nuclear weapons in West Germany, the Pershing II missiles. If you do not see the strategic and tactical point of nuclear weapons, then we must assume that you have not studied the end of WW2 in the Pacific. The use of those two nukes ended the war and saved tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of American (and Japanese) men and women from losing their lives in what would have been an unbelievably bloody sea and ground assault of the main Japanese islands.

 

[Hamiltonian]

The military history of the NATO-Warsaw Pact confrontation on the plains of Germany during the Cold War is clear on this topic: the Warsaw Pact had an overwhelming numerical superiority in tank formations. Moreover, the Soviets are historically excellent with armored vehicles; just ask the German (who were also superb with tanks) survivors of the retreat from Russia during WW2. NATO defensive forces could have slowed the Soviets down, but only for a few days. It was the military doctrine of NATO that if the war continued for even a short period of time, then first strike tactical nukes would have to be used against the Soviet tank formations, or defeat would have been inevitable. There would not have been enough time for sufficient combat power to be moved from the US to conventionally counter the Soviets. That is one of the reasons that Reagan put tactical nuclear weapons in West Germany, the Pershing II missiles. If you do not see the strategic and tactical point of nuclear weapons, then we must assume that you have not studied the end of WW2 in the Pacific. The use of those two nukes ended the war and saved tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of American (and Japanese) men and women from losing their lives in what would have been an unbelievably bloody sea and ground assault of the main Japanese islands.

WW2 and the Cold War were two different wars. One of the reasons for Germany's rapid advance into Russia during WW2 was that the Russian military was not very well trained, although there were many other reasons. One of the main reasons for a German defeat was first of all the Russian winter has defeated great armies before, and second the fact that the Russians could pump out a ton of cheap tanks with the T34. I'm not so sure that during the Cold War their tanks would have faired that much better than ours. In the encounters we've had against T-72s sold to other countries I don't think we've lost a single tank.

If the USSR's military had been kept in tip top shape like it was at the end of WW2, then yes, they probably could have taken Europe pretty easily. However, Russia didn't maintain it's military very well which was why it put out horrible performances when fighting Afghanistan and Chechenya. Again, many of their soldiers had not even been through some sort of basic training.

I never said I couldn't see the tactical point of nuclear weapons. I said something quite the opposite, which is that they are effective when one country has them and another doesn't, which was the case for the Pacific Theather of WW2. The other case which you sort of included is when the other country (or their allies) don't have enough nukes to do much damage to your country. However, the effectiveness of actually using nuclear weapons in the modern context is still in question even with those factors. Nowadays there is not much strategic difference between threatening (and being able to) to nuke a defenseless country and actually nuking them. Nuclear weapons had not been demonstrated before WW2 so the threat wouldn't have worked and it was strategic to use them.

Every country should still plan for the worst when it comes to nuclear weapons though .

 

[Annie]

WW2 and the Cold War were two different wars. One of the reasons for Germany's rapid advance into Russia during WW2 was that the Russian military was not very well trained, although there were many other reasons. One of the main reasons for a German defeat was first of all the Russian winter has defeated great armies before, and second the fact that the Russians could pump out a ton of cheap tanks with the T34. I'm not so sure that during the Cold War their tanks would have faired that much better than ours. In the encounters we've had against T-72s sold to other countries I don't think we've lost a single tank.

If the USSR's military had been kept in tip top shape like it was at the end of WW2, then yes, they probably could have taken Europe pretty easily. However, Russia didn't maintain it's military very well which was why it put out horrible performances when fighting Afghanistan and Chechenya. Again, many of their soldiers had not even been through some sort of basic training.

I never said I couldn't see the tactical point of nuclear weapons. I said something quite the opposite, which is that they are effective when one country has them and another doesn't, which was the case for the Pacific Theather of WW2. The other case which you sort of included is when the other country (or their allies) don't have enough nukes to do much damage to your country. However, the effectiveness of actually using nuclear weapons in the modern context is still in question even with those factors. Nowadays there is not much strategic difference between threatening (and being able to) to nuke a defenseless country and actually nuking them. Nuclear weapons had not been demonstrated before WW2 so the threat wouldn't have worked and it was strategic to use them.

Every country should still plan for the worst when it comes to nuclear weapons though .

Actually the reason for the German's successes had more to do with Stanlin's purges of the military leadership than 'untrained troops'. By Stalingrad, the on the job training and the weather helped to decimate the German troops, thank God.

 

[Hamiltonian]

Actually the reason for the German's successes had more to do with Stanlin's purges of the military leadership than 'untrained troops'. By Stalingrad, the on the job training and the weather helped to decimate the German troops, thank God.

Well, there were many reasons for Germany's initial success, like I think the Russian really wanted to give up the ground. Then the fancy German tanks required a long and vulnerable supply line and it took away from Germany's flexibility to have to move tanks so far from their production source to the Russian Eastern front and then the German army had to survive the Russian winter and there's a ton of reasons to list why it was to Russia's favor.

But regardless, Stalin's purge of military leadership created in inexperienced military which gained experience to become great by the end of the war, but then they let it fade back to an inexperienced military during the Cold War.

 

[Gunny]

This is an example of why nuclear powers don't attack each other. You either figure out a way to coexist, or everybody dies.

Which works just fine providing both sides have a healthy fear of annihilation. Not too much of a problem with civilized and educated people.

BIG problem with radical Islam. They have this "our way or everybody dies" mentality that cannot be bargained with.

In the case of Nimrod jong-il, he's trying to bully from others what he cannot make or buy for himself. he has just about enough nuclear weapons to piss someone off.