4 ms·

I don’t follow, why would it be stupid?

baybal2 7y ago
Basic of military tactics, don't let enemy know what have hit them. Or better to rephrase, don't let your enemy to know what you will hit them with, moreover if the weapon you will hit them is that big. Imagine US actions if in 2003, mushroom clouds would've actually risen over major US cities, out of a sudden. If you remember, Saddam did a last minute bluff, promising "fiery death" to NYC, and Washington, and this silly bluff did make not so few people in DC to turn pale. Knowing how US politics goes, I would say US would've seriously considered rising a white flag, invariable how weak enemy's conventional forces are, in fear of additional strike.
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  No nation's military can afford to use nuclear weapons first because it will absolutely result in country-ending retaliatory strikes. There wouldn't have been an Iraq left for Saddam to rule. Hoping to keep it secret for some kind of strike like that goes right out the window once you've used it, and you will absolutely never strike hard enough to remove the nuclear capacity of somebody like the USA (that's why nuclear submarines exist).
  - baybal2 7y ago
    > you will absolutely never strike hard enough to remove the nuclear capacity of somebody like the USA (that's why nuclear submarines exist). That's certain, but being hit by a second strike is already much better than a first strike, or, even better, not being hit at all. See, Saddam almost had it with his bluff. > No nation's military can afford to use nuclear weapons first because it will absolutely result in country-ending retaliatory strikes. There wouldn't have been an Iraq left for Saddam to rule. See, such naive assumption are exactly what make it more than likely. People are infirm, and all kinds of regime leaders are much better "poker players" than any Western politician out there. Imagine, you a president of a nation state, or whomever took his place in chain of command. You got news that you biggest city took a hit, possibly hundreds of thousands are dead, than another. You tell you forces to continue to advance, then you hear a loud bang while you sit in your bunker, and there you get a call on your direct line with an offer... to let you live... I don't see the psychology of warfare being any much different in a nuclear exchange, than in a firefight. You only have one life, and one set of limbs, and with each inch of enemy territory taken you will be asking yourself more and more "isn't that enough?" and you will feel your will almost physically crumbling. Fear of death is a really powerful thing. When I lived in Canada, I encountered a number of Afghan war veterans. All an every of them who ever been deployed in the field can tell of stories of "unwritten" ceasefire agreements, and exchanges on the radio with Talibans with offers of peaceful withdrawals that never got written into any official report. And this is happening even when Afghan war is a complete turkeyshoot for Nato armies.
    - nkozyra 7y ago
      > See, Saddam almost had it with his bluff. You've said this multiple times but failed to support it in any way
    - sokoloff 7y ago
      > being hit by a second strike is already much better than a first strike, or, even better, not being hit at all. Your "even better" clause is a dramatic understatement of the difference. This is the crucial point upon which nuclear deterrence strategies are based.
- mieseratte 7y ago
  Depends on if you developed the weapon for strictly offensive use of consider it a part or a deterrent strategy. If the latter, you want people to know. It’s the “I don’t want to hurt you, but if I have to you’re dead” of foreign relations. Given that Israel would likely come under sanction due to non-proliferation policy, and the further pressure on Iran to develop their own, revealing the capability is problematic to say the least.
- _ph_ 7y ago
  The idea of nuclear weapons is not to hit the opponent by surprise, but to deter them from attacking you in the first place.
- raverbashing 7y ago
  You're thinking tactically, not strategically. The best nukes are the ones that never need to be used.
  - baybal2 7y ago
    What's the use of a nuclear weapon - a weapon strongest of them all, if the enemy know you will never use it? This is where I think, the popular thinking in Western political circles diverges with the cold logic of warfare. What is the best way to scare your enemy with your commitment to murder him using overwhelming force, than... to start doing so? The politicians and people reading political science may thing the other way around, war does not work the other way as shown by thousands of years of history.
    - nkozyra 7y ago
      It is a deterrent. This isn't complicated.
    - sokoloff 7y ago
      "never need to be used" is different from "are unwilling to use if attacked"
    - Jenz 7y ago
      > What's the use of a nuclear weapon - a weapon strongest of them all, if the enemy know you will never use it? The only reason to keep nuclear weapons is to keep other from using them. It’s called "mutually assured destruction" — "you nuke me, I nuke you" nobody wants that. I.e. the _reason_ to keep nukes is to never use them. If only one side has nukes, then mutually assured destruction is not possible, and hence there is no safety against nuclear way.
      - baybal2 7y ago
        You are not understanding my logic
        7y ago

Basic of military tactics, don't let enemy know what have hit them. Or better to rephrase, don't let your enemy to know what you will hit them with, moreover if the weapon you will hit them is that big. Imagine US actions if in 2003, mushroom clouds would've actually risen over major US cities, out of a sudden. If you remember, Saddam did a last minute bluff, promising "fiery death" to NYC, and Washington, and this silly bluff did make not so few people in DC to turn pale. Knowing how US politics goes, I would say US would've seriously considered rising a white flag, invariable how weak enemy's conventional forces are, in fear of additional strike.

throwaway2048 7y ago
No nation's military can afford to use nuclear weapons first because it will absolutely result in country-ending retaliatory strikes. There wouldn't have been an Iraq left for Saddam to rule. Hoping to keep it secret for some kind of strike like that goes right out the window once you've used it, and you will absolutely never strike hard enough to remove the nuclear capacity of somebody like the USA (that's why nuclear submarines exist).
- baybal2 7y ago
  > you will absolutely never strike hard enough to remove the nuclear capacity of somebody like the USA (that's why nuclear submarines exist). That's certain, but being hit by a second strike is already much better than a first strike, or, even better, not being hit at all. See, Saddam almost had it with his bluff. > No nation's military can afford to use nuclear weapons first because it will absolutely result in country-ending retaliatory strikes. There wouldn't have been an Iraq left for Saddam to rule. See, such naive assumption are exactly what make it more than likely. People are infirm, and all kinds of regime leaders are much better "poker players" than any Western politician out there. Imagine, you a president of a nation state, or whomever took his place in chain of command. You got news that you biggest city took a hit, possibly hundreds of thousands are dead, than another. You tell you forces to continue to advance, then you hear a loud bang while you sit in your bunker, and there you get a call on your direct line with an offer... to let you live... I don't see the psychology of warfare being any much different in a nuclear exchange, than in a firefight. You only have one life, and one set of limbs, and with each inch of enemy territory taken you will be asking yourself more and more "isn't that enough?" and you will feel your will almost physically crumbling. Fear of death is a really powerful thing. When I lived in Canada, I encountered a number of Afghan war veterans. All an every of them who ever been deployed in the field can tell of stories of "unwritten" ceasefire agreements, and exchanges on the radio with Talibans with offers of peaceful withdrawals that never got written into any official report. And this is happening even when Afghan war is a complete turkeyshoot for Nato armies.
  - nkozyra 7y ago
    > See, Saddam almost had it with his bluff. You've said this multiple times but failed to support it in any way
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    > being hit by a second strike is already much better than a first strike, or, even better, not being hit at all. Your "even better" clause is a dramatic understatement of the difference. This is the crucial point upon which nuclear deterrence strategies are based.
mieseratte 7y ago
Depends on if you developed the weapon for strictly offensive use of consider it a part or a deterrent strategy. If the latter, you want people to know. It’s the “I don’t want to hurt you, but if I have to you’re dead” of foreign relations. Given that Israel would likely come under sanction due to non-proliferation policy, and the further pressure on Iran to develop their own, revealing the capability is problematic to say the least.
_ph_ 7y ago
The idea of nuclear weapons is not to hit the opponent by surprise, but to deter them from attacking you in the first place.
raverbashing 7y ago
You're thinking tactically, not strategically. The best nukes are the ones that never need to be used.
- baybal2 7y ago
  What's the use of a nuclear weapon - a weapon strongest of them all, if the enemy know you will never use it? This is where I think, the popular thinking in Western political circles diverges with the cold logic of warfare. What is the best way to scare your enemy with your commitment to murder him using overwhelming force, than... to start doing so? The politicians and people reading political science may thing the other way around, war does not work the other way as shown by thousands of years of history.
  - nkozyra 7y ago
    It is a deterrent. This isn't complicated.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    "never need to be used" is different from "are unwilling to use if attacked"
  - Jenz 7y ago
    > What's the use of a nuclear weapon - a weapon strongest of them all, if the enemy know you will never use it? The only reason to keep nuclear weapons is to keep other from using them. It’s called "mutually assured destruction" — "you nuke me, I nuke you" nobody wants that. I.e. the _reason_ to keep nukes is to never use them. If only one side has nukes, then mutually assured destruction is not possible, and hence there is no safety against nuclear way.
    - baybal2 7y ago
      You are not understanding my logic
      - 7y ago