6 ms·

50 years ago, NATO doctrine was the use of tactical nuclear weapons, but only in response to being overrun. The idea being that a Soviet invasion of Europe was

50 years ago, NATO doctrine was the use of tactical nuclear weapons, but only in response to being overrun. The idea being that a Soviet invasion of Europe was an existential threat. We either do this or all die. But these guidelines were documented and well-known. There's a good case to be made for the use of tactical nuclear weapons at some extreme case, the nature of that case might vary. But it is very important to make sure everybody knows what conditions have to be met for this to happen. We have many more weapons that are much more dangerous than tactical nukes. If we want to isolate them because of the fear of escalation, that's fine. If we want to include them in the mix of options that's fine too. But what we can't do is keep potential adversaries in the dark and then spring them on them. That's because the problem with nuclear weapons is their unlimited ability to quickly escalate destruction. That's the much more severe problem to deal with than what kind of guts make up a particular delivery system.

madengr 7y ago
I could see Israel using them if overrun (which is easy given it is a small country surrounded by adversaries).
- earlINmeyerkeg 7y ago
  Did a plane carrying a nuke get shot down during the yom kippur war? Or am I getting that confused with Sum of All Fears?
  - pc86 7y ago
    This is the type of thing you can easily just search for.
    - i_haz_rabies 7y ago
      It's also the type of thing that can spark discussion, much like how basically any factual question you ask in everyday conversation could also be easily searched for.
- Animats 7y ago
  That's known as the "Samson option".[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
mikestew 7y ago
But what we can't do is keep potential adversaries in the dark and then spring them on them. Dr. Strangelove: "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, EH?" Not much of a deterrent if no one knows about it.
nordsieck 7y ago
> But what we can't do is keep potential adversaries in the dark and then spring them on them. That seems like a very good strategy if you want to use nukes as a deterrent. I don't think this follows if you are planning on actually using them. > That's because the problem with nuclear weapons is their unlimited ability to quickly escalate destruction. This is tempered quite a bit by the target's economic ability. South Africa doesn't have an "unlimited ability to quickly escalate". Neither does Pakistan or North Korea. Those countries do have nukes, but they are so poor, it's just not plausible they have many, or particularly high yield ones at that. Your point does hold for the US, Russia and China, though.
- bracobama 7y ago
  Last time I checked South Africa got rid of their nukes in 1989 and has yet to deviate from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty it acceded to in 1991. It also recently ratified the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Do you know something we don't?
  - nordsieck 7y ago
    > Last time I checked South Africa got rid of their nukes in 1989 You probably know better than I do. I tend to believe that once countries get nukes, they don't tend to give them up, but I could certainly believe that South Africa doesn't have any anymore.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Fortunately (in this case), knowledge and technology isn't permanent - it takes a lot of work to maintain. Unless they have secretly trained scientists and engineers, and maintain secret facilities for most of the supply chain, they've probably lost the ability to make a nuclear weapon by now.
    - bracobama 7y ago
      While many states do explore what is called 'nuclear hedging' where they remain non-nuclear but conduct research and development to shorten the potential time of their nuclear breakout (a contemporary example being Iran), South Africa is definitely not a part of this club as their rhetoric and supporting actions simply do not align with this strategy.
naravara 7y ago
Sadly I can't find a non-JSTOR link[1] but there is an argument out there about the general value of maintaining a "nuclear taboo" in preventing escalation of the type you're talking about. The idea being that even if you can do more destruction with conventional weapons, anchoring some emotional weight around nukes maintains momentum behind nuclear disarmament and discourages nuclear armed nations from going to war with each other. [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2601286 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2601286
- DanielBMarkham 7y ago
  Yeah, there's a lot more to this topic. I had to drastically simplify in order to make it into a reasonable-sized HN comment. What we're seeing is a breakdown of the bipolar world. At the same time, we're seeing the potential for massive destruction from a number of new attack vectors, and smaller and smaller actors are capable of wielding them. And warfare itself has changed from army-on-army to desultory, infinitely-lived affairs many times done using proxies and fake information. That changes a lot. The _message_ of using tactical nukes may very well be more important to control than the actual use of them.
cuspycode 7y ago
The idea of "tactical" nuclear weapons needs to go away. Nuclear weapons are strategic by their very nature. In my opinion, any use of nuclear weapons at all should result in a full strategic nuclear response against the offending country. Otherwise there is no credible disincentive against using nukes in casual warfare.
- bhickey 7y ago
  MAD goes out the window once the missiles are up. The whole point of a credible second strike is to discourage a first strike. However this isn't subgame perfect... which means players should want to strike first, breaking MAD.
- beerandt 7y ago
  I commented elsewhere, but the US inventory is being upgraded such that many (currently) strategic weapons can also technically be used as tactical. Lower dial-a-yields, variable fuzes, and higher precision guidance all add up to more tactical use.

madengr 7y ago

I could see Israel using them if overrun (which is easy given it is a small country surrounded by adversaries).

earlINmeyerkeg 7y ago
Did a plane carrying a nuke get shot down during the yom kippur war? Or am I getting that confused with Sum of All Fears?
- pc86 7y ago
  This is the type of thing you can easily just search for.
  - i_haz_rabies 7y ago
    It's also the type of thing that can spark discussion, much like how basically any factual question you ask in everyday conversation could also be easily searched for.
Animats 7y ago
That's known as the "Samson option".[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

mikestew 7y ago

But what we can't do is keep potential adversaries in the dark and then spring them on them. Dr. Strangelove: "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, EH?" Not much of a deterrent if no one knows about it.

nordsieck 7y ago

> But what we can't do is keep potential adversaries in the dark and then spring them on them. That seems like a very good strategy if you want to use nukes as a deterrent. I don't think this follows if you are planning on actually using them. > That's because the problem with nuclear weapons is their unlimited ability to quickly escalate destruction. This is tempered quite a bit by the target's economic ability. South Africa doesn't have an "unlimited ability to quickly escalate". Neither does Pakistan or North Korea. Those countries do have nukes, but they are so poor, it's just not plausible they have many, or particularly high yield ones at that. Your point does hold for the US, Russia and China, though.

bracobama 7y ago
Last time I checked South Africa got rid of their nukes in 1989 and has yet to deviate from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty it acceded to in 1991. It also recently ratified the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Do you know something we don't?
- nordsieck 7y ago
  > Last time I checked South Africa got rid of their nukes in 1989 You probably know better than I do. I tend to believe that once countries get nukes, they don't tend to give them up, but I could certainly believe that South Africa doesn't have any anymore.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Fortunately (in this case), knowledge and technology isn't permanent - it takes a lot of work to maintain. Unless they have secretly trained scientists and engineers, and maintain secret facilities for most of the supply chain, they've probably lost the ability to make a nuclear weapon by now.
  - bracobama 7y ago
    While many states do explore what is called 'nuclear hedging' where they remain non-nuclear but conduct research and development to shorten the potential time of their nuclear breakout (a contemporary example being Iran), South Africa is definitely not a part of this club as their rhetoric and supporting actions simply do not align with this strategy.

naravara 7y ago

Sadly I can't find a non-JSTOR link[1] but there is an argument out there about the general value of maintaining a "nuclear taboo" in preventing escalation of the type you're talking about. The idea being that even if you can do more destruction with conventional weapons, anchoring some emotional weight around nukes maintains momentum behind nuclear disarmament and discourages nuclear armed nations from going to war with each other. [1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2601286 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2601286

DanielBMarkham 7y ago
Yeah, there's a lot more to this topic. I had to drastically simplify in order to make it into a reasonable-sized HN comment. What we're seeing is a breakdown of the bipolar world. At the same time, we're seeing the potential for massive destruction from a number of new attack vectors, and smaller and smaller actors are capable of wielding them. And warfare itself has changed from army-on-army to desultory, infinitely-lived affairs many times done using proxies and fake information. That changes a lot. The _message_ of using tactical nukes may very well be more important to control than the actual use of them.

cuspycode 7y ago

The idea of "tactical" nuclear weapons needs to go away. Nuclear weapons are strategic by their very nature. In my opinion, any use of nuclear weapons at all should result in a full strategic nuclear response against the offending country. Otherwise there is no credible disincentive against using nukes in casual warfare.

bhickey 7y ago
MAD goes out the window once the missiles are up. The whole point of a credible second strike is to discourage a first strike. However this isn't subgame perfect... which means players should want to strike first, breaking MAD.
beerandt 7y ago
I commented elsewhere, but the US inventory is being upgraded such that many (currently) strategic weapons can also technically be used as tactical. Lower dial-a-yields, variable fuzes, and higher precision guidance all add up to more tactical use.