3 ms·

One country having nuclear weapons means that they can prevent all of what you propose with mere threats. If a few your planes are in position to drop paratroop

One country having nuclear weapons means that they can prevent all of what you propose with mere threats. If a few your planes are in position to drop paratroopers or bombs, they can and will threaten to nuke your capital in retaliation the moment the first commando or bomb gets dropped; and the expected result is that you will fold. You can't bomb much of vital military infrastructure if your own infrastructure - not only airfields, but also population centres - have been nuked. Your bombers can drop a single full payload, after which they will have no bases left where they can return to reload. I mean, we have Cold War studies of all of that - the only way to ensure that bombers really have the ability to bomb enemy infrastructure was to ensure that they are up in the air patrolling, or alternatively scramble to launch within minutes of an alert, since an hour after the start of WW3 you only have a single strike with the airforce that you have in the air. You can't demoralise the enemy by "making them understand that the war will be long, hungry, and ugly" because the war will end in a single day, after which half of your population will be dead, and the other half in need of food, electricity and supplies. Sure, you will have people willing and able to defend the country, but nobody will be invading; but after being on the receiving end of a nuclear strike your ability to deploy and supply a massed overseas invasion is destroyed, so you're not a meaningful threat anymore, the conflict is over. Nuclear deterrent is the ultimate defensive weapon because it ensures that any war is unwinnable for the attacker - if the attack fails, then it fails, but if the attack succeeds, there's no good response to an ultimatum to accept ceasefire or have your cities nuked. All your soldiers and commanders know that if they invade and win, then their families and their homeland will die anyway.

baybal2 6y ago
> I mean, we have Cold War studies of all of that And I read much of them, and what I wrote above is a restatement of what I read. > Your bombers can drop a single full payload, after which they will have no bases left where they can return to reload. Yes, but even this will likely be enough to bomb biggest C3 centres, bases, stockpiles of food, ammo, and fuel. Just enough to ensure 1.) initial shock, and C3 paralysis, 2.) making sure that the adversary will be running on the leased time too. Even at the height of cold war, each side had at most 10 strategic level stockpiles. Without them, the huge force would've ran out of supplies from regional bases in under 6 month. > after being on the receiving end of a nuclear strike your ability to deploy and supply a massed overseas invasion is destroyed, If you have your entire tank, and mechanised force on the go, and one leg on foreign soil already. It doesn't matter. The enemy will either have to nuke own cities captured by your force, or contest them with conventional force. Similarly, they will have to either set their equally diminished supplier on fire to deny them to invader, or have to contest them. > All your soldiers and commanders know that if they invade and win, then their families and their homeland will die anyway. Yes, it requires one to be a madman to accept such "victory." Especially if you already are a somehow major power, as you know that in today's free-for-all world, a third power will swoop in to claim spoils in no time. But think of it as a "counter-MAD," or "asymmetric MAD," or "madman's MAD"
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

baybal2 6y ago

> I mean, we have Cold War studies of all of that And I read much of them, and what I wrote above is a restatement of what I read. > Your bombers can drop a single full payload, after which they will have no bases left where they can return to reload. Yes, but even this will likely be enough to bomb biggest C3 centres, bases, stockpiles of food, ammo, and fuel. Just enough to ensure 1.) initial shock, and C3 paralysis, 2.) making sure that the adversary will be running on the leased time too. Even at the height of cold war, each side had at most 10 strategic level stockpiles. Without them, the huge force would've ran out of supplies from regional bases in under 6 month. > after being on the receiving end of a nuclear strike your ability to deploy and supply a massed overseas invasion is destroyed, If you have your entire tank, and mechanised force on the go, and one leg on foreign soil already. It doesn't matter. The enemy will either have to nuke own cities captured by your force, or contest them with conventional force. Similarly, they will have to either set their equally diminished supplier on fire to deny them to invader, or have to contest them. > All your soldiers and commanders know that if they invade and win, then their families and their homeland will die anyway. Yes, it requires one to be a madman to accept such "victory." Especially if you already are a somehow major power, as you know that in today's free-for-all world, a third power will swoop in to claim spoils in no time. But think of it as a "counter-MAD," or "asymmetric MAD," or "madman's MAD"

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]