6 ms·

The (proper) strategic idea was as a deterrent, not _wanting_ to use them in an offensive manner. The strategy was in making an attack on "us" carry the high p

The (proper) strategic idea was as a deterrent, not _wanting_ to use them in an offensive manner. The strategy was in making an attack on "us" carry the high probability of annihilation of the attacker, thereby discouraging it -- it wasn't about "hey, let's nuke that country, then we'll gain an advantage".

fossuser 5y ago
That came later iirc - initially they were thinking of using them prior to running infantry in. I think there are old public test videos where they actually did this kind of thing. I also recall a group of scientists trying to elevate the understanding of the e-risk (pugwash conference?). Basically people were becoming too comfortable with the idea of nuclear war because they knew how to “duck and cover” and had a little bomb shelter in the yard. See this: https://youtu.be/IKqXu-5jw60 https://youtu.be/IKqXu-5jw60 Dr. Strangelove is also worth watching for a satirical take from that time.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  >> The (proper) strategic idea was as a deterrent, not _wanting_ to use them in an offensive manner. The strategy was in making an attack on "us" carry the high probability of annihilation for the attacker, thereby discouraging it -- it wasn't about "hey, let's nuke that country, then we'll gain an advantage". > That came later iirc - initially they were thinking of using them prior to running infantry in. I think you have to differentiate strategic and battlefield usages. IIRC, some people considered using them strategically when the opponent couldn't retaliate in kind. However, the Soviets had them within five years and the Chinese had them by 1965, I think. I think tactical battlefield uses were on the table for much longer, because NATO felt like it could not win a conventional war in Europe, but that may have taken the form a nuking a corn field on your border (maybe even in your territory) that the invading army is passing through. It sounds like Russia may still have similar plans ("escalate to de-escalate" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon).
  - genericuser314 5y ago
    It's impossible to know what would have happened if they hadn't, but if Julius and Ethel Rosenberg helping the Soviets achieve nuclear parity prevented the US from "using them when the opponent couldn't retaliate in kind" then they should be thought of like Snowdens or Assanges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Soviet_nuclear_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Sov...
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > It's impossible to know what would have happened if they hadn't, but if Julius and Ethel Rosenberg helping the Soviets achieve nuclear parity prevented the US from "using them when the opponent couldn't retaliate in kind" then they should be thought of like Snowdens or Assanges. Eh, no. The Rosenbergs were consciously acting as spies for a foreign power, which is treasonous conduct no matter how you look at it. Putting them next to Snowden makes Snowden look bad. At least publicly, he made every effort to avoid doing anything like what they did. Also, IIRC, MacArthur was relieved of command in Korea because he wanted to nuke the Chinese, and that was decades before they even had an atomic weapon to retaliate with. That means you can't point to nuclear parity as the only reason the US didn't use them after the end of WWII.
      - genericuser314 5y ago
        The degree to which our ethics should be consequentialist, or they should evaluate intent is worth discussing, but as consequences become more significant intent becomes more insignificant. I don't care if someone 'looks bad', or breaks any law if they prevent nuclear war. Stanislav Petrov disobeyed orders in the face of "30 layers of verification" telling him to report 5 incoming nuclear missiles.
        tablespoon 5y ago
        > I don't care if someone 'looks bad', or breaks any law if they prevent nuclear war. The idea that the Rosenbergs prevented a nuclear war is wild speculation on top of wild speculation. However, comparing Snowden to the Rosenbergs is exactly the kind of thing that people do to smear Snowden.
- malloryerik 5y ago
  Something unforgettable here: Nuclear test in China, with supporting attacks by infantry and cavalry, all in grand heroic style. 3 1/2 minutes: https://youtu.be/CzRX06Xqu80 https://youtu.be/CzRX06Xqu80 or the quick version: https://youtu.be/CzRX06Xqu80?t=81 https://youtu.be/CzRX06Xqu80?t=81
  - rpeden 5y ago
    Looks like a similar idea to the Desert Rock tests [1]. Though I don't think any of the Desert Rock soldiers galloped onto an atomic battlefield on horseback while wearing a gas mask and wielding a sword like one of the guys in your video did. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXX-1MIMr2E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXX-1MIMr2E
    - malloryerik 5y ago
      Interesting, thanks.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > Though I don't think any of the Desert Rock soldiers galloped onto an atomic battlefield on horseback while wearing a gas mask and wielding a sword like one of the guys in your video did. I should note the horses are wearing gas masks too.
3pt14159 5y ago
Well it was at first. Even after Japan, the US Airforce considered nuking Korea, but were eventually convinced not to by the Marines and Army who argued that deploying nuclear weapons risked a similar move by the Soviets on the battlefield where soldiers were centralized. Remember that the nukes back then were much, much smaller. Also, a bit of a nitpick, but we do use nuclear weapons. We have for the past 70+ years. We haven't deployed them since Japan, but their role as a deterrent is a form of use.
- grkvlt 5y ago
  > we do use nuclear weapons [in] their role as a deterrent Yeah, I first heard this idea as the main point of Daniel Ellsberg's (also known for his first book, 'The Pentagon Papers' on Vietnam strategy) recent book 'The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner' [0] which documents the USA's 'use' of nuclear weapons, based on his work at RAND. It was a really interesting read, would recommend. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg#Books https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg#Books
ekianjo 5y ago
> it wasn't about "hey, let's nuke that country, then we'll gain an advantage". Initially LeMay wanted to strike the Soviets first with nukes while the US had the monopoly on that technology, because his reasoning was that when the Soviets would have it, they would not hesitate one second to strike the US with it. I can see his point, in the context of the time. Glad that nobody followed his recommendations, though!

fossuser 5y ago

That came later iirc - initially they were thinking of using them prior to running infantry in. I think there are old public test videos where they actually did this kind of thing. I also recall a group of scientists trying to elevate the understanding of the e-risk (pugwash conference?). Basically people were becoming too comfortable with the idea of nuclear war because they knew how to “duck and cover” and had a little bomb shelter in the yard. See this: https://youtu.be/IKqXu-5jw60 https://youtu.be/IKqXu-5jw60 Dr. Strangelove is also worth watching for a satirical take from that time.

tablespoon 5y ago
>> The (proper) strategic idea was as a deterrent, not _wanting_ to use them in an offensive manner. The strategy was in making an attack on "us" carry the high probability of annihilation for the attacker, thereby discouraging it -- it wasn't about "hey, let's nuke that country, then we'll gain an advantage". > That came later iirc - initially they were thinking of using them prior to running infantry in. I think you have to differentiate strategic and battlefield usages. IIRC, some people considered using them strategically when the opponent couldn't retaliate in kind. However, the Soviets had them within five years and the Chinese had them by 1965, I think. I think tactical battlefield uses were on the table for much longer, because NATO felt like it could not win a conventional war in Europe, but that may have taken the form a nuking a corn field on your border (maybe even in your territory) that the invading army is passing through. It sounds like Russia may still have similar plans ("escalate to de-escalate" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon).
- genericuser314 5y ago
  It's impossible to know what would have happened if they hadn't, but if Julius and Ethel Rosenberg helping the Soviets achieve nuclear parity prevented the US from "using them when the opponent couldn't retaliate in kind" then they should be thought of like Snowdens or Assanges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Soviet_nuclear_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg#Sov...
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > It's impossible to know what would have happened if they hadn't, but if Julius and Ethel Rosenberg helping the Soviets achieve nuclear parity prevented the US from "using them when the opponent couldn't retaliate in kind" then they should be thought of like Snowdens or Assanges. Eh, no. The Rosenbergs were consciously acting as spies for a foreign power, which is treasonous conduct no matter how you look at it. Putting them next to Snowden makes Snowden look bad. At least publicly, he made every effort to avoid doing anything like what they did. Also, IIRC, MacArthur was relieved of command in Korea because he wanted to nuke the Chinese, and that was decades before they even had an atomic weapon to retaliate with. That means you can't point to nuclear parity as the only reason the US didn't use them after the end of WWII.
    - genericuser314 5y ago
      The degree to which our ethics should be consequentialist, or they should evaluate intent is worth discussing, but as consequences become more significant intent becomes more insignificant. I don't care if someone 'looks bad', or breaks any law if they prevent nuclear war. Stanislav Petrov disobeyed orders in the face of "30 layers of verification" telling him to report 5 incoming nuclear missiles.
      - tablespoon 5y ago
        > I don't care if someone 'looks bad', or breaks any law if they prevent nuclear war. The idea that the Rosenbergs prevented a nuclear war is wild speculation on top of wild speculation. However, comparing Snowden to the Rosenbergs is exactly the kind of thing that people do to smear Snowden.
malloryerik 5y ago
Something unforgettable here: Nuclear test in China, with supporting attacks by infantry and cavalry, all in grand heroic style. 3 1/2 minutes: https://youtu.be/CzRX06Xqu80 https://youtu.be/CzRX06Xqu80 or the quick version: https://youtu.be/CzRX06Xqu80?t=81 https://youtu.be/CzRX06Xqu80?t=81
- rpeden 5y ago
  Looks like a similar idea to the Desert Rock tests [1]. Though I don't think any of the Desert Rock soldiers galloped onto an atomic battlefield on horseback while wearing a gas mask and wielding a sword like one of the guys in your video did. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXX-1MIMr2E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXX-1MIMr2E
  - malloryerik 5y ago
    Interesting, thanks.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Though I don't think any of the Desert Rock soldiers galloped onto an atomic battlefield on horseback while wearing a gas mask and wielding a sword like one of the guys in your video did. I should note the horses are wearing gas masks too.

3pt14159 5y ago

Well it was at first. Even after Japan, the US Airforce considered nuking Korea, but were eventually convinced not to by the Marines and Army who argued that deploying nuclear weapons risked a similar move by the Soviets on the battlefield where soldiers were centralized. Remember that the nukes back then were much, much smaller. Also, a bit of a nitpick, but we do use nuclear weapons. We have for the past 70+ years. We haven't deployed them since Japan, but their role as a deterrent is a form of use.

grkvlt 5y ago
> we do use nuclear weapons [in] their role as a deterrent Yeah, I first heard this idea as the main point of Daniel Ellsberg's (also known for his first book, 'The Pentagon Papers' on Vietnam strategy) recent book 'The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner' [0] which documents the USA's 'use' of nuclear weapons, based on his work at RAND. It was a really interesting read, would recommend. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg#Books https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg#Books

ekianjo 5y ago

> it wasn't about "hey, let's nuke that country, then we'll gain an advantage". Initially LeMay wanted to strike the Soviets first with nukes while the US had the monopoly on that technology, because his reasoning was that when the Soviets would have it, they would not hesitate one second to strike the US with it. I can see his point, in the context of the time. Glad that nobody followed his recommendations, though!