3 ms·
A strategic deterrent needs to be targetable and scalable. Biological and chemical weapons don't have this property. Before nuclear, strategic deterrence meant
by jandrewrogers 3y ago
A strategic deterrent needs to be targetable and scalable. Biological and chemical weapons don't have this property. Before nuclear, strategic deterrence meant maintaining a massive standing army and navy. This was very expensive and also difficult to scale due to the logistical footprint, so most countries could not maintain it very long. There is also the issue that the economic cost of strategic deterrence is relatively much higher for smaller countries.
What changed with nuclear is that you could maintain a credible and scalable strategic deterrent indefinitely at a tiny cost compared to maintaining conventional forces at an equivalent level of deterrence effect.
- wongarsu 3y agoScalability is a bit of an issue, but a biological weapon like weaponized anthrax or chemical weapon like a powder that converts to 4highly effective nerve gas could conceivably delivered by methods similar to the nuclear triad. Strategic bombers could airdrop them over population centers, and with enough engineering we could probably make ballistic missiles with payloads that disperse such agents in an air burst, using a small amount of explosives to scatter it over an area the size of Manhattan
- lupusreal 3y agoWW2 showed that strategic deterrence with chemical and biological weapons doesn't work. Both sides feared gas particularly and therefore didn't use war gas on each other (civilians is another matter.) Germany had very potent nerve gasses and had reason to believe the allies did as well, and didn't dare use them. But the threat of these gasses wasn't strong enough to deter the rest of the war.