3 ms·
> Nuclear weapons serve a purpose in war Not really, in a tactical sense in any war short of WWIII. No one can really use them without the threat of massive re
by Thrymr 13y ago
> Nuclear weapons serve a purpose in war
Not really, in a tactical sense in any war short of WWIII. No one can really use them without the threat of massive reprisal. No rational player would use them to take out an air force base.
Strategically, they're only really good for holding a gun to everyone's head (including your own). That can apply on a scale from the small and crazy (North Korea) to the huge, dysfunctional, and bankrupt (USSR).
- arethuza 13y ago"No one can really use them without the threat of massive reprisal" You can, of course, use them if your opponent is not capable of a massive reprisal - which the Soviets weren't until the late 1960s (at least against the United States). That's why Curtis LeMay, and later Thomas Powers, were so keen to land a "Sunday punch" on the Soviets - fortunately the political leaders of the US (notably JFK during the Cuban crisis) would have nothing to do with such a plan - to their eternal credit. A fairly interesting novel describing a world where LeMay had got his way is Resurrection Day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_Day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_Day
- VLM 13y ago>huge, dysfunctional, and bankrupt (USSR). And the USA, to be fair.
- Spooky23 13y agoNot necessarily. Would the US risk a major incident with China or Russia if India and Pakistan decide to lob small nuclear warheads at each other? What if one of those powers aligned with one side or the other?