[QUOTE=DOCTOR LIGHT;51978445]Really, the chance of a nuclear apocalypse is very low post-Hiroshima. If we didn't have a Hiroshima event where nuclear armaments in their infancy were used in anger, people might not hesitate so much.[/QUOTE]
We came really, really close in spite of that. There was the Cuba Missile Crisis instance mentioned here in the thread. There was also an incident where the Soviets' new early warning system glitched out and told them they had multiple incoming tracks - it took, again, one man's decision to avert apocalypse.
Then there was Soviet combat doctrine in the early days of the cold war, some time after they'd acquired the bomb - their plan was to use nukes as a tactical weapon against western European forces. They would detonate a weapon over the enemy's defensive line, then send in masses of tanks and disposable conscripts who, if they weren't killed in the fighting, would be left to suffer the effects of radiation sickness. They stockpiled hundreds of tactical nuclear weapons for that purpose.
Don't take the fact that we're still here for granted, man. We seriously came a hair's breadth from dying by our own sword.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;51982928]We came really, really close in spite of that. There was the Cuba Missile Crisis instance mentioned here in the thread. There was also an incident where the Soviets' new early warning system glitched out and told them they had multiple incoming tracks - it took, again, one man's decision to avert apocalypse.
Then there was Soviet combat doctrine in the early days of the cold war, some time after they'd acquired the bomb - their plan was to use nukes as a tactical weapon against western European forces. They would detonate a weapon over the enemy's defensive line, then send in masses of tanks and disposable conscripts who, if they weren't killed in the fighting, would be left to suffer the effects of radiation sickness. They stockpiled hundreds of tactical nuclear weapons for that purpose.
[b]Don't take the fact that we're still here for granted, man. We seriously came a hair's breadth from dying by our own sword.[/b][/QUOTE]
just imagine, we dodged all those bullets only to elect Trump 50 years later
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;51982938]just imagine, we dodged all those bullets only to elect Trump 50 years later[/QUOTE]
Well, we had a nice run.
to think, the only thing stopping nukes from being regularly used is the fallout
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;51982928]We came really, really close in spite of that. There was the Cuba Missile Crisis instance mentioned here in the thread. There was also an incident where the Soviets' new early warning system glitched out and told them they had multiple incoming tracks - it took, again, one man's decision to avert apocalypse.
Then there was Soviet combat doctrine in the early days of the cold war, some time after they'd acquired the bomb - their plan was to use nukes as a tactical weapon against western European forces. They would detonate a weapon over the enemy's defensive line, then send in masses of tanks and disposable conscripts who, if they weren't killed in the fighting, would be left to suffer the effects of radiation sickness. They stockpiled hundreds of tactical nuclear weapons for that purpose.
Don't take the fact that we're still here for granted, man. We seriously came a hair's breadth from dying by our own sword.[/QUOTE]
The incident with the Soviet early warning glitching was by far the closet we ever came. It was a ridiculously tense year; Soviet intelligence agencies had been running a deep penetration operation code-named "RYaN" centered around a belief of a pending US nuclear first strike attack, US forces were intertwined in psyops and penetration tests by overflying Soviet airspace and crossing Soviet shipping boundaries, in April the US conducted FleetEx 83' the largest naval exercise to date, in September Korean Air Lines Flight 007 had been shot down, the Soviet's new satellite-based early warning system (SPRN) was repeatedly giving off false positives, the deployment of Pershing-II missiles to Europe, all culminating with Able Archer 83' which the Soviet Politburo thought was a cover for forward deploying forces in preparation for a first strike attack, the Soviets pull their entire strategic rocket forces on high alert.
NATO forces had similar doctrine later during the war, with the inability to match Soviet infantry or armor formations, US forces deployed tactical nukes at all formation levels; DIVARTY was supplied with 155mm, 175mm and 203mm atomic shells, the M28 Davy Crockett was deployed in sections attached to armor, mechanized, and infantry battalions in Europe and Korea, specialized paratroop teams with the 6th SFG and 82nd AB ere given special atomic demotion munitions with the expressed mission of demolishing strategic targets across Europe and forward SAC bases across Europe had stockpiles of B61s and B83s (nine bases in Europe still host US B61 bombs). Had the Soviets come through the Fulda Gap, across the West Plain, or through the Black Forest most of the entirety of Central Europe would be pock-marked with impact carters and a barren waste of irradiated rubble.
I went to the Panzer Museum in Münster, Germany, and they had a small section dedicated to the late Cold War NATO strategy of using strategic bombing to halt a major offensive by the Warsaw Pact countries. It was chilling to see plans for whole belts of nuclear weapons being detonated down the entire length of Germany just to stop enemy troop movements.
[QUOTE=Bonde;51986895]I went to the Panzer Museum in Münster, Germany, and they had a small section dedicated to the late Cold War NATO strategy of using strategic bombing to halt a major offensive by the Warsaw Pact countries. It was chilling to see plans for whole belts of nuclear weapons being detonated down the entire length of Germany just to stop enemy troop movements.[/QUOTE]
Nato had huge numbers of low yield tactical nuclear bombs deliverable by tactical aircraft, artillery guns and short ranged rockets, they didn't need to resort to strategic weapons to halt a Russian advance.
[QUOTE=Bonde;51986895]I went to the Panzer Museum in Münster, Germany, and they had a small section dedicated to the late Cold War NATO strategy of using strategic bombing to halt a major offensive by the Warsaw Pact countries. It was chilling to see plans for whole belts of nuclear weapons being detonated down the entire length of Germany just to stop enemy troop movements.[/QUOTE]
Imagine being the poor sap that had to disarm the nuclear landmines in the Fulda Gap lol
[QUOTE=download;51989153]Nato had huge numbers of low yield tactical nuclear bombs deliverable by tactical aircraft, artillery guns and short ranged rockets, they didn't need to resort to strategic weapons to halt a Russian advance.[/QUOTE]
I think our friend is is referencing the deployment of nuclear weapons from strategic bombers or confusing the practice of strategic bombing with nuclear doctrine.
As an aside, "strategic" doesn't pertain to yield or use against non-military targets. Tactical nuclear weapons are primarily designed for use on the battlefield, in close proximity to friendly forces against enemy formations, presumably on allied soil. Strategic nuclear weapons are designed for use against enemy military infrastructure. A more apt set of terms would be "counterforce" and "countervalue", which are a set of strategy specifically denoting use against military targets and civil targets respectively, regardless of weapon yield, deployment method, or design.
NATO would have deployed tactical nuclear weapons to halt a Soviet advance and deployed strategic nuclear weapons to prevent Soviet retaliatory capabilities and disrupt command infrastructure. Both of these instances fall under "counterforce" because they're aimed at military target groups. Targeting of civil populations, cities, and industrial infrastructure would fall under "countervalue".
[QUOTE=NonVerorNex;51989512]I think our friend is is referencing the deployment of nuclear weapons from strategic bombers or confusing the practice of strategic bombing with nuclear doctrine.
As an aside, "strategic" doesn't pertain to yield or use against non-military targets. Tactical nuclear weapons are primarily designed for use on the battlefield, in close proximity to friendly forces against enemy formations, presumably on allied soil. Strategic nuclear weapons are designed for use against enemy military infrastructure. A more apt set of terms would be "counterforce" and "countervalue", which are a set of strategy specifically denoting use against military targets and civil targets respectively, regardless of weapon yield, deployment method, or design.
NATO would have deployed tactical nuclear weapons to halt a Soviet advance and deployed strategic nuclear weapons to prevent Soviet retaliatory capabilities and command infrastructure. Both of these instances fall under "counterforce" because they're aimed at military target groups. Targeting of civil populations, cities, and industrial infrastructure would fall under "countervalue".[/QUOTE]
Counterforce generally refers to using nuclear weapons against enemy nuclear weapons and support infrastructure, not military targets in general. It's a term almost exclusively used on the strategic scale, not tactical
Nato would also have little interest in escallating a limited tactical nuclear war to a full blown strategic nuclear (counter-force or otherwise).
[QUOTE=download;51989526]Counterforce generally refers to using nuclear weapons against enemy nuclear weapons and support infrastructure, not military targets in general. It's a term almost exclusively used on the strategic scale, not tactical
Nato would also have little interest in escallating a limited tactical nuclear war to a full blown strategic nuclear (counter-force or otherwise).[/QUOTE]
Counterforce refers to targets of military value, not specifically enemy nuclear weapons (as defined by Tirade Doctrine). Tactical nuclear weapons would have been used along side strategic weapons in a counterforce role, to eliminate Soviet response capacity. Perfect examples of this are the B61, PGM-19, Mk.45 ASTOR, ect... which all can be utilize in a counterforce or countervalue role.
NATO would not have had a choice in the matter, once the Soviets made their push in Europe and NATO responded, it would have been on the Soviets to escalate or limit their response.
[QUOTE=DOCTOR LIGHT;51989509]Imagine being the poor sap that had to disarm the nuclear landmines in the Fulda Gap lol[/QUOTE]
Sweating your fucking nuts off to successfully disarm it for your superior to be like "good job, soldier, only 9,253 left"
[QUOTE=NonVerorNex;51992682]Counterforce refers to targets of military value, not specifically enemy nuclear weapons (as defined by Tirade Doctrine).[/quote]
It really does not. I would strongly suggest you go do some research on the topic. It refers only to the suppression of enemy nuclear forces (i.e. weapons, delivery systems, C&C etc)
I'm not sure what you mean by "Tirade Doctrine"? Do you mean the nuclear triad?
[quote]Tactical nuclear weapons would have been used along side strategic weapons in a counterforce role, to eliminate Soviet response capacity. Perfect examples of this are the B61, PGM-19, Mk.45 ASTOR, ect... which all can be utilize in a counterforce or countervalue role.[/quote]
People might describe weapons as tactical or strategic, but the reality it's how they're used.
Using ASTOR as an example: a ship slugging a ballistic missile submarine with a nuclear weapon delivered by ASTOR is tactical. The action is conducted on the tactical level over very short ranges. The [I]overall operation[/I] (involving ships or various types, spotting aircraft, satellite reconnaissance etc) to suppress enemy SLBMs is strategic, but the action is tactical made by commanders in the field (or ocean).
[quote]NATO would not have had a choice in the matter, once the Soviets made their push in Europe and NATO responded, it would have been on the Soviets to escalate or limit their response.[/QUOTE]
Escalating to a strategic war equals in nearly all circumstances death for your nation and your enemies. Neither Nato or the Soviet union wished to commit national suicide.
The only time they will escalate (outside of an accident that is) is when they're very sure the strategic environment has changed enough they can reliably kill nearly every enemy strategic weapon capable of being delivered to their nation (i.e you've destroyed nearly every enemy SSBN and retain enough of your own SLBMs to reliably kill enemy ICBMs and airbases) or you believe that the enemy is about to launch their own first strike and you believe you need to destroy as many enemy nuclear weapons as possible to limit the damage to your nation.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
