History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedUse of tactical mini nukes acceptabl

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Poll Question: Do you view the use or development of tactical mini nukes acceptable?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
6 [17.14%]
29 [82.86%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
malizai_ View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Alcinous

Joined: 05-Feb-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote malizai_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Use of tactical mini nukes acceptabl
    Posted: 10-Aug-2006 at 12:22
Is the use of tactical mini nukes acceptable in your view??
 
Isnt that a very slippery road to go down?
"We didnt land on Israel, Israel landed on us!!"--Palestinian X
antiwar.com
crimesofwar.org
Back to Top
Mila View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 4030
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mila Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Aug-2006 at 12:24
They can't even do regular tactical weapons right.

Now they'll just give the civilians they managed not to kill cancer.


Edited by Mila - 10-Aug-2006 at 12:25
[IMG]http://img272.imageshack.us/img272/9259/1xw2.jpg">
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: London
Status: Offline
Points: 8795
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Aug-2006 at 15:02
Any country that uses such weapons starts ww3 and a nuclear apocolypse.
Back to Top
Exarchus View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 18-Jan-2005
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 763
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Exarchus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Aug-2006 at 18:53
Totaly for, you can't get better than a Pluton to blow entire Soviet tank divisions in a single blow.


Ho well, the good old times.
Vae victis!
Back to Top
BMC21113 View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 17-Dec-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 359
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BMC21113 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Aug-2006 at 19:06
-NO!
"To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace"-George Washington
"The art of war is, in the last result, the art of keeping one's freedom of action."-Xenophon
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4617
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Aug-2006 at 07:46
NO!!
once you cross that line then it would be ok for some other country (or group) to use backpack/suitcase nukes 'tactically'. 
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Lord of Hut River Province Principality

Joined: 01-May-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5711
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Aug-2006 at 09:22
No, that just pushes us closer to the edge of using a full powered one.
It is not the challenges a people face which define who they are, but rather the way in which they respond to those challenges.

Back to Top
Desperado View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 27-Apr-2006
Location: Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Status: Offline
Points: 227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Desperado Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Aug-2006 at 09:29

Those who think that's acceptable just don't know what they're talkin about or preparing/excusing aggressive war on enemy territory, away from their own homes.
"Totaly for, you can't get better than a Pluton to blow entire Soviet tank divisions in a single blow."-will it be acceptable for you to do this in the centre of Paris? Just like it was acceptable to fight the Wehrmacht's panzer divisions a few decades earlier on the same place.
    

Edited by Desperado - 11-Aug-2006 at 09:31
Back to Top
Exarchus View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 18-Jan-2005
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 763
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Exarchus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Aug-2006 at 09:55
Mini Nukes are not designed to strike cities.

That alone answer your question.


If you want to torch a city first it's not a tactical strike but a strategic one, 2nd you don't do it with a mini nuke. The point saying it wouldn't be more acceptable to use mini-nuke over Paris was no different than sending German tanks in Paris doesn't stand (it was farting for the sake of farting).

Beside, with mini-nukes, German tanks (or Soviet ones, since they were meant to blow Soviet tanks) would never come even close to Paris.


Edited by Exarchus - 11-Aug-2006 at 09:59
Vae victis!
Back to Top
Desperado View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 27-Apr-2006
Location: Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Status: Offline
Points: 227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Desperado Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Aug-2006 at 10:22


"Mini Nukes are not designed to strike cities."-yes their main purpose is to blow tank divisions
The question was if the enemy is in your own city, will you try to stop it at the cost of the total destruction and radioactive polution for decades. Or you think Paris is immune to such events? Excuse me forgot the Maginot line!
The usage of tanks in urban warfare is another topic.
I was reffering to the heroic defence of Paris in WW2, and the annihilation of the german panzers that couldn't manage to come even close to Paris.

     

Edited by Desperado - 11-Aug-2006 at 10:38
Back to Top
Exarchus View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 18-Jan-2005
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 763
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Exarchus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Aug-2006 at 11:49
That's stupid and trolling statement.

You could say the same about any weapons; you don't use a mini-nuke on a city, simply it's stupid. Either you want to torch it and you simply nuke it, either if you want to destroy tank divisions you torch them before they reach the city. That's common sense.


PS: Modern nuclear weapons have a very limited fallout, the 50 megatons Tsar Bomba left a very limited amount of radioactivity. Ironicaly the most radioactive sea in the world in the Irish sea, thanks to Sellafield.
Vae victis!
Back to Top
Desperado View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 27-Apr-2006
Location: Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Status: Offline
Points: 227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Desperado Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Aug-2006 at 12:57
Sorry, if i've offended you. When i've mentioned Paris i meant that everywhere you use it it will be a place called by someone "My home". And while a conventional ammo would "only" stir it out the face of the earth-the nuclear will make it uninhabitable for a long.
The target of the mini-nukes are relatively small and well fortified strongholds, command bunkers etc, infact any static and invulnerable to conventional weapons target. The tactical nuclear weapons as a whole, are intended for operative targets: big static targets in the near rear, communication centres, concentration of manpower, ammo depoes etc. But exactly the tank divisions are the less proper target for a nuclear (especially with tactical and mini weapons) attack because:
1)the tanks themselves are difficult, virtually undestructible at ranges greater than 100m (for tactical nuclear weapons), they have a system for hermetization and airfiltering, anti-radioactive shielding-especially the Soviet ones from T55 onward.
2)the tank division is a very big target and usually occupies an area of a small town, while being concentrated for an attack, resting, refueling.
3)you must find it's dislocation near the front line and catch it when it's static.
The question is principal: to use it or not, but where to use it is not a question of choice but of an occasion-near yours or someone's home.
Back to Top
Exarchus View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 18-Jan-2005
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 763
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Exarchus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Aug-2006 at 13:14
Tanks can be destroyed by nuclear weapons, not by the fallout but by the explosion itself. And they have to leave a town at a point.

There are plenty of way to make a tactical nuke to land right on its targets. Even the cold war Hades models were guided by early drones. If the ennemy sends many tank divisions, send as many misssiles each on them. It's always a better solution that:

1. Leaving them conquering you.
2. Torching their cities

Those mention missiles deliver an explosion that's the equivalent of 80,000 tons of TNT, compared to Hiroshima that was 12,000 tons. The explosion alone would be enough to destroy a very large amount of tank. Actually a division, which it was meant to blow. And if it's not enough, then send another one.... it's not like if we were missing of those during the cold war.

Before you ask, yeah by modern standard 80ktons is a mini-nuke when a nuclear ballistic missile hold (at least) 1mton (the equivalent of 1,000,000 tons of TNT).

The mini-nukes you are refering to, specificaly, are bunker-busters bomb. These have a completly different purpose, and I wouldn't support their uses. Just like I don't support fragmentation bombs (those that end up leaving tons of anti-personnal mines and were used extensively in Iraq by the coalition, these are much more weapons of massive destruction that mini-nukes).

But to the question, overall, on all type of mini-nuke I say yes.

If the ennemy tanks arrive in your capital, you don't nuke your own city. You drop the whole stock on his country. As De Gaulle: "in a few decades we'll have enough power to kill 80 million Russians, you don't attack someone that can kill 80 million Russians even if you can kill 800 million French, accepting there are 800 million French of course". Those mini-nukes can be the last chance before a conventional defeat and the escalation to complete destruction.

But we never reached that point, thanks to those nuclear weapons and the dissuasion behind.

Tactical nuke, in that order, could be considered the last warning, if the ennemy can overcome them then it's the mutual destruction.
Vae victis!
Back to Top
Desperado View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 27-Apr-2006
Location: Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Status: Offline
Points: 227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Desperado Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Aug-2006 at 14:07
     Well generally it's not a question of Kts, classification to mini, micro and macro nuclear weapons. What's the difference between the usage of 10 micro or one big nukes? That's just a terminology. More important is the psychological and moral barrier for the use of nuclear weapons. Once passed, the end will be total annihilation. You may say that micro-nukes can be used only against terrorists, "evil" states, when the opposite side cannot afford counter strike or don't posses capable military potential to answer, as the Pentagon officials propose. It's a question of judgement and your own interest who's the "evil"-today it's Al-Qaeda, Saddam's Iraq, N. Korea, tomorrow it may be Red China, Jean-Marie Le Pen's France or Putin's Russia and whether to deliever the weapons of ultimate punishment(take a look at the Hiroshima thread)
Back to Top
Illuminati View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 08-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 949
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Illuminati Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 04:17
I see alot of people talking about how they would start WW3 and the such. I'd think that if a tactical nuke is used, there's a good chance WW3 is already raging. I can't see a weapon like this ever used except in the case of a total war.

If the use of tactical nukes against your enemy does them more damage then their backlash does you, then YES, their use is completely acceptable. There should be some rules to war, but for the most part, morals don't belong in war. Your objective is to win. Keeping in mind, that tactical nukes aren't designed to be used against cities. If you wanted to take out a city, you'd use a conventional strategic nuke. tactical nukes are for use on battlefields against enemy forces.

Remember, NATO Cold war dictrine called for the use of tactical nukes against advancing Soviet Armored divisions. Everyone in NATO knew it was the only possible way to stop a Soviet invasion force. A war with the USSR was seen as a total war, where their use would be legitimate. If there was simply a small border conflict like we see in Kashmir sometimes, then the use of tactical nukes would be far too disproportionate of a weapon to use.

Also, I don't agree with the premise of this poll. It isn't precise enough. There are many scenarios where the use of these weapons would be way over the top, and there are scenarios where they wouldn't be. It's ridiculous to try and apply some all-encompassing moral standard to armed conflict, as there are many diffferent degrees of conflicts.


Edited by Illuminati - 14-Aug-2006 at 04:44
Back to Top
Sparten View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Totalitarian Iconoclast

Joined: 18-Mar-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 5009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sparten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 04:43
The use of a nuclear weapon has inherently strategic consequences. So any advantage that it gives would be transitory. If a whole corps gets popped in a minute, the other guy will retaliate in some manner. There is no way he can ignore it.
 
And what is seen as a tactical strike by the attacker, could well be seen as a strategic one by the defender. So while say India may well think a nuclear strike on say Karachi Naval base would be a tactical strike, the citizens of karachi and the Gov of pakistan would likely see it as a strategic strike, and retaliate as such.
 
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".
Back to Top
Illuminati View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 08-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 949
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Illuminati Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 04:49
Quote The use of a nuclear weapon has inherently strategic consequences. So any advantage that it gives would be transitory. If a whole corps gets popped in a minute, the other guy will retaliate in some manner. There is no way he can ignore it.

True. Which is why they would only be effective if country A believes that even affer a counter-strike, country B, whom they attacked would be worse off. In the case of these weapons, you'd best know your enemy.

Quote
And what is seen as a tactical strike by the attacker, could well be seen as a strategic one by the defender. So while say India may well think a nuclear strike on say Karachi Naval base would be a tactical strike, the citizens of karachi and the Gov of pakistan would likely see it as a strategic strike, and retaliate as such.

In the example you presented, yes. But I could also come up with examples where it would be the other way around. I 'm trying to steer clear of specific scenarios because when dealing with war, we could come up with infinite scenarios. Again, their use would be completely dependant on the situation, and most importantly, what type fo retaliation you believe your enemy is capable of and willing to do.


Edited by Illuminati - 14-Aug-2006 at 04:52
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1211
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 14:23
Well, we might use the tacnukes to ged rid of those pesky martians who invaded us. Or where they from Venus? I don't remember exactly but I do know they were green. Oh yeah, and if you pour sea water on them they melt. Or they grow taller. Nukes! That would teach them to come after our women!
Back to Top
Genghis View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2657
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Genghis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 15:15

Mininukes probably aren't the best way to go about winning a war, as it poses to great a risk of full scale strategic retaliation.  The development of such weapons might be beneficial from a political perspective, but I don't think their use would be wise in all but the gravest of circumstances, or as retaliation.

PS-are you talking about the new type the USA is developing with less than 5 kT yield or the more run-of-the-mill tactical nukes?

Member of IAEA
Back to Top
Desperado View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 27-Apr-2006
Location: Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Status: Offline
Points: 227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Desperado Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Aug-2006 at 17:23

Originally posted by Illuminati Illuminati wrote:


Remember, NATO Cold war dictrine called for the use of tactical nukes against advancing Soviet Armored divisions. Everyone in NATO knew it was the only possible way to stop a Soviet invasion force.


If you post this on a "Warsaw pact vs NATO tank battles" topic in any tank fans forum (even here, in Modern warfare) the reaction from the US and UK members will be fierce
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.