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
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 17:28

Originally posted by Genghis Genghis wrote:


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?


Yes, that's the original reason for the thread, I think.
Not the "tank divisions blowers".
    
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 21:28
Just trying to make sure.
Member of IAEA
Back to Top
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 Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 11:39
Originally posted by Illuminati Illuminati wrote:

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.
 
I admit my limitations on discussing military matters and am braving the field by making the assertion that the cases highlihted by illuminati are more likely to be pulled off if only one side has the nukes. If both sides have it and one side brings it into use, than the outcome will be very much the case of fire at will from the other side. As sparten has said the enemy reaction is not based on your objectives and once that line is crossed it is nuclear war. Curse the day they were developed.
 
BTW, i think there have been some really good posts in this thread.Thumbs Up
"We didnt land on Israel, Israel landed on us!!"--Palestinian X
antiwar.com
crimesofwar.org
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: 15-Aug-2006 at 12:31
A nuclear strike is such an earth shattering event, the other guy has to react, in whatever way he can, whether ot not he has nuke. He could use poison gas, a fairly easy to manufacture, and urban areas, very devastating WMD.
 
Ah the progress of man!!
 
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".
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: 06-Jun-2008 at 15:51

The use of force is always a political decision. And right now, it is politically impossible to use nukes. Hence they have no use.

 
BTW someone move this to Geopolitical Institute. I seem to have lost mod powers here.
 
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".
Back to Top
Travis Congleton View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 198
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Travis Congleton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jun-2008 at 17:03
Voted before I understood the question.  I voted no (can't quite explain what I thought the question meant).
 
But to the question of 'Is the use of tactical mini-nukes acceptable in your view?'  My answer to that is, yes.  Any amount of force, no matter how lethal, should be at disposal at any given time.
 
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 994
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jun-2008 at 18:21
Chemical and biological weapons can be much more difficult to 'control' than small yield nuclear weapons.  Other than the 'technological' advantage of obtaining a relatively high yield from a smaller package, the target probably wouldn't really appreciate the difference between getting hit by a 'small' nuke vs. a large conventional weapon.   I appreciate the arguments to the effect that, in a sense, a 'threshold' is being crossed by using any 'nuclear' weapon.   However, in a 'moral' sense I have difficulty accepting any argument that says it is OK to kill one way (e.g. a massive fuel-air explosion) but not another (mini-nuke).
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Travis Congleton View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 198
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Travis Congleton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jun-2008 at 18:43
Agreed.
 
If you don't want atrocities; don't war.
Back to Top
Jonathan4290 View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 03-Mar-2008
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 185
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jonathan4290 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jun-2008 at 23:32

I voted no because of the long(er) term effects of any nuclear device. I see a difference between killing your enemy and killing your enemy, his children and grandchildren through radiation; he's not always going to be your enemy.

I can't understand why any country would want to use any sort of tactical nuke. Even if it was like 0.0000000001 kiloton, the headline would still say "[Country] uses nukes" and would be crucified by the international community.
 
However, I've read that the US uses some uranium-based weapons such as artillery shells and armour which are having a seriously negative effect on everyone's health involved.
Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing?
Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com.
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 994
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2008 at 02:36
The US was using 'depleted uranium' armour piercing rounds.  It was largely about the high density, however, there was some radiation generated as a 'side effect'.  The US seems to get 'crucified' in some quarters no matter what it does, even using (relatively) high precision guided conventional munitions.  Not that people want to hear about it, but with recent weapons development, the radiation is 'minimized' relative to the size of the blast.  The early nuclear weapons were relatively inefficient and 'dirty'.  Chemical and biological weapons also have wide spread and lasting effects, as well as being much hard to 'target' narrowly.

Edited by deadkenny - 07-Jun-2008 at 02:36
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Travis Congleton View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 198
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Travis Congleton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2008 at 12:43
Originally posted by Jonathan4290 Jonathan4290 wrote:

I see a difference between killing your enemy and killing your enemy, his children and grandchildren through radiation; he's not always going to be your enemy.
First Mentality: 'You phuck with me and I will kill you, your children and your grand children'.
 
Second Mentality: 'ok, we are now enemies.  Let's fight fair and honorable.  What rules of engagements would you like to fight under?  Hey, you're not fightin' fair.  Why are you doing this?  Come on, let's negotiate.  I are willing to compromise with you.'
 
Who appears weaker?  Who is more intimidating?  Remember, though war is just another form of political action, so is intimidation.  Every nation needs to realize that if mess with your nation, its a No-Holds Bar event.
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Porphyrygenitus Augustii

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1923
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2008 at 13:13

No - a nuke is still a nuke, and mini-nukes are still immensely powerful and fallout can spread to other areas. When we say "tactical mini nukes" we only mean small to the comparison of the cruise missiles and ICBMs of today - they're still about the same size as little boy and fat man.

"Don't raise your voice - we all know how lovely it is!"
Triano, in "Mosterella" by Plautus! Read it...now!
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: 07-Jun-2008 at 15:24
"Its not how big it is, but how you use it". A 100 MT bomb on an armoured division is a tactical strike (not to mention really cool fireworks). A 1Kt bomb on a city is a strategic strike. During the cold war, several Pershing missile designed for use on the battlefield had warheads of several hundred Kt, and were tactical, warhead on Posidon SLBM were of 50 kt and were strategic since the use was strategic.
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1809
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2008 at 16:00
Several germs and pests can end the any country ever producing grain for centuries, in my opinion this and chemicals are far more useful since they have more fear factor. Of course it all depend, if you are willing to accept that your enemy use WMDs on you then use whatever WMD you want. But crying foul when your enemy, which by the way you chose to be its enemy not the other way round, is trying to acquire the same technology you threaten to use against him is a bit hypocritical espcially that your official stance is "no for WMD or their use".
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Jonathan4290 View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 03-Mar-2008
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 185
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jonathan4290 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2008 at 17:37
Originally posted by Travis Congleton Travis Congleton wrote:

Originally posted by Jonathan4290 Jonathan4290 wrote:

I see a difference between killing your enemy and killing your enemy, his children and grandchildren through radiation; he's not always going to be your enemy.
First Mentality: 'You phuck with me and I will kill you, your children and your grand children'.
 
Second Mentality: 'ok, we are now enemies.  Let's fight fair and honorable.  What rules of engagements would you like to fight under?  Hey, you're not fightin' fair.  Why are you doing this?  Come on, let's negotiate.  I are willing to compromise with you.'
 
Who appears weaker?  Who is more intimidating?  Remember, though war is just another form of political action, so is intimidation.  Every nation needs to realize that if mess with your nation, its a No-Holds Bar event.
 
You make a great point and are exactly right. This is why I believe that leaders would never actually use nukes. Instead they are just making it seem they have the first mentality for a strong and threatening appearance.
Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing?
Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2008 at 19:08
It is not that "tactical" nukes can't be used in battlefields. They can. The small problem is that if the enemy retaliates with hydrogen bombs, nobody would complain.
 
In fact, in these days, if people have not noticed it, it is impossible to start wars between superpowers simply because they will degenate in massive nuclear strikes. It is quite easy for Russia or China to blew up Europe or the United States out of existence in a single afternoon of boring video gamming. They won't attack simply because they know theirs own country would evaporate in the process.
 
Today wars are mainly between superpower and small rebelious third war countries. It can't be otherwise. Not even a strong warrior platform like a U.S. carrier can stand a single strike of the weakest nuke.
 
For people nostalgic about old war massacres, devasted cities and concentration camps, let invite them to aliviate theirs boredoom playing Sega, or voluntiering as mercenary in Africa. The rest of us, rational and reasonable people, let's try to stop wars, cut military expending, and send militaries to do something useful for a change -working, for example- instead of training to kill people.
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 07-Jun-2008 at 19:11
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
Jonathan4290 View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 03-Mar-2008
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 185
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jonathan4290 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2008 at 20:56
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Not even a strong warrior platform like a U.S. carrier can stand a single strike of the weakest nuke.
 
To apply your point to a broader context: Robert McNamara stated that he believes nuclear parity between the US and Russia existed even in 1962 when the US had 5000 nukes to Russia's 300. The reason is that no people will support a government that is willing to accept a nuclear strike on itself.
Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing?
Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com.
Back to Top
Travis Congleton View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 198
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Travis Congleton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2008 at 22:13
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

For people nostalgic about old war massacres, devasted cities and concentration camps,...
Define 'old war'.  Are you telling me that *new* wars don't have massacres, devastated cities and/or concentration camps?
 
Is World War I old?  World War II?  Are they in the same category of old as, let us say, the Punic Wars or Thirty Years' War?
 
Is the Vietnam war considered old?  Only 50K+ American soldiers killed (not including in this list is the wounded; permanent injuries either physical or mental).  But what about the 1 million plus casaulties on the Vietnam population.  Is that number acceptable to you?
 
I think the only people that are nostalgic about the old wars are either dead, still in the military, or incapable of being a proficient soldier.  I haven't seen any of these people (at least not on the forums I have been on), that wish to see the good ol' wars of past years.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2008 at 23:13
Very simple, Old Wars are those where nuclear weapons are not involved. The first time we met a real "New" War, I am afraid will be the last.
 
With respect to the U.S. in Vietnam, Russia in Afganistan and other more recent cases  where a superpower has impossed its will against poor countries, of course the casualities have been many for the victims of the ambitions of the superpowers.
 
That's why many poor countries today see nukes as the only way to convince the U.S. or Russia to leave them alone. It is know  they don't attack people that has nukes.
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 07-Jun-2008 at 23:15
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2008 at 23:18
Originally posted by Jonathan4290 Jonathan4290 wrote:

... 
To apply your point to a broader context: Robert McNamara stated that he believes nuclear parity between the US and Russia existed even in 1962 when the US had 5000 nukes to Russia's 300. The reason is that no people will support a government that is willing to accept a nuclear strike on itself.
 
Absolutely.
 
But is not only people's will what goes on in here. No people will survive a government that launch a nuclear strike; not even the people that makes the very government! That makes them to become rational.
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
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.