Extinction! Extinction I tells ya!
Which at that point attacking an army would be pointless.
But If you are amassing troops in a few locations naturally id just take them out. Which in theory leaves you defenseless. You might think it’s a waste but I dont.
And the second you launched them you would have your cities bases, even whole industrialized regions turned to glass with an overwhelming retaliatory strike.
And they would have the same in kind…which is the whole point why convention warfare Is dying.
You would Marshall a field army. I’d just blow it up.
Yes this is what we learned in Proud Prophet.
Which is the entire point of this thread.
Why in ■■■■ is the US war gaming “limited nuclear war” and “de-escalation strikes”?
Why did they put a weapon in the field designed for such ■■■■■■■■■ and why did they mount it on a missile where the enemy has to decide in mere minutes if it is a low yield weapon or a high yield weapon (based on its impact point and not what missile it’s riding on, since it’s the same damn missile our city busters are on).
These aren’t deterrence measures…they’re measures that make the possibility we do something stupid like “try to de-escalate” more likely.
Have we all forgotten already?
And your country would be turned into smoke, glass, and dust if you did.
You would waste your biggest deterrent to being nuked and lose your country in the process.
You would lose at least 90% of your remaining nukes in the retaliatory strikes and the US now has anti ballistic missile capability to take care of most of those when you launch them.
Brilliant strategy!
All that exercise proved is that IF people reacted as the gamers did we’d end up in a full on nuclear exchange.
In reality we’d have real people deciding wither or not all out nuclear devastation would be the appropriate answer to the use of a tactical nuke or the use of a nuke by a rogue regime.
Every country wants to survive the next war and they could not with an all out nuclear exchange.
Having smaller, low yield nukes gives us an answer and a deterrent to avoid a larger exchange.
Not unless both sides only have low yield nukes. If one or both have large nukes, they will use them if they think they will lose without using them. The truth is, a limited nuclear war is pretty much a myth.
You’re pretty well guaranteed to have no country left as soon as you launch any high yield weapon against another major nuclear power.
I don’t disagree, but that is not the point. The leaders of most countries would rather destroy everything than to lose the war so he who uses them first will at least have the satisfaction of having destroyed their opponent even as they themselves are destroyed.
I simply don’t believe that. They want to survive and not have to spend the next hundred generations living underground like rats.
I think you are missing the point here of what the discussion was about
no they want to win
You really need to stop buying into the Myth that America is unbeatable.
the pentagon has spent a lot of money to prove the scary reality that its untrue.
How do you win if you are dead and your county has been turned into a nuclear grave yard for decades to come?
Be specific won’t you?
No one wins a full scale nuclear war.
I wouldn’t call losing 90% of my population a win even if I managed to exterminate the enemy’s population. That’s a loss no matter what metrics you use.
2 Likes
You need to quit making things up. Nowhere have I ever said the US is unbeatable.
how does America win if Russia lunches 1,600 nuclear missiles them.
Nobody wins in that scenario except for China.
so the point of the OP is correct the concept of any type of use of nuclear weapon against another nuclear state would be dumb.
