Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes, definitely.

84 (53.8%)

Probably.

32 (20.5%)

Maybe, maybe not.

15 (9.6%)

Probably not.

14 (9%)

No, definitely not.

6 (3.8%)

Don't know.

5 (3.2%)

Total Members Voted: 155

[thobal]

By the way classical MAD doctrine is based on inflicting "unacceptable" losses to civilians. It's the first strike that only ever cares about strategical military targets.

I really hope that no one "in charge" of these sorts of things was ever stupid enough to follow "classical MAD doctrine" as you describe it. "Strategical military targets," as you call them, are the only target ever worth hitting.

Of course, in the terminology of nuclear war, there are two types of targets. Counter-Force and Counter-Value. I'm not going to explain this to you. If you dont know what those two terms mean, please google them.

It's technically illegal to target countervalue targets. It is also stupid if you have the accuracy to hit point targets(which both russia and america can do, and they are the only countries worth talking about when discussing nuclear war. Case in point: European nuclear strategy was always based upon responses to projected Russo-American nuclear contests.) Targetting countervalue is stupid because destruction of infrastructure and logistics targets bother cripples the opponent and leaves a larger number of his population alive to agitate for peace and just generally riot.

I'm not saying that we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But most of even combatant nations populations wouldnt be killed(famine and disease withstanding)

[DJ]

Destruction of infrastructure and military targets can quickly win a war, but sometimes you don't really want a quick end. Nothing gets rid of an enemy for good like good old genocide, and it's kinda hard to do that in peacetime.

[Lord Shonus]

First of all, let's look at counterforce target categories.

*Communications Relay systems
*Command and Control
Weapons Grade Material Manufacturing Reactors
Strategic Bomber Bases
*SSBN Dock and Service Bases
Intercontinental Missile Silos
Weapons Storage Depots
*Aircraft and Missile Factories

Entries with a * are almost by default located at least partially in or near major cities. Besides this, in the US most bomber bases have a city wrapped around them or within the blast radius. Besides this, all weapons have a CEP (Circular Error Probable). This means that you draw a circle around the target and the warhead will land somewhere in that radius. For the very best missiles, such as the decommisioned MX Peacekeeper or the remaining Minuteman IIIs, this is as low as 150 meters. Older and mobile missiles have a much greater radius. This means that there is a very high chance that collateral damage would be far higher than would be expected. Notably, the US would suffer far greater population losses than Russia would becuase Russian targerts are more isolated and because many Soviet-designed weapons still in use turned out to be far less accurate than NATO intelligence believed.

[Another]

thobal:
Here is a quote from 1980, Jimmy Carter

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

To continue to deter in an era of strategic nuclear equivalence, it is necessary to have nuclear (as well as conventional) forces such that in considering aggression against our interests any adversary would recognize that no plausible outcome would represent a victory or any plausible definition of victory. To this end and so as to preserve the possibility of bargaining effectively to terminate the war on acceptable terms that are as favorable as practical, if deterrence fails initially, we must be capable of fighting successfully so that the adversary would not achieve his war aims and would suffer costs that are unacceptable, or in any event greater than his gains, from having initiated an attack.

1) Do you really think he was talking about "suffer unacceptable costs" meaning losing some tanks, bombers, warships and factories that produce them?
2) What is the point in targeting enemy silos, aerodromes and subs after they had already launched their nukes towards your country anyway?
3) In the only historical precedent of actually using nuclear weapons they were specifically targeted at civilians.

[thobal]

What are you talking about?


Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both factory towns. Hiroshima had numerous military headquarters, supply depots, and was an important port. Nagsaki was a city of industry and one of the largest ports in Southern Japan. Both of these cities were important to the Japanese war efforts.

When you say "unacceptable losses", you might be talking about the factories that create the food we all eat. One of the key points of MAD doctrine is to destroy more industry that population, though I cant dig up a cite on this one.

[Another]

Was the bombing of Dresden in the pre-nukes era justified by military importance? That was the same strategy.

What about my second question? If you can already do nothing to prevent total destruction of your country (enemy missiles are already launched) and you still have some nuclear capabilities - why target enemy military at all? What other motives than revenge can exist in if it is not a First Strike? I know that revenge serves no purpose and is not a logical thing to do. How many generals think the same?

Food is not produced by factories. Most of it is grown on fields. Bombing the farmland doesn't seem like a good idea to me. It was not me who said "unacceptable losses" in the first place. It was Jimmy Carter. What did he mean again?

[Phmcw]

What are you talking about?


Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both factory towns. Hiroshima had numerous military headquarters, supply depots, and was an important port. Nagsaki was a city of industry and one of the largest ports in Southern Japan. Both of these cities were important to the Japanese war efforts.

When you say "unacceptable losses", you might be talking about the factories that create the food we all eat. One of the key points of MAD doctrine is to destroy more industry that population, though I cant dig up a cite on this one.

Yes and no. Both cities were big cities, and the whole Japanese economy was turned toward war. The aim of the bombardment were to end the war any way, to the strategic importance of the cities was not really important.
That was hell of an terrorist act, but those were so common at the time that you cannot especially blame the US ; everybody targeted everybody's civilian.

[Criptfeind]

What about my second question? If you can already do nothing to prevent total destruction of your country (enemy missiles are already launched) and you still have some nuclear capabilities - why target enemy military at all? What other motives than revenge can exist in if it is not a First Strike? I know that revenge serves no purpose and is not a logical thing to do. How many generals think the same?

That’s the whole point of MAD. If you are willing to do that, then nothing at all is stopping them from nuking you to hell.

If it actually happened? Then yes. You would have to do it. For if you were not to do it should it actually happen, then it is even more likely to happen.

Or, to put it another way, if you don’t have that mindset that will inevitably lead to retaliation, then you will be nuked because the enemy knows you will not do it.

[Bauglir]

You have to convince your opponent that you're irrational enough to target their population if you're the victim of a nuclear strike (or even some lesser attack), even though both of you know the rational course is to target the military (including whatever nuclear reserves they didn't launch in the first strike, since different weapons are suited to different uses and a first strike force would be your fast, precision weapons) or not launch at all (after all, it won't save your people, and may doom them to further bombing, as opposed to a relatively peaceful surrender).

[Nikov]

Honestly with the way Japanese industry worked in 1940 you had to bomb a city flat to get it to stop making war materials. You'd have little garage shops all over the city turning out individual parts in batches and the factories were really just assembly yards. Bomb an assembly plant and they'd put machine guns together in a movie theatre. This is why we firebombed so much of Japan but used targeted high explosive in Germany.

Shonus, I really don't understand what you're getting at. A missile hits within 150 meters of its aimpoint with ten thousand kilometers range. That's the definition of pinpoint accuracy when you're lofting twenty megaton hydrogen bombs. I never said cities won't be hit as a side effect, but you did say they couldn't aim for anything smaller than a city. Here we have the issue. Lastly, a B-52 dropping its payload from 400 feet with a drag chute is going to be on-the-nose accurate, so the missiles are only half the story.

[Il Palazzo]

Honestly with the way Japanese industry worked in 1940 you had to bomb a city flat to get it to stop making war materials. You'd have little garage shops all over the city turning out individual parts in batches and the factories were really just assembly yards. Bomb an assembly plant and they'd put machine guns together in a movie theatre.

Have you got any sources on that?

[Nikov]

I think I heard Robert MacNamara say something to that effect.

[Leafsnail]

Particularly, I'd be interested to hear you tell the survivors of the mass firebombing of Dresden that Germany was only bombed with targetted high explosives.

[Phmcw]

Particularly, I'd be interested to hear you tell the survivors of the mass firebombing of Dresden that Germany was only bombed with targetted high explosives.

Nikov never said "only".
Though he's a bit wrong, they used so much firebomb in Japan because it worked wonder on japaneser "wood and paper" houses, and way less well on German stone and brick houses.
The idea of not harming civilian was in nobody's mind at the time.

[Leafsnail]

I still think it would have to qualify as a notable exception, though, considering that tens of thousands died in that fire bombing.  Hamburg would also qualify as another exception... I dunno, I feel like there's too many exceptions to make a rule.