Nuclear arsenals
Δημοσιεύτηκε: 17 Μαρ 2021, 10:18
British nuclear arsenal to be increased by 40%, BJ announced.
It makes me curious though as to how this is to be used, if ever.
Extreme threat from an enemy might be the answer. Ok, sounds logical, but I never understood how a nuke war might actually work.
Consider the last war.
The biggest operation was D-day. On the 6th of June 1944 the allies launched a surprise attack against the German defenses in Normandy. The objective was to secure the four beaches and then proceed inland. The operation was a success, partly because Adolph Hitler was asleep on the crucial morning.
But what if Hitler possessed nukes ? A single bomb would be sufficient ot wipe out the entire invasion fleet and there would be no Normandy invasion. By the same token, for the allies too it would n't make sense to embark on the operation at all.
What about Stalingrad and the operation blau in 1942 ? The Germans were held for four months outside the city of Stalingrad and in the end they were encircled and defeated when the Soviet reinforcements arrived. In this case if nukes existed they might have settled the argument much quicker one way or the other.
In modern warfare it is considered of vital importance to secure the axis Saxony-Westfalia in Germany. In this case if we are the Warsaw pact or Putin and succeed in doing this, we have NATO on the run.
But again is that so ? NATO will use neutron bombs and wipe out the Russians from that place.
Then the Russians will respond in kind and hit London-Birmingham-Paris-Rome and NATO will retaliate against Moscow and so on and so forth.
So therefore, I don't see how those all important land battles of the last wars will be restaged and give victory to one side or the other.
We won't see the likes of Normandy-Stalingrad-Bagration-Anzio-Ardennes and all the rest. How ?
If we look at all this as pacifists then it's terrible, it should n't happen.
But if we look at it as militarists, it begs the question who wins and how in a nuclear war ?
I don't know if the military has an answer and what that answer might be. But I do know that in world wars I and II the militaries were fooled into thinking in terms of the older wars and many strategic mistakes were committed - e.g. the fall of France in 1940. The techological advances and their consequences were disregarded on many occasions with dire results.
It makes me curious though as to how this is to be used, if ever.
Extreme threat from an enemy might be the answer. Ok, sounds logical, but I never understood how a nuke war might actually work.
Consider the last war.
The biggest operation was D-day. On the 6th of June 1944 the allies launched a surprise attack against the German defenses in Normandy. The objective was to secure the four beaches and then proceed inland. The operation was a success, partly because Adolph Hitler was asleep on the crucial morning.
But what if Hitler possessed nukes ? A single bomb would be sufficient ot wipe out the entire invasion fleet and there would be no Normandy invasion. By the same token, for the allies too it would n't make sense to embark on the operation at all.
What about Stalingrad and the operation blau in 1942 ? The Germans were held for four months outside the city of Stalingrad and in the end they were encircled and defeated when the Soviet reinforcements arrived. In this case if nukes existed they might have settled the argument much quicker one way or the other.
In modern warfare it is considered of vital importance to secure the axis Saxony-Westfalia in Germany. In this case if we are the Warsaw pact or Putin and succeed in doing this, we have NATO on the run.
But again is that so ? NATO will use neutron bombs and wipe out the Russians from that place.
Then the Russians will respond in kind and hit London-Birmingham-Paris-Rome and NATO will retaliate against Moscow and so on and so forth.
So therefore, I don't see how those all important land battles of the last wars will be restaged and give victory to one side or the other.
We won't see the likes of Normandy-Stalingrad-Bagration-Anzio-Ardennes and all the rest. How ?
If we look at all this as pacifists then it's terrible, it should n't happen.
But if we look at it as militarists, it begs the question who wins and how in a nuclear war ?
I don't know if the military has an answer and what that answer might be. But I do know that in world wars I and II the militaries were fooled into thinking in terms of the older wars and many strategic mistakes were committed - e.g. the fall of France in 1940. The techological advances and their consequences were disregarded on many occasions with dire results.