|
You will notice that the only use of nukes in war was offensive, against a non-nuclear country. Everyone knows that nukes are either offensive (against non nuclear countries) or counterforce, not defensive weapons. A weak nuclear country (with only a few dozen warheads, cannot defend itself against a much stronger non-nuclear attack by a non-proliferation signatory. It can neither destroy the conventional weapons of its enemy or overcome the strength of the treaties guarantors. The powerful nuclear country with a few thousand warheads and stand off weapons, believes as a matter of strategy that it can obliterate anyone it wishes without starting World War III. A massive first strike by a country with first strike capability (i.e. the power to destroy the enemy's offensive forces by a counter-force attack without having to absorb unacceptable damage in reply) can obliterate any enemy. The United States possessed a first strike capacity many years but lacked the will to use it. The Soviets never had a first strike capability. I believe Stalin would have used the first strike capability had he possessed it. The immense nuclear and other build up in the early 1950's was critically important to establish the American lead. The critical defensive weapons are the ABM's. It will require either a blanket of many missiles or vastly improved capability of a smaller number. It will cost the U.S., the only country that could afford such a network, far more than we will spend. Even if we had a 100 per cent proof, our allies would be exposed to nuclear blackmail. Ordinary nukes as a defensive weapon are worthless. The U.S. won't use them defensively, and everyone knows that. Imagine twirps like Serbia seizing our troops. Why we could flatten them in a minute. But that would not save the prisoners. Better a couple of divisions and a fleet of helicopters, and forget about the nukes. |
