I have no way to evaluate the viability of such a scenario, that is true.
I am referring to the Arabs only to demonstrate that willingness to die in order to harm the United States is plausible. I bring up the surgical strike only because it is an instance where the terrorists might be punished without doing broad harm.
The whole point of MAD is to ensure survivability and a retaliatory capacity, in order to make a massive first strike undesirable. Thus, the gridlock. On the other hand, in order to make the possibility of first use of nukes plausible, the doctrine of flexible response developed, where a limited number of nukes, from battlefield tactical nukes through ICBMs, might come into play without the inevitability of massive retaliation, because it was still possible to limit damage on both sides. That is why escalation became a key concept in nuclear strategy, in discussing the risk of reaching the greatest level of nuclear exchange. In that context, rendering even low level exchanges pointless, from the theater level on, would pretty much put the final nail in the coffin of the large scale use of nukes........ |
