Let's talk about the nukes

[Myth]

Well guys, since apparently knights and horse archers are considered obsolete in deciding armed conflict (but they still have my heart), I'd like to talk nuclear weapons.

I did make a similar post a while back, asking why Israel could proliferate but Iran couldn't. But now I was thinking - how likely is it that nations would actually use nukes? I think it is readily apparent to everyone apart from Mahmud the Jihadi that nukes mean we all die horribly anyway.

MAD means we all lose. So, they've been acting as a deterrent to serious wars between first world superpowers until now. What do you think would it take for any nation to use them?

In nato we have France, England and the USA. Other nuclear capable countries are Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and probably Iran and North Korea, though the latter two lack the means of delivering them anywhere meaningful. Well, apart from Seoul.

I think that no country, general, world leader or lobbyist would be stupid enough to consider actual nuclear war. Even if the tanks start rolling, I think they would hold them back. Yes, even Putin. Because once they've been let loose retaliation is 100% guaranteed.

India has a politic of only using them in retaliation, so they're safest on the list. I think the UK and France are the more mature of the three NATO members that have nukes. Plus, they can always fall back on longbowmen and gendarmes.

China has the advantage of nobody being stupid enough to try and start a land war with them on their own territory and a complete lack of means to project power outside its borders. Essentially, they're not a player on the international military scene, unless they want to roll boots and tanks somewhere, but they have nowhere to go. They can't walk to Japan, they don't want to mess with Russia and India and Korea are boring and dangerous.

Pakistan I know little about, same about Israel. As far as nukes go, they are the wildcards for me.

The USA and Russia I think will be holding back until something provokes one to act on behalf of some other country.

Best Korea has an insane enough leader, but they're too far away to matter.

[Hooahguy]

Well the unspoken word about nukes and Israel is that they would use them in their Sampson Option, where in the case that Israel would be overrun they would launch them at various capitals in the world. Most likely Arab capitals.

[Papewaio]

If ISIS got momentum and significant territory I bet the option of small tactical nukes would be considered.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If ISIS got momentum and significant territory I bet the option of small tactical nukes would be considered.

I bet it wouldn't.

If it gets that bad we'll end up invading.

Tactical Nukes are used tactically, when you need to send an F-16 to hole a damn, for example, or when you need to hit an underground bunker - but even then we have conventional bunker busters.

If you're talking about destroying key IS strongholds, you'd be using small Strategic nukes.

[Papewaio]

If ISIS got momentum and significant territory I bet the option of small tactical nukes would be considered.

[rory_20_uk]

Between cluster bombs and MOABs, there are enough things to conventionally deal with ISIS: they have nothing that is so heavily armoured that a nuke is required.

There are even other options such as nerve gasses that could be used extremely effectively on low tech forces like ISIS and would be inactive in days of use.

Nukes are the ultimate MAD weapon. They have no use apart from assuring others you'll never die alone.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If ISIS got momentum and significant territory I bet the option of small tactical nukes would be considered.

Stuck in a time warp?

[Myth]

If ISIS got momentum and significant territory I bet the option of small tactical nukes would be considered.

Isis won't last, they are doomed. They have no heavy armour, no SAM apart from shoulder mounted crap, absolutely no airforce, poor intelligence and in general they're your typical band of ragheads with AKs and yatagans.

France, the UK and the US can plop down a few carrier groups and sweep them off the map.

ISIS with modern tech AND training to use it would be dangerous. But who would give them tanks and SAMs?

[Hooahguy]

ISIS already has tanks that they captured from fleeing Iraqis. Whether or not they use them effectively is up for debate.

[Ice]

In nato we have France, England and the USA. Other nuclear capable countries are Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and probably Iran and North Korea, though the latter two lack the means of delivering them anywhere meaningful. Well, apart from Seoul.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCpjgl2baLs

[Papewaio]

Stuck in a time warp?

No, I don't believe that any option is off the table if:
a) It's in the armory
b) There is a serious enough situation to warrant it
c) Drums of war prevail

So there are tactical nukes.
If ISIS next terrorist attack is an order of magnitude larger then 9/11 and they make significant headway towards a Caliphate or they are at Israel's doorstep.

Then we will see an escalation of weapons used.

If ISIS still maintains momentum then heavier and heavier weapons would be brought in until nukes are used. Only UN veto ISIS hasn't attacked is China. Do that and the entire security council will not veto an attack.

Likelyhood bugger all. Has the nuclear weapon age ended probably, but they said that about history too...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, I don't believe that any option is off the table if:
a) It's in the armory
b) There is a serious enough situation to warrant it
c) Drums of war prevail

So there are tactical nukes.
If ISIS next terrorist attack is an order of magnitude larger then 9/11 and they make significant headway towards a Caliphate or they are at Israel's doorstep.

Then we will see an escalation of weapons used.

If ISIS still maintains momentum then heavier and heavier weapons would be brought in until nukes are used. Only UN veto ISIS hasn't attacked is China. Do that and the entire security council will not veto an attack.

Likelyhood bugger all. Has the nuclear weapon age ended probably, but they said that about history too...

Maybe you didn't understand my point - there's no conceivable scenario where a tactical nuke would be wiser, cheaper, or more effective against IS than a conventional alternative.

A lot of tactical Nukes were designed to stop a massed Russian tank advance where NATO armour would be overwhelmed by Russian numbers. In that scenario tactical nukes were a way of "thinning out" the Russian divisions because you could fire multiple rounds quickly and each shell would knock out at least one tank.

In reality we learned in the 1980's after Russia opened up that our gunnery was so much better, and our manual loaders so much faster than their auto-loaders, that we didn't need to "thin them out", because our weapons and crews were significantly better.

IS's armour situation is even more asymmetrical. Assuming IS had 30 tanks you could probably drop a British tank squadron in (16 tanks) and just wipe the floor with them without losing a man. Their crews will be of poor quality, their hulls aren't proof against our shells and their guns can't puncture Chobbham armour because they're so out of date.

I honestly DON'T think anyone would consider using tactical nukes against them, it's so obviously a pointless waste of money.

[Husar]

IS's armour situation is even more asymmetrical. Assuming IS had 30 tanks you could probably drop a British tank squadron in (16 tanks) and just wipe the floor with them without losing a man. Their crews will be of poor quality, their hulls aren't proof against our shells and their guns can't puncture Chobbham armour because they're so out of date.

That's a pretty mean comment to make about Abrams tanks, especially considering they got your Chobham, too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB-X4BNAtu4

I agree though that tactical nukes seem like a bit much. You take out a "Chobham tank" using a missile and there are plenty of those in the US arsenal, they may already have dropped plenty of LGBs onto them, that also does the trick.

[Hooahguy]

Be aware though the Abrams tanks that they captured are the export version which has much inferior armor. The export versions are given inferior armor for this very reason. The biggest proof of this is that the US version of the Abrams can survive a direct ATGM hit while the export version gets blown to smithereens as has been shown in many videos put out by IS.

[Papewaio]

I'm not talking about using them on armour.

I'm talking 30k plus dead due to a terrorist attack on a large city think sarin or dirty bomb. With more to come.

Would the present powers do a Dresden and would they use waves of bombers and drones with conventional fire bombs or cut the chase and use Hiroshima scale nukes to stop ISIS?

[Husar]

Be aware though the Abrams tanks that they captured are the export version which has much inferior armor. The export versions are given inferior armor for this very reason. The biggest proof of this is that the US version of the Abrams can survive a direct ATGM hit while the export version gets blown to smithereens as has been shown in many videos put out by IS.

I thought the Iraqi government were your best buddies. I almost thought they may have a weaker version, but to have it that weak seems a bit much. Wasn't Chobham replaced with Dor(k)chester anyway? As for surviving an ATGM hit, depends on the angle and the ATGM I guess, I don't think they have lots of deleted Plutoniumham or so on the roof yet for example.

Either way, planes have plenty of ways to dispose of tanks, a 250 or 500kg steel container full of explosives also works as I mentioned, it's what they used a lot in Libya I assume since I vividly remember how the French and British ran out of the guided ones and couldn't attack tanks anymore because the unguided ones tend to miss moving targets too much I guess.

Mini nukes are more for taking out entire platoons or even whatever is above a platoon.

[Montmorency]

Pape, please: nukes are psychological weapons.

Using nukes on ISIS would be as effective at stopping them as would using a Halloween mask on a toddler.

[Myth]

Pape, please: nukes are psychological weapons.

Using nukes on ISIS would be as effective at stopping them as would using a Halloween mask on a toddler.

Isis toddlers handle AK-47s, they don't have halloween.

[Gilrandir]

Well guys, since apparently knights and horse archers are considered obsolete in deciding armed conflict


This is so wrong. The HA were instrumental in my last armed conflict with the Byz.




I think the UK and France are the more mature of the three NATO members that have nukes. Plus, they can always fall back on longbowmen and gendarmes.


Don't forget the billmen.



China has the advantage of nobody being stupid enough to try and start a land war with them on their own territory and a complete lack of means to project power outside its borders. Essentially, they're not a player on the international military scene, unless they want to roll boots and tanks somewhere, but they have nowhere to go. They can't walk to Japan, they don't want to mess with Russia and India and Korea are boring and dangerous.


China knows better than to use brutal force trying to capture more territory. By wise policy towards Russia, for example, it gets what it wants without much attention from others:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/700a9450-1b26-11e5-8201-cbdb03d71480.html#axzz3sbw1k4fT




The USA and Russia I think will be holding back until something provokes one to act on behalf of some other country.



The problem with Russia's nukes is their obsolence and unpredictability. The last nuclear test in Russia happened when there was no Russia, but the USSR - in 1990. What do you think is the technical condition of weapons (or any technical appliance, in fact) if it hasn't been used or even tested for a quarter of a century? Would you like to take part in a race driving a car that has been kept intact in a garage for this long? The chances are that such devices will cause more trouble to the owners than be of any help.


Isis won't last, they are doomed. They have no heavy armour, no SAM apart from shoulder mounted crap, absolutely no airforce, poor intelligence and in general they're your typical band of ragheads with AKs and yatagans.


The same was thought of Afghan mujahideen, yet they "lasted" for ten years and eventually "outlasted" the Soviets.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's a pretty mean comment to make about Abrams tanks, especially considering they got your Chobham, too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB-X4BNAtu4

I agree though that tactical nukes seem like a bit much. You take out a "Chobham tank" using a missile and there are plenty of those in the US arsenal, they may already have dropped plenty of LGBs onto them, that also does the trick.

Well, bear in mind that even the American Abrams has inferior armour than what's on the modern British tanks. Abrams armour is the same on that used on British tanks 30 years ago whilst the armour on modern British tanks is only about 20 years old.


I'm not talking about using them on armour.

I'm talking 30k plus dead due to a terrorist attack on a large city think sarin or dirty bomb. With more to come.

Would the present powers do a Dresden and would they use waves of bombers and drones with conventional fire bombs or cut the chase and use Hiroshima scale nukes to stop ISIS?

This is, per definition, the strategic use of nuclear weapons. You would not use the tactical nukes for this sort of thing, you would use a single smaller strategic nuke to flatten the city.

In a scenario where IS has access to weapons of mass destruction (and use them) then the US etc. would consider the use of strategic nuclear weapons as a retaliatory move. However, it's highly unlikely they would do it because then you lose the moral high ground, having declared nuclear war on someone.

I already made this point in post #4, so you clearly didn't read it and just repeated yourself hoping to incite a different answer.

-1 Internets.

[Hooahguy]

I thought the Iraqi government were your best buddies. I almost thought they may have a weaker version, but to have it that weak seems a bit much.

Ha! I'm not sure on the specifics but from what I have heard, the export versions of the Abrams has no sort of advanced armor at all. From what I've been told, the exports just have plain old steel armor. For this exact reason, the US doesn't want to have to fight captured armor or even worse, have the enemy reverse engineer the armor.

[Papewaio]

This is, per definition, the strategic use of nuclear weapons. You would not use the tactical nukes for this sort of thing, you would use a single smaller strategic nuke to flatten the city.

In a scenario where IS has access to weapons of mass destruction (and use them) then the US etc. would consider the use of strategic nuclear weapons as a retaliatory move. However, it's highly unlikely they would do it because then you lose the moral high ground, having declared nuclear war on someone.

I already made this point in post #4, so you clearly didn't read it and just repeated yourself hoping to incite a different answer.

-1 Internets.

MAD is strategic nukes and they have several disadvantages. They are ICBMs and launching of them have a host of issues: other nuclear powers misunderstanding the strike, weapon blowing up in its silo or over friendly territory, inaccuracy (whole point of MIRVs is saturation).

Modern tactical nukes are more powerful then then ones used against Japan. They can be delivered more accurately via bomber using bombs or cruise missile. They are used on relatively safe to launch and tested tech vs ICBMs.

Also personally I don't see the difference in killing people with conventional vs nuclear. Iraq number of dead is greater then nukes. A scaled up war with a Caliphate would be in the multiple of millions... When things get to that scale and western cities get hit with mass casualties greater then 9/11 I can't see nukes not being considered. Deployed doubtful but it would be on an ROI basis just like invading Japan or nuking it was.

[Myth]

The difference is that conventional ways of killing millions don't leave a radioactive wasteland after them and especially that they don't spawn radioactive clouds that could drift towards Europe and Israel.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

MAD is strategic nukes and they have several disadvantages. They are ICBMs and launching of them have a host of issues: other nuclear powers misunderstanding the strike, weapon blowing up in its silo or over friendly territory, inaccuracy (whole point of MIRVs is saturation).

Modern tactical nukes are more powerful then then ones used against Japan. They can be delivered more accurately via bomber using bombs or cruise missile. They are used on relatively safe to launch and tested tech vs ICBMs.

Also personally I don't see the difference in killing people with conventional vs nuclear. Iraq number of dead is greater then nukes. A scaled up war with a Caliphate would be in the multiple of millions... When things get to that scale and western cities get hit with mass casualties greater then 9/11 I can't see nukes not being considered. Deployed doubtful but it would be on an ROI basis just like invading Japan or nuking it was.

Per definition attacking a city with a nuke is strategic, and if you look it up you'll see that the dividing line between "tactical" and "strategic" with nukes is really use more than payload.

[Greyblades]

Huh, I walked in to this thread thinking it would be a "lets get rid of trident" thread.

I'm not sure why I did, I'm fairly sure myth isn't British.

[Papewaio]

The difference is that conventional ways of killing millions don't leave a radioactive wasteland after them and especially that they don't spawn radioactive clowds that can drift towards Europe and Israel.

Europe has been happy to test much larger nuclear weapons in Australia and in the Pacific...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Europe has been happy to test much larger nuclear weapons in Australia and in the Pacific...

Decades ago.

[Myth]

Europe has been happy to test much larger nuclear weapons in Australia and in the Pacific...

And before that It has been happy to colonize the Americas and Australia, what is your point?

[Husar]

And before that It has been happy to colonize the Americas and Australia, what is your point?

He was just pointing out the typical European double standards and I agree with him.

[Papewaio]

Decades ago.

19 years ago and 170 plus tests since the '60s for one EU country to be pedantic. Stopped only after protests and state sponsored terrorism to try and prevent those protests.

So if the EU will happily irradiate its territories and former colonies for science, I'm fully confident that they would do the same in the ME for economics er war on terror.

[Montmorency]

There is potential value in irradiating your own territory through tests. There is pretty-much never value in doing so to any territory in the context of a war.

Why don't you grasp this distinction?

[Greyblades]

Well heck, now you've got me wishing this was a lets get rid of trident thread, at least it wouldnt be as pointless as trying to guilt europe over irradiating uninhabitd islands and uninhabitable deser.

[Papewaio]

There is potential value in irradiating your own territory through tests. There is pretty-much never value in doing so to any territory in the context of a war.

Why don't you grasp this distinction?

I do grasp the distinction.

If you are prepared to irradiate your own territory for science why wouldn't you be prepared to irradiate an enemies territory to wipe out a pest if the ROI was there.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I do grasp the distinction.

If you are prepared to irradiate your own territory for science why wouldn't you be prepared to irradiate an enemies territory to wipe out a pest if the ROI was there.

Because it never makes strategic sense.

Also, I want to hear about these more recent tests - because afaik Britain stopped in the late 50's.

[Montmorency]

If you are prepared to irradiate your own territory for science why wouldn't you be prepared to irradiate an enemies territory to wipe out a pest if the ROI was there.

I'm precisely saying that there is no ROI in that case. That's the point.

Think back to chemical weapons. They're pretty much useless from a tactical or strategic PoV, but if the enemy is using them then you might as well do it too, no? Think: the 2013 Syria kerfuffle over the matter drives home the point. By the time everyone stopped caring, small-scale deployment of chemical weapons increased massively for all participants, such that most recorded instances of deployment occurred in the past 1.5 years. It makes about as much tactical difference as blindly mortar-shelling an enemy outpost in the night does. But it's out there, so might as well use it. Why not? It isn't as though the UN will suddenly deploy a million-strong Grand Armee to pacify the region on that account.

It's just the same with nukes, except the procurement is much costlier and riskier, and - crucially - while mutual usage of chemical weapons or indiscriminate mortar/rocket fire might kill a few hundred civilians and enlisted fellows, mutual usage of nuclear weapons on the scale where they actually have a direct impact on frontline operations brings whole states to their knees.

[Papewaio]

Because it never makes strategic sense.

Also, I want to hear about these more recent tests - because afaik Britain stopped in the late 50's.

Despite beliefs otherwise UK is not the entirety of the EU or NATO...

[Kralizec]

Pretty sure Papewaio is talking about French nuclear tests during Chirac's presidency. That was a big thing when I was growing up if I recall correctly.

I was going to post something like "There's no double standard, there are no European countries in the pacific" but I guess that it would be the wrong subject to joke about.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Pretty sure Papewaio is talking about French nuclear tests during Chirac's presidency. That was a big thing when I was growing up if I recall correctly.

I was going to post something like "There's no double standard, there are no European countries in the pacific" but I guess that it would be the wrong subject to joke about.

Well, as I'm not French and they weren't set off in Australia I feel I can stand by my original point.

Anyway - this still doesn't excuse Pape's willful confusion of tactical and strategic use of nukes or his fantastical claim that we might use them against IS.

[Papewaio]

It was your assumption that we need to use strategic nukes against a non nuclear power.

Imagine this scenario.

Al Qaeda mk III / ISIS mk II... You can't kill a concept only its current adherents.

Kill 30,000 plus in the next terrorist attack. Not unimaginable just a matter of a twin tower type attack hitting whilst it is fully occupied.
Add in a few large massacres of 200,000 plus civilians.
Then conventional bombing being not effective enough.
Then estimates of soldier deaths to contain the menace at over a million.

In other words Japan circa WWII.

If it was justified then, why not now? Or was it a war crime then and the ROI was much more expensive too given the cost per war head has plummeted.

=][=

BTW France it is and the French Territories in the Pacific are part of France. So yes you can have EU countries land in the pacific. However as seen in this thread no EU country would test the bombs in Europe. God bless hypocrisy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It was your assumption that we need to use strategic nukes against a non nuclear power.

Imagine this scenario.

Al Qaeda mk III / ISIS mk II... You can't kill a concept only its current adherents.

Kill 30,000 plus in the next terrorist attack. Not unimaginable just a matter of a twin tower type attack hitting whilst it is fully occupied.
Add in a few large massacres of 200,000 plus civilians.
Then conventional bombing being not effective enough.
Then estimates of soldier deaths to contain the menace at over a million.

In other words Japan circa WWII.

If it was justified then, why not now? Or was it a war crime then and the ROI was much more expensive too given the cost per war head has plummeted.

=][=

BTW France it is and the French Territories in the Pacific are part of France. So yes you can have EU countries land in the pacific. However as seen in this thread no EU country would test the bombs in Europe. God bless hypocrisy.

The Japanese bombings were strategic - two bombs to end the war - a demonstration that the Allies could literally destroy Japan.

In the case of a punitive strike to "defeat IS" that would also be a strategic strike, and it wouldn't work anyway - it would just turn their Jihad into a SuperJihad.

[Myth]

It was your assumption that we need to use strategic nukes against a non nuclear power.

Imagine this scenario.

Al Qaeda mk III / ISIS mk II... You can't kill a concept only its current adherents.

Kill 30,000 plus in the next terrorist attack. Not unimaginable just a matter of a twin tower type attack hitting whilst it is fully occupied.
Add in a few large massacres of 200,000 plus civilians.
Then conventional bombing being not effective enough.
Then estimates of soldier deaths to contain the menace at over a million.

In other words Japan circa WWII.

If it was justified then, why not now? Or was it a war crime then and the ROI was much more expensive too given the cost per war head has plummeted.

=][=

BTW France it is and the French Territories in the Pacific are part of France. So yes you can have EU countries land in the pacific. However as seen in this thread no EU country would test the bombs in Europe. God bless hypocrisy.

And what do you nuke then mate? Baghdad? Aleppo? No? Then you are left with such hot targets as: tent camps, oil rigs, desert, cave complexes, goat herds, mud huts and similar prime Mesopotamian infrastructure. You're not fighting a country, you're fighting essentially a well trained and ruthless militia that lives amongst throngs of regular civilians.

[Slyspy]

Mecca? Riyadh? Nothing sounds like that great of an idea tbh.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Mecca? Riyadh? Nothing sounds like that great of an idea tbh.

If we bomb Mecca how am I supposed to lead the Romano-Templars in taking the city?

Clear flaw of planning there.

But - somewhat more seriously - bombing Mecca would be of little moment even were you to use nukes to try to flatten it. What we know of Nukes suggests they aren't actually all that effective at blowing up stone buildings, so you'd flatten bit of Mecca, irradiate it and probably damage but not destroy the Grand Mosque.

On the other hand, taking Mecca without bombing it (assuming we were actually at war with Saudi Arabia) would be infinitely preferable. Nothing says "we are winning and not arseholes" like taking an important religious centre without first flattening.

Although, yeah, if you want to enrage all Muslims then, please, bomb Mecca.

*walks off in disgust.*

[Husar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBXPPTCo-9c