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?
Re: Let's talk about the nukes
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?
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: Let's talk about the nukes
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.
Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: Let's talk about the nukes
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.
Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
Pape for global overlord!!
Re: Let's talk about the nukes
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.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Re: Let's talk about the nukes
I'm precisely saying that there is no ROI in that case. That's the point.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.
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.
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: Let's talk about the nukes
Despite beliefs otherwise UK is not the entirety of the EU or NATO...
Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
Pape for global overlord!!
Re: Let's talk about the nukes
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.
Re: Let's talk about the nukes
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.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Re: Let's talk about the nukes
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.
Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
Pape for global overlord!!
Re: Let's talk about the nukes
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.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Re: Let's talk about the nukes
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.
The art of war, then, is governed by five constant
factors, to be taken into account in one's deliberations,
when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field.
These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth;
(4) The Commander; (5) Method and discipline.
Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"
Like totalwar.org on Facebook!
Re: Let's talk about the nukes
Mecca? Riyadh? Nothing sounds like that great of an idea tbh.
"Put 'em in blue coats, put 'em in red coats, the bastards will run all the same!"
"The English are a strange people....They came here in the morning, looked at the wall, walked over it, killed the garrison and returned to breakfast. What can withstand them?"
Re: Let's talk about the nukes
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.*
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Re: Let's talk about the nukes
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks