U.S. dick measuring

[Bob_Marley]

There's an alternative school of thought to MAD which forsee's each side targetting only military installations and such and leaving large cities (on the whole) untouched, as bargaining chips to play with

Which is nice in theory, but with Total War doctrine is impractical. Its much easier to destroy the enemy's infrastrucutre and economic assets than thier military forces.

"Military" targets rapidly start including mixed targets. Oil refineries, water treatment, electric plants, factories, etc are all "legitimate military targets" because they all support the military capability.

Also, the US build up of nuclear arms is probably the reason the Soviet Union eventually collapsed The SU was eventually spending 25% of it's GDP on defense, trying to match the USA's missle system whilst the USA was only spending 2% or something.

Indeed. Also the Americans needed the nuclear umbrella to protect its European allies. If it were down to conventional forces NATO would have lasted, at most, two to three weeks before Soviet Tanks were sitting on the English Channel.

Which is the other thing that stretched the Soviets - they kept thier edge in the conventional field as well. Conventional forces are terribly expensive, add onto that supplying the rest of the Warsaw Pact forces and other areas (such as funding/supplying Cuba's war in Angola).

Thats the problem the Soviets had - they thought the Cold War was about tanks and missiles when it was really about money.

 

[15357]

Which is nice in theory, but with Total War doctrine is impractical. Its much easier to destroy the enemy's infrastrucutre and economic assets than thier military forces.

"Military" targets rapidly start including mixed targets. Oil refineries, water treatment, electric plants, factories, etc are all "legitimate military targets" because they all support the military capability.

Exactly. Apartments, schools, hospitals are a viable target because they all contribute to the enemy's manpower resources. In the end, napalming a kindergarten filled with pre-schoolers, or inducing radiological contamination of a maternity ward can all be justified, precisely because they'll all grow up to support the military capability or industrial capacity of the enemy directly and indirectly. The chemical sterilization of thousands of acres of agricultural farmland, the complete destruction of infrastructure, the rendering of entire cities unfit for human habitation - that is the requirements of total war. (Clarification: I'm saying that the concept of total war in practice is horrible)

Stanley Baldwin, in his speech "A Fear For The Future" put it quite aptly.

I think it is well also for the man in the street to realize that there is no power on earth that can protect him from being bombed, whatever people may tell him. The bomber will always get through..

The only defence is in offence, which means that you have got to kill more women and children more quickly than the enemy if you want to save yourselves.

...

The prohibition of the bombardment of the civil population, the next thing talking about, is impracticable so long as any bombing exists at all. In the last War there were areas where munitions were made. They now play a part in war that they never played in previous wars, and it is essential to an enemy to knock these out, and so long as they can be knocked out by bombing and no other way you will never in the practice of war stop that form of bombing.

The prohibition of bombing aeroplanes or of bombing leads you to two very obvious considerations when you have examined the question. The first difficulty about that is this — will any form of prohibition, whether by convention, treaty, agreement, or anything you like not to bomb be effective in war? Quite frankly, I doubt it and, in doubting it, I make no reflection on the good faith of either ourselves or any other country. If a man has a potential weapon and has his back to the wall and is going to be killed, he will use that weapon whatever it is and whatever undertaking he has given about it, The experience has shown us that the stern test of war will break down all conventions.

There are some instruments so terrible that mankind has resolved not to use them. I happen to know myself of at least three inventions deliberately proposed for use in the last War and which were never used. Potent to a degree and, indeed, I wondered at the conscience of the world. If the conscience of the young men will ever come to feel that in regard to this one instrument the thing will be done. But if they do not feel like that ... As I say, the future is in their hands, but when the next war comes and European civilization is wiped out, as it will be and by no force more than by that force, then do not let them lay the blame on the old men, but let them remember that they principally and they alone are responsible for the terrors that have fallen on the earth.

And that is why I dislike anything regarding the doctrine of strategical destruction of civillians, but I guess it has to be done.

EDIT: I was cut off suddenly, so here's a continuation of my post:

The doctrine of total war rests on the belief that there are no distinction between civillian and military targets, and that both need to work together to acheive a single goal of victory.

Now, if we were to say, destroy the population of the US down to 7% of what it was before, and yet leave its military mostly untouched, the US would understandably collapse. But if we decimate the US military, it is fairly easy for the US to conscript from its vast manpower pool and rebuild its armies. Therefore, to acheive the strategic goal of victory, we should annhiliate all the industrial and population centers of the United States of America.

Of course, America realizes that as well. Therefore it seeks a strategical nuclear detterence in the form of thousands of nuclear warheads.

The whole problem of this is that it doesn't work after the first shot is launched. I've never really understood nuclear MAD. I mean, if you're going to be destroyed nevertheless, what's the point of retaliation? If a billion people are wiped out, what motivations would the remaining population have to engage in retribution? Still, I get the gist of it. And this post looks more like a rant now.

So, in conclusion:

Oh Little H-Bomb Silo,
how sweetly dost thou lie.

Above thy deep and dreamless sleep
The spy satellites glide by.

Yet in thy darkness shineth
The Everlasting Light.

The hopes and dreams of all the years
Are met in thee tonight.

For war is born of terror,
and gathered all around,

while angels sleep the mortals keep
their watch on a smoldering hatred.

Oh morning stars of midnight,
proclaim unholy birth!

As children scream we gain the dream
of ... peace ... for men on Earth.

 

[the cow says moo]

Well, I don't think anyone has a reply to that.

 

[Tyguy]

adrian veidt had the right idea by replicating dr. manhatten's energy and attacking targets worldwide to establish a state of worldwide compliance in order to avoid nuclear war

just saying...if the watchmen can do it....

also, numbers...JEEEEEEEZUS

 

[Dr.Demento]

Strange thread considering that one day soon, I plan to invest in a new project using all stocks and savings worth millions I had saved up to this day. I've combed through many resources hoping to locate the best minds in America to unite towards a great cause.

I plan to have a conference with DoD and DoI soon to discuss this bold new undertaking of engineering and construction consisting of hundreds of nuclear fallout shelters all across the US we've decided to dub as "Vaults".

Once our project is underway, only then will that mark the day our new company is founded. After a meeting with the board of directors I hand-picked, we've came to a unanimous decision to what our new company shall be called...."Vault-Tec".

Where will YOU be when the holocaust comes?

Make reservations for you and your families now. It's never too late!

 

[CptStern]

"Where will YOU be when the holocaust comes?"

in church thanking god I'm not jewish