...
I agree with most of that, but 1945 was a special situation where the recipient of the bombs had no answer to them other than surrender, more comparable to Europeans having guns and Indians having bows and arrows than anything going on now. Guaranteed, if the Japanese had had nukes, Honolulu and San Francisco would have looked like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yeah, China and Russia have more combined nukes than we do, but we have plenty to get the job done. They would certainly destroy us in a nuclear war, but it would be the most pyrrhic victory (if it even would be a victory) in the history of the world.
Quoting: Revbo™ Revbo, with all due respect, I studied nuclear war strategy at the Hudson Trade School for Wayward Boys. Later, I was involved in nuclear strategy while working on Reagan’s Star Wars programs.
Right now, I have the book “Soviet Strategy for Nuclear War” based on THEIR training documents.
This is how the Russians would expect to win a nuclear war:
1. Multiple warheads on each silo to ensure destruction.
2. Destroy all aircraft on the ground and ships in port with SLBMs.
3. Destroy every carrier battle group and sub at sea using nuclear depth charges and torpedoes.
4. Destroy the comm facilities on land with SLBMs to prevent launch codes from being transmitted to subs on patrol that may have survived.
5. AVOID hitting cities. They are hostages.
6. Demand negotiation/surrender or the cities would be hit.
The only counter is a President who will retaliate even if over 90% of our nukes are destroyed in the first strike.
YES, the Russians and Chicoms would be taking a huge risk.
However, in their calculation it might be the only move that they think they have.
IMHO, the probability that Putin will use tactical nukes in Ukraine is over 75%.
How do we prevent escalation?
A more basic question: What is the US national interest in Ukraine that requires us to spend so much blood and treasure while risking annihilation?
