Some scientists have claimed that global winter would occur in nuclear war. Though debatable, I find it mildly infuriating how everyone assumes that if one solitary nation nukes someone else, everyone would join the fray and cause the spicy winter.
In my opinion, two nations wipe themselves out, and the world just watches.
Let's say US decides to flatten Beijing because they feel cute and empowered that day. Fine. Beijing flattens DC. LA gets paired with Shenzhen, so on and so forth. Now why would Russia want to join the fray? India? Pakistan? UK-France? Israel? Why would they just nuke their respective adversaries?
Fears of nuclear winter are not unsubstantiated. However it assumes every nation nuking others. THAT is unrealistic.
Some scientists have claimed that global winter would occur in nuclear war. Though debatable, I find it mildly infuriating how everyone assumes that if one solitary nation nukes someone else, everyone would join the fray and cause the spicy winter.
In my opinion, two nations wipe themselves out, and the world just watches.
Let's say US decides to flatten Beijing because they feel cute and empowered that day. Fine. Beijing flattens DC. LA gets paired with Shenzhen, so on and so forth. Now why would Russia want to join the fray? India? Pakistan? UK-France? Israel? Why would they just nuke their respective adversaries?
Fears of nuclear winter are not unsubstantiated. However it assumes every nation nuking others. THAT is unrealistic.
I think also the distinction between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons/war.
Strategic usually refers to what we would think of as "all out" nuclear war. Where we launch the missiles in an attempt to completely destroy the war making capability of another nation. Tactical refers to using a small nuke as a tactic to achieve a specific battlefield goal, like the destruction of an armored column, a bridge, a fortification etc. these nukes can be from very small, like under a kiloton to Fat Man/Little Boy sized. Tactical nukes are locally employed against targets for an immediate military advantage. Strategic nukes are for attacking infrastructure and economic centers of production for a longer-term military advantage. Tactical nukes are smaller and with shorter range but can be delivered by artillery or aircraft while strategic nukes are typically delivered by the nuclear trident (ballistic missile submarines/ bombers/ ICBM). Strategic nukes are the ones that end cities, tactical nukes could be used as like area denial, or to take out high value targets. Think air-to-air in the case of a fighter, to take down opposing bombers. Smaller boom.
Say NATO was outnumbered and wanted to slow the Russian armored divisions' advance into Poland's countryside. So maybe they detonate some small tactical devices. Perhaps you want to keep the infrastructure intact and have the radiation dissipate shortly after reinforcements can arrive.
Look up the Davy Crocket for fun
en.wikipedia.org
But yes I do agree with you on a more regional conflict. I think the idea stems from the US nuclear umbrella and NATO/similar alliances, etc.
en.wikipedia.org
Interesting points. It's all valid but Theory can only get you so far. ;)
agreed!
