# What's the point of the Nuclear Option? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 6, 2005, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-nuclear-option/334428 "2005-12-06T23:52:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-nuclear-option/334428/21 "2005-12-07T23:36:00Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Right. And most of that is due to the fact that we had an untouched industrial base with brand-spanking new capital equipment, not because we had a heck of a lot of labor to help the war effort. China had a hell of a lot of labor, and look where that got 'em. > > The idea that we will, at some time in the future, target civilians (as opposed to machines in factories) because they are part of the war effort is, IMHO, a canard used to legitimize civilian deaths. Marx was right in a sense: in a factory, the people are the most easily replaced parts. There’s no way that intentionally bombing civilians simply because they go to work can have an impact on a war effort unless you’re willing to kill massive numbers, and there’s a pretty good term for those sort of military action: genocide. > > It reminds me of the apocryphal story of Lincoln upon getting a report that the Confederates had killed 20 horses and several generals. Lincoln regretted losing the horses more than the generals, because he could just put a star on someone’s shoulder and they’re a general; where would he get more horses? > > Welcome to post-modern warfare. Those have been the realities of war for decades now, and those are lessons that are avoided at the peril of those who would send us to war, necessary or no. No, it’s not genocide. Genocide is when you’re specifically trying to eliminate a given ethnicity or national group. That’s not what carpet bombing was. Carpet bombing intended to break industrial centers both by killing the workers and by destroying the factories the workers operated in. If you destroy a city’s power plants, infrastructure, commercial and residential centers, then that city is basically no longer an asset for the country, it is in fact a liability as they will have to spend considerable resources to get it back up and running. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-nuclear-option/334428/22 "2005-12-07T23:51:00Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > No, it’s not genocide. Genocide is when you’re specifically trying to eliminate a given ethnicity or national group. That’s not what carpet bombing was. Carpet bombing intended to break industrial centers both by killing the workers and by destroying the factories the workers operated in. The bombing that occurred was, by today’s standards, indiscriminant because we did not have the means of targeting more accurately. A hell of a lot of smart minds – Robert McNamera, for one – put a hell of a lot of effort into finding ways to make bombing more efficient in WW2. But in those days, the CEP for a bomb was what – 1,000 feet? Something like that? Massed bombardment inflicting large civilian deaths was the only way to blow up this factory or that rail yard. Carpet bombing today would serve no other purpose than to kill massive numbers of civilians. The CEP of modern munitions are what – inside of 10 meters? A return to carpet bombing would be a deliberate decision to target civilians, period. On the other issue you raised, I perhaps should have stated my case slightly better: deliberate, premeditated murder of large numbers of noncombatants is the moral equivalent of genocide, if not the legal definition. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-nuclear-option/334428/23 "2005-12-07T23:54:02Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The idea that we will, at some time in the future, target civilians (as opposed to machines in factories) because they are part of the war effort is, IMHO, a canard used to legitimize civilian deaths. Marx was right in a sense: in a factory, the people are the most easily replaced parts. There’s no way that intentionally bombing civilians simply because they go to work can have an impact on a war effort unless you’re willing to kill massive numbers, and there’s a pretty good term for those sort of military action: genocide. We were talking about a hypothetical escallation to nuclear weapons in a total war scenerio…not the realities of limited war post-Soviet era. The OP was questioning how nukes could or would be used at all and I tried to explain how this could happen. Basically you don’t even need to specifically target civilians to rack up a huge civilian death toll. Legitimate military targets could include something like logistics and transport centers, large manufacturing centers, command and communications centers…all of which are generally located smack dab in the middle of civilian areas. If you are in a total war scenerio against someone like the Soviets and you get intelligence that they are moving several divisions worth of armor and supplies through a logistic hub city on the way to the front…and if you are desparate enough, if you feel your back is to the wall…then nuking the logistic hub (thus denying it to the enemy for future use, as well as taking out those several divisions and those supplies) isn’t such a monsterous thing to do from your perspective. Not if it staves off defeat, or saves your own civilians or military personnels lives. It becomes especially attractive if you have nukes and the other side does not (which was what I was originally addressing). Thankfully we are no longer in the world of MAD, and the prospects for a knock down, drag em out fight to the death are more remote. Total war is probably (gods, hopefully) a thing of the past. In limited war the prospects for using nukes, especially against civilian targets is extremely remote…even with mad Bush at the helm. 😛 Anyway, hopefully the OPs question has been answered at this point. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-nuclear-option/334428/24 "2005-12-07T23:56:00Z")
It has, thanks everyone. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2005, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-nuclear-option/334428/25 "2005-12-08T00:18:07Z")
1- To stop a war (neither side can win afterwards) 2- To prevent a loss 3- To equalize forces (if you are on the side of the lesser force) 4- To destroy enemys industrial base if superiour to yours and you must take it out to prevent loosing 5- To go out in a bang 6- If you have a defense against nukes (i.e. SDI) 7 - If you are going to loose anyway, just see if the dam thing works. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-point-of-the-nuclear-option/334428.md?page=1)