Or genocidal attacks. What is euphemistically called called “countervalue attacks” in nuclear weapons jargon; instead of trying to destroy armies, kill the population so the army has nothing to support it.
I think it already worked way back in 1945. The death, destruction, and suffering left an indelible mark on history and on people’s perception of nuclear warfare.
Sure, but the OP specifically asks for instances “since 1945.”
Yeah, I’d say it’s the deployment of ICBMs in the late 50s that marks the watershed. Prior to that, you could conceive of “fighting” a nuclear war, because you had to fly to the other side of the planet to nuke each other, and you would face a defense in depth of interceptors and anti-aircraft fire most of the way.
It was in the introduction of ICBMs, that couldn’t be intercepted, that changed nuclear war into nuclear holocaust.
The US probably could have gotten away with using a nuke or two in Korea, particularly when China entered the war and almost drove the US forces out of Korea. But after that? Far too much risk to try anything.
My bad. Then, I would have to say, never. I checked to see if we had an initial advantage in the fifties that was great enough to warrant a big enough advantage to win, but I was shocked to see that, because of spies, Stalin was already fully aware of the Manhattan Project as early as the Potsdam conference. In face, he received the design and specs almost as quickly as we produced them.
The B-29 had a combat range of 3250 nautical miles. If they flew out of England and Okinawa, they could have hit pretty much anywhere in the USSR.
Assuming they would have escort fighters, the bases would need to move in some. But at any rate, Moscow and everything west of the Urals would be within range of bases in Germany with fighter escort.
I feel the exact opposite. If Russia had used nuclear weapons, the international opposition would have been far stronger.
In this topic, it is important to note that America’s enemies take great pride with the moral high ground that the United States is the only country to use nuclear weapons in combat.
Have no delusions. That’s only because we had them first.
Other countries have had opportunities in the last 80 years and chosen not to use them.
That’s because, outside of 1945 when nobody else had them, the threat of a full scale nuclear exchange mitigated against it.
So you’re saying the only way to win is not to play?
Well put.
The Korean War really was the dividing line for nuclear policy: what to do if someone breaks the peace despite the existence of nuclear weapons? Nuke the offender, even if that would recall George Carlin’s famous remark about preserving virginity? If the whole point was that nuclear weapons were “too terrible” to use, then using them would have disproven that. And the leaders in both the West and East at the time were intimately familiar with just how terrible total strategic war could be. Really I don’t know what Kim Il-Sung, Mao and Stalin were thinking except maybe that South Korea was too minor a concern for the USA to get worked up over.
For all that people disparage the 1950s USA as jingoistic and war-mongering, the reality pales beside this counter-factual.
Just curious: is it also important to note that some folks gladly pass up ‘moral’ high ground for ‘high ground’ high ground?
I’m of the opinion that nukes were never used because they are complete-win instantly or complete-lose over time weapons. Certainly, the US and USSR came close several times, but each time people at various points along the chain of command refused to pull the trigger. Completely-win instantly always appears out of grasp.
The US got away with the moral taint of using nukes for two reasons. They ended the largest, most widely fought, most destructive total war in world history. And the US owned the world after WWII. Nobody had the stature to morally high-hat them or militarily challenge them. The Soviets realistically couldn’t do so for the decade after the war. By the time a true cold war emerged, each side dominated its vassels and wanted nuclear weapons to be used only against the other side, not for lesser reasons. Their use by others would therefore not have “worked” in the long term.
Nevertheless, tactical nukes have been discussed since almost the beginning. Militaries like to argue for these; civilian advisors balk, at least in US experience. Maybe because I’m a civilian I agree with the latter. Allowing any country to get away with a tactical nuke is a true slippery slope. Once the anathema is broken other countries will feel freer to use nukes.
I’m sure other countries have had similar civilian/military arguments about nukes, but we know the history of ours in great detail thanks to Fred Kaplan’s book The Bomb : Presidents, Generals, and the Secret History of Nuclear War. Chilling reading, yet I think it displays well the reasoning behind not using tactical nukes.
As has been discussed since forever both here and in government and academia, “tactical” nukes don’t tend to stay tactical.
But in a USSR/Warsaw Pact drive into western Europe in the 1970s/1980s, the fear on the NATO side was very real that if they achieved any surprise at all they’d steamroller through Germany before NATO could get its shit together.
From the NATO perspective it quickly became “Nuke locally to break up the blitzkrieg or lose Europe.”
Back then this was very real. I wasn’t any sort of decider, just a doer. But if the balloon had gone up I probably would have been one of the guys to launch off into the melee & push the red button to carry us all across the Rubicon into hot nuclear combat for real.
Sobering shit.
Yes. Thank goodness the worst aspects of US hubris didn’t extend that far in civilian Washington then. DoD had a dangerous mindset but remained on its leash.
I’m honestly not sure how to handicap the upcoming years. We have heedless recklessness in very high places and many hostile powers who might press to test farther than they intended to go.
But the effect of that strategy was to effectively make a Russian blitzkreig an act of Mutually Assured Destruction, which all in all is probably not a bad thing at least retrospectively since it kept the cold war relatively cold.
My view of nukes at this point the only time that nukes are useful as weapons is when you reach the point where you have nothing else to lose. The advantage of nukes is that it makes your adversaries not want to put you in such a position.
Zactly. But not only that.
We most sincerely intended to nuke the advancing Soviet hordes if they could not be stopped conventionally. Which sincerity we pointedly conveyed to the Soviets, both in word and in (training) deed. Perhasps they believed us or perhaps they did not. I personally beleived then that they beleived us at least some, if not 100%. But we officially believed that that was contributing towards them being deterred from finding out just how sincere we really were if/when it actually came to nut-cuttin’ time.
The situation with MAD was that the US believed in it full stop. The Soviets by and large did not. Their official doctrine was that nuclear warfare, tactical or strategic, was just ordinary warfare with larger booms. And so all the conventional calculus of warfare great and small was fully applicable. They were truly bemused at frequent talk of “unthinkability” or “unwinnability” by the West.
Interesting. It fits with the overall Russian outlook. Civiliztion has collapsed the crops have failed and I am slowly dying alone in a hole devoid of hope. Must be Thursday.