DanArmak comments on Rationality Quotes September 2013 - Less Wrong

5 Post author: Vaniver 04 September 2013 05:02AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (456)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: DanArmak 04 September 2013 08:19:39AM 1 point [-]

In addition to nshepperd's point, there's the fact that sending a bomber fleet to destroy an enemy city is very expensive - the costs of planes, fuel, and bombs add up quickly, not to mention pilots' lives. And if the defenders can destroy 50% of the planes before they drop their bombs, the bombing campaign becomes 50% less effective.

Whereas a strategic nuclear warhead only requires one plane to deliver it (or one ICBM). Much cheaper, much less risky, and much more stealthy. If you build a small fleet of nuclear bombers (or, again, a small stable of ICBMs), you can theoretically destroy all of the enemy's cities in one night.

If the atom bomb had by chance been developed a few years earlier, when the US still faced serious opposition in Europe, then quite probably they would have used it to wipe out all the major German and German-held cities.

Comment author: TobyBartels 14 September 2013 08:04:50AM 1 point [-]

quite probably they would have used it to wipe out all the major German and German-held cities

German-held? Like Paris?

Comment author: DanArmak 14 September 2013 08:29:11AM 3 points [-]

Not Paris, of course, which had a lot of diplomatic and sentimental value and little industrial value. I meant cities of high industrial value in occupied Czechoslovakia, Austria, Poland, and other countries the West didn't care as much about.