You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

James_Miller comments on A Parable of Elites and Takeoffs - Less Wrong Discussion

23 Post author: gwern 30 June 2014 11:04PM

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

Comments (98)

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

Comment author: James_Miller 02 July 2014 03:27:00PM 0 points [-]

Compared to destruction done by German forces, American strategic bombing would have been just an annoyance.

No, at the very least we would have been able to attack Soviet cities from bases in China and Japan that the Germans couldn't hit.

Using nukes against even heavily concentrated tanks (~50 tanks per kilometer of frontline, as in major tank battles) is just a waste of nukes.

I'm not sure about this since the goal would be to create a hole for your tanks to exploit so you could encircle the enemy.

Comment author: Lalartu 03 July 2014 08:17:26AM 1 point [-]

No, at the very least we would have been able to attack Soviet cities from bases in China and Japan that the >Germans couldn't hit.

No, main Soviet industrial centers were far beyond the range of any bombers, from Europe or from China. Also, bombing a city does far less to reduce military production than capturing it (look at figures for Germany 1944-1945).

I'm not sure about this since the goal would be to create a hole for your tanks to exploit so you could encircle >the enemy.

So you suggest using American nukes ( dozen in 1946), dropping them on Soviet tanks, from strategic bombers that hardly can hit a target smaller that city, to gain a modest tactical advantage (bringing two battalions of tank destroyers will have the same effect )? Using such brilliant plans USA would have surely lost WWIII.

Comment author: James_Miller 03 July 2014 02:46:21PM 0 points [-]

I'm far from an expert on tank battles, but my impression is that what you really want to do is encircle the enemy tanks to cut them off from supplies. Being able to punch a small hole in enemy defenses would be extremely helpful. My impression was also that strategic bombers had difficulty hitting targets because of interference from anti air defenses and enemy aircraft, and this wouldn't have been a problem when attacking targets in the field under conditions under which the U.S. had air superiority.

Comment author: Lalartu 04 July 2014 09:08:30AM 1 point [-]

Encirclement operation works on much bigger scale, "small hole" here is tens of kilometers wide, through a defence line that is also tens of kilometers in depth. Using nukes against tanks makes no sense unless numbers of nukes and tanks are comparable.

Poor accuracy of strategic bombing was because of high altitude. On low altitude these bombers are very easy targets for anti-aircraft artillery (Soviet divisions had lots of it), and dropping nuke is a suicide mission.