= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lalartu comments on LINK: An example of the Pink Flamingo, the obvious-yet-overlooked cousin of the Black Swan - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (75)
The article makes a good point: USA can lose very much in case of such war. If the world sees that nukes can destroy enemy army without turning whole country into a blasted radioctive wasteland like scaremongers say, then non-proliferation is a lost cause and US military might suddenly turns into a heap of useless expensive toys.
That's pretty obvious to anyone with a couple of functioning brain cells. The whole idea of tactical nuclear weapons is limited strikes against military targets. During the Cold War, the NATO doctrine explicitly relied on tactical nukes to stop Russian armored thrusts into Western Europe.
Non-proliferation isn't based on some third-world politicians being afraid of a nuclear holocaust. It's based on the empirical fact that if you try to develop nukes, Uncle Sam will be very very mean to you.
First, it is not. Idea that this Cold War doctrine was suicidal (for the Europeans) madness is rather popular, I think more than the opposite.
Second, given that exactly zero states were attacked by US for trying to make nukes, I wouldn't call this the most important reason. As for third-world politicians, they adopt the first-word attitude to nukes as thing you can only threaten with but can't really use.
Is popular? I am not sure today people spend a lot of effort in evaluating an obsolete military doctrine from quarter century ago. And is there an alternative proposed?
Notice that I didn't say "invaded", though Iraq is an interesting case. But why did Iran make a deal with the US, then?
You can't really use them offensively. I doubt the politicians would taboo the use of tactical nukes in the last stand situation. That's effectively what they are for: insurance. Funny how everyone is tiptoeing around North Korea...
By the way, you know what didn't help non-proliferation at all? The way the Budapest Memorandum turned out to be a meaningless piece of paper.
In my opinion the opposite is likely to happen if there is an actual war of this kind between India and Pakistan: once Pakistan uses nukes, India will be mostly ok as a whole, as you imply, but India will turn Pakistan into such a "blasted radioactive wasteland" in comparison, which will make anyone else terrified of such a war with the US. Apparently the Indian defense minister in 2003 said something like this publicly, saying something like "After we respond, there will be no more Pakistan."
India can target the Indus, pretty much gutting Pakistan. As long as they disrupt/poison the river enough they wouldn't have to target any settlements directly. If Pakistan developed the capacity to effectively target the Ganges (no small feat, and probably something best done with chemical weapons, not nuclear weapons), it would be possible to cause the displacement of a billion people over a couple of years. That would not be a good time to live in China, Europe, or Africa.
Of course, neither India nor Pakistan would want either of these things to happen. While India would survive an unilateral strike, Pakistan would not -- regardless of who struck the strike.