Quote:
Originally Posted by swaghauler
Any nuclear weapon detonated on a "soft target" (like the ones described above) will ALWAYS be an airburst attack.
|
ALWAYS exists neither on the battlefield nor in Twilight: 2000. This is especially so in operations which exist purely as doctrine since the doctrine was formulated. This is even more so when the stakes are as high as they are in nuclear warfare and very few people are responsible for making decisions.
I’ll offer some genuinely well-intentioned advice, swaghauler, because you seem like someone who has a fighting chance of taking it. There’s a way to go about asserting oneself on this board that differs from most places on the Internet. For instance, one way of addressing a difference of opinion about the likelihood of a 1.5Mt device being used against a soft target would be something like this:
“Doctrinally, soft targets being attacked by nuclear means are hit with airbursts for reasons a, b, and c. Of course, in real life we probably cannot expect 100% adherence to doctrine. I’m genuinely curious about how and why you see an exception being made for this target.”
This approach has two virtues. The first virtue is that you can state your understanding (dare I say, subject matter expertise) without transforming said statement into a win-lose encounter (“This ALWAYS is the case, so you’re wrong if you don’t agree.”), which is really a lose-lose encounter, into an opportunity to learn more about the other party’s thinking. The other party gains the opportunity to absorb your subject matter expertise without appearing to lose face. We value that around here. Also, when the other party explains his thinking, you gain the opportunity to participate in reformulation of his ideas by helping him find solutions to his stated intent.
The other virtue is that by stating what is strictly factual—i.e., by doctrine soft targets are hit by nuclear airburst, not ground burst—versus what is hyperbolic—like the quote above—you don’t have to stake yourself on the indefensible. In this case, the indefensible is making an ALWAYS or NEVER declaration about events which have never occurred in real life. Hiroshima and Nagasaki predate nuclear doctrine. There were some hopes and ideas, but no one really knew enough to formulate doctrine prior to the two uses of fission weapons in combat. In any event, doctrine is based upon extant circumstances. Ideas about what we were going to do with nuclear weapons in the 1950’s would be out of date today, the applicability of certain aspects notwithstanding. And then again, doctrine is modified or ignored as circumstances dictate.
The other information you have posted, swag, is very good stuff. Thanks for including it. While I consider myself well-read on the subject, I usually get something new out of your factual material. I also find value in your opinion--especially when it is given thusly.