Yes. Indeed. 'Interesting times.'
ISTR reading somewhere a while ago, probably post 89, that one Soviet VIP made a comment along the lines of 'only idiots in ivory towers believe that a limited nuclear war is possible' and then went on to vitriolically condemn US Think Tanks ... and, only slightly less vitriolically, the equivalent Russian Think Tanks.
The way I read it at the time, and I probably wasn't alone, was that the Russians were more likely to start a war, but only if they found themselves pushed into an untenable corner ... or what they believed to be such based on their particular world view.
I didn't see them as being opportunists, but as fearful ... and the only way they would attack was if they became fearful that their situation was so bad the only chance they had of survival was to attack first.
(I don't doubt that there were other possible triggers, but it seemed to me then, and still does, that they were no more fanatical warmongers than they accused the US of being)
Attacking from a position of weakness, in effect.
If the attack failed, or looked like it was failing, then the chance of them using nukes simply because they would feel they had nothing left to lose was ... high.
If the attack looked like it was going to be successful, then the temptation for the US (or Brits, or French ... hell, or even the Israelis, depending on when and where) to use nukes 'defensively' would be irresistable.
And, yes, once the Tactical weapons were used ... bang, literally ... that would have been that.
So, in a sense, you only use nukes under two circumstances ...
* When the target cannot retaliate in kind
or
* When you believe you have already lost.
Despite what Think Tank geniuses might have posited.
Phil
|