What's the use of a nuclear weapon - a weapon strongest of them all, if the enemy know you will never use it? This is where I think, the popular thinking in Western political circles diverges with the cold logic of warfare.
What is the best way to scare your enemy with your commitment to murder him using overwhelming force, than... to start doing so?
The politicians and people reading political science may thing the other way around, war does not work the other way as shown by thousands of years of history.
What's the use of a nuclear weapon - a weapon strongest of them all, if the enemy know you will never use it?
The only reason to keep nuclear weapons is to keep other from using them. It’s called "mutually assured destruction" — "you nuke me, I nuke you" nobody wants that. I.e. the _reason_ to keep nukes is to never use them.
If only one side has nukes, then mutually assured destruction is not possible, and hence there is no safety against nuclear way.
Comments
You're thinking tactically, not strategically.
The best nukes are the ones that never need to be used.
What's the use of a nuclear weapon - a weapon strongest of them all, if the enemy know you will never use it? This is where I think, the popular thinking in Western political circles diverges with the cold logic of warfare.
What is the best way to scare your enemy with your commitment to murder him using overwhelming force, than... to start doing so?
The politicians and people reading political science may thing the other way around, war does not work the other way as shown by thousands of years of history.
The only reason to keep nuclear weapons is to keep other from using them. It’s called "mutually assured destruction" — "you nuke me, I nuke you" nobody wants that. I.e. the _reason_ to keep nukes is to never use them.
If only one side has nukes, then mutually assured destruction is not possible, and hence there is no safety against nuclear way.
You are not understanding my logic
... logic doesn’t work like that. There is no «my logic» and «your logic,» if «your logic» differs from actual logic, then your logic is flawed.
It is a deterrent. This isn't complicated.
"never need to be used" is different from "are unwilling to use if attacked"