[Heacechig]

Originally posted by Wycoff


I don't think that that would be politically tenable. The fact is that the Soviets just nuked the U.S. mainland and killed hundreds of thousands of Americans while simultaneously and seriously crippling the first line of U.S. defense, the U.S. Navy. It wouldn't be a total capitulation, but it would be seen as the first step towards one. The Soviets would have demonstrated that they were willing to nuke us to get anything that they wanted. The fear of slowly becoming a vassal state, combined with the fear and anger that would result from a severe loss of life and military strength, would dictate some response. Otherwise, there would be no way to ensure that the Soviets wouldn't just nuke Ft. Hood next month in order to get us to take our forces out Japan or whatever other objective that they'd want to take. You've been painted into a corner, you're at the mercy of the Soviets, and the Soviets could decide who lives or dies.



I think the problem is be coming up with a strategic interest that would make the first mover take that risk, be it through conventional or nuclear means. Your objective- a demilitarized West Germany- doesn' seem to be a benefit worth launching a preemptive nuclear strike. I think the underlying presumption underpinning MAD is that there's no strategic objecive that's worth running a serious risk of nuclear annihilation, which is exactly what a preemptive nuclear strike (or a sudden massive land invasion) would risk. First, lets not get hung up on the loss of the fleet, as YOU specified Norfolk. Presumably the attacker could deliberately select a target big enough to make his point, but small enough not to cripple the other sides conventional defenses so much. And I came up with demilitarizing Germany to fit into your scenario. I presume there are cases where there will be assymetry about the value of a particular concession, as well as assymetrical attitudes toward risk. I agree about the underlying presumption behind MAD - Im just questionoing whether that underlying presumption is strong enough, esp given a more creative strategy on the part of the nation that would use nukes to gain advantage, that we can consider MAD a 100% insurance against such usage of nukes. I dont think we can. I think we are taking a simple theory, without considering its ramifications and potential complexities, and taking a fairly limited historical sample (a liberal democratic society, versus a society that veered between extreme conservatism, and believing in its own triumphy by socio-economic inevitability) as confirming said theory.