Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kobeck
But I see all problems as black/white. I do not deal in grays as this type of thinking is paralyzing and leads to indecision.
The US has stores of Bianary Weapons.
fire agent A from point A onto point C, simultaniously fire agent B from point B onto point C. When A and B hit point C, everyone at point C has a bad day. In the meantime agents A and B are perfectly safe as long as they are not combined.
|
Black/white vs grey, notwithstanding, you fail to consider decision making more than one step ahead. What is C's next move? What will the allies of C do? What might be the unintended effects be on A and B? The failure to consider contingencies has nothing to do with decisiveness and has everything to do with poor strategic thinking.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kobeck
And yes I have no problem with these weapons, or any other weapon. They are just weapons.
|
Well, you do not seem to draw the distinction between counterforce and countervalue targeting. Tactical nuclear weapons if used on the battlefield have a greater chance of being judged by the international community as divorced from context, but not very likely. A unilateral countervalue strategic nuclear attack would likely be judged rather harshly (economic sanction at minimum, military retaliation at worst), and depending on the size of the attack, may also be counterproductive from an economic and public health standpoint.