- Joined
- Jan 3, 2014
- Messages
- 16,501
- Reaction score
- 3,829
- Location
- Sheffield
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Intentionally targeting these sites would likely be considered the same as a nuclear strike, triggering retaliation in kind.
Mutually Assured Destruction saves us again!
But for the losing party it might be worth it
If a large power invaded a smaller power and was winning the war, likely being able to take over the country. The smaller power would have nothing to lose in striking a nuclear power plant in the larger country, especially if it is located near their capital
That's unlikely to do more than extend a conflict they are already losing, justify massive retaliation, and mark the losing government as war criminals in the process. Where's the upside?
Also, modern military doctrine calls for air forces to be suppressed first, so it's unlikely a losing side would have much left in the way of aircraft or missiles that they could use for this strike. There's other options, I suppose, but they really only occur in Tom Clancy novels. Goodness knows the U.S has reamed plenty of smaller nations, and yet this scenario has never played out in reality.
MAD does depend on governments acting in their own best interests, so if a nation's government has gone completely irrational, then your scenario is certainly possible. I expect the aftermath would stand as an impressive example of why it's a bad idea to allow your government to get that far off the reservation.
Beyond the US, not many countries would have the air power to eliminate an enemy's air force and potential missile forces very early in a conflict.
I'm working from your scenario, where one side has already dominated the other.
Sure, there could be a window of opportunity before they hid whatever remained of their air force in bunkers, but that wouldn't allow them to avoid the other consequences of such a strike.
My understanding is that the politicians behind a losing war are typically far more interested in saving their own skin than they are in petty revenge, so this idea just doesn't seem very plausible unless the leadership is completely unhinged, which is again far more common in popular entertainment than reality.
My scenario was not one of current domination, but of likely domination. Ie Russia vs Ukraine, Russia is likely to win if it invaded, it would not be domination in the first week or so, as the Ukraine is large has some AA capability and could hold off Russia for a few weeks at least Destroying a nuclear power plant near Moscow or another major city could force Russia to withdraw its forces as it deals with the nuclear power plant destruction. The Ukraine did not nuke any part of Russia, so the use of Nukes by Russia would not be acceptable internationally, so Mad in that situation may not really apply. Also the use of nukes beyond tactical nukes would get rid of the reason the invasion took place in the first place
Intentionally targeting these sites would likely be considered the same as a nuclear strike, triggering retaliation in kind.
Mutually Assured Destruction saves us again!
Video about how close we are to war.
How much trouble would a war like in Syria happened over places which have nuclear power plants hanging about which would make great targets to deny the enemy that area?
Humans by nature are evil. That is why they need to be saved and given good natures by Jesus. Wars will only increase until Jesus returns and people and nations which disarm themselves are only making themselves vulnerable to barbarians who have no intention of disarming themselves.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?