WWII Atomic Weapons

[skepticalbip]

... snip ....

Nuclear weapons are absolutely not 'just another step' towards larger explosions. Despite their effects being very similar, (there's very little difference in effect between a large fuel-air bomb, and a small nuclear device) the underlying cause of the explosion is completely novel.

But it is just another step in technological advancement that humans have made to kill each other.

Starting from bare hands and teeth we advanced to:
. Using rocks and sticks.
. shaping those rocks and sticks to better penetrate flesh.
. projectile weapons like spears and thrown rocks.
. compound weapons like bows and arrows, atlatl and spear, and sling and stone to kill at a greater distance.
. advancement in compound weapons for more lethality like catapults and cross bows.
. chemical explosives
. biological and chemical weapons.
. nuclear weapons
. Next could likely be directing small asteroids from space at the enemy nation.

This could lead back to humans using rocks and sticks for the following wars.

 

[steve_bank]

Military technological completion gores far back. The Egyptians and Assyrians competed over chariot design.

The English long bow. The Chinese mass produced cross bows for soldiers. The catapult.

WWI was mass mutual slaughter with neither side having a decisive advantage.

GPS guided weapons.

Nukes are the logical conclusion of the endless search for more efferent and deadly ways to wage war.

 

[bilby]

Military technological completion gores far back. The Egyptians and Assyrians competed over chariot design.

The English long bow. The Chinese mass produced cross bows for soldiers. The catapult.

WWI was mass mutual slaughter with neither side having a decisive advantage.

GPS guided weapons.

Nukes are the logical conclusion of the endless search for more efferent and deadly ways to wage war.

Nope. There are certain to be far more efficient and deadly technologies in the future. Every advance in military technology has been hailed as 'the conclusion', on the specious basis that nobody would dare use it, and if they did, it would be the end of the world.

But wars to end all wars are almost as common in history as predictions of divine Armageddon.

A massive global thermonuclear war would likely set military (and civilian) technology back a thousand years. But such a war is highly unlikely - between about 1970 and 1990 such a war was plausible; But fears of global annihilation before then were overblown - had the Cuban missile crisis led to WWIII, it's likely that the USSR would have been wiped out, but the USA would almost certainly have had sufficient air defence capability to survive a Soviet attack. Soviet ICBM and SLBM numbers were insufficient to completely destroy the USA in the 1960s. Since the collapse of the USSR, the most plausible scenarios for the use of thermonuclear weapons are all much more limited exchanges. MAD still exists, but requires more than one superpower if it is to lead to global destruction.

Doubtless there will be future weapons systems far more destructive than thermonuclear bombs - kinetic weapons dropped from space, for example, could be much more destructive simply because the marginal cost of a second or subsequent missile in such a system is tiny - if you have the ability to hit the enemy with such a weapon, you have the ability to hit him as often as you like for very little further cost - whereas each nuclear warhead is expensive in its own right, limiting the maximum size of your arsenal. And there are likely other future weapons, some of which are currently science fiction, and others not yet even imagined. Anti-matter bombs, and various energy beam weapons spring to mind - a satellite could be used to hit an enemy's territory with powerful microwave energy, for example.

Long range artillery and the machine gun were the logical conclusion of the search for more efficient and deadly ways to wage war. Then poison gas was. Then aerial bombardment. Then the thousand bomber raid. Then the fission bomb. All turned out not to be a 'conclusion' of any kind.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Nukes are the logical conclusion of the endless search for more efferent and deadly ways to wage war.

Okay, so what's the logic? What are the steps?
Let's say we start with 'we have bombs to hurt people,' sure. How do we reach 'let's bang two rocks together until we get fission and hurt LOTS of people.'??

I mean, I can see crossbows leading to ballistae, maybe to catapults. Stored energy flinging pointy things at the bad guys.

MAYBE that'll lead to missiles, but there's a bit of a jump from torsion to chemicals as the method of storing energy.

More likely, that was a concurrent but discrete chain. Firecrackers to fireworks, to rockets, to missiles... No crossbows necessary for that chain of development. So I'd say missiles are not the logical conclusion to starting with longbows or crossbows...

 

[Bronzeage]

War is not healthy for children and other living things. That should be on a tshirt.

In the end, how a person is killed in war, or why, is irrelevant to the discussion. There is no score card, where extra credit is given for deaths accompanied by minimal suffering.

In the closing days of the war in Europe, it was acknowledged by military strategists that bombing campaigns had not been remotely effective as expected. There were a lot of reasons for this, but it came down to a few simple facts. First, targets are hard to hit. Second, bombers are easy to shoot down. This made bombing an expensive pursuit with small results.

The strategist who were given the task of planning the invasion of Japan were faced with these facts. By the end of the war in Europe, the bombing was concentrated on civilian housing. The rationale given was the discomfort of the workers having everything they owned buried under rubble would hamper war production. The real reason was that the bombers could hit a city block.

The same fate awaited the Japanese if the Allies launched an invasion.

War and a bar fight have something in common. Whatever may have started the conflict, the immediate goal is to convince the other guy that continuing to fight is a bad idea. If an atomic bomb is what you have, it's what you use.

Any moral argument which condemns the use of atomic bombs has to address the obvious point, which is it worked. The killing stopped.

 

[steve_bank]

Nukes are the logical conclusion of the endless search for more efferent and deadly ways to wage war.

Okay, so what's the logic? What are the steps?
Let's say we start with 'we have bombs to hurt people,' sure. How do we reach 'let's bang two rocks together until we get fission and hurt LOTS of people.'??

I mean, I can see crossbows leading to ballistae, maybe to catapults. Stored energy flinging pointy things at the bad guys.

MAYBE that'll lead to missiles, but there's a bit of a jump from torsion to chemicals as the method of storing energy.

More likely, that was a concurrent but discrete chain. Firecrackers to fireworks, to rockets, to missiles... No crossbows necessary for that chain of development. So I'd say missiles are not the logical conclusion to starting with longbows or crossbows...

The obvious logic is the long history of conflict and the evolution of military technology. If that is not clear then I can say no more.

DARPA Defense Advanced Research Agency. In the offing is autonomous fighter jets and compact robots. The logical evolution of military technology that makes use of modern technology as it evolves I worked for Locked in the 80s on weapons systems..

 

[steve_bank]

War is not healthy for children and other living things. That should be on a tshirt.

In the end, how a person is killed in war, or why, is irrelevant to the discussion. There is no score card, where extra credit is given for deaths accompanied by minimal suffering.

In the closing days of the war in Europe, it was acknowledged by military strategists that bombing campaigns had not been remotely effective as expected. There were a lot of reasons for this, but it came down to a few simple facts. First, targets are hard to hit. Second, bombers are easy to shoot down. This made bombing an expensive pursuit with small results.

The strategist who were given the task of planning the invasion of Japan were faced with these facts. By the end of the war in Europe, the bombing was concentrated on civilian housing. The rationale given was the discomfort of the workers having everything they owned buried under rubble would hamper war production. The real reason was that the bombers could hit a city block.

The same fate awaited the Japanese if the Allies launched an invasion.

War and a bar fight have something in common. Whatever may have started the conflict, the immediate goal is to convince the other guy that continuing to fight is a bad idea. If an atomic bomb is what you have, it's what you use.

Any moral argument which condemns the use of atomic bombs has to address the obvious point, which is it worked. The killing stopped.

Of course, but given human nature defined at least partly by genetics how do we eliminate conflict? Russia nad Chima are in an aggressive pre WWII land and resource acquisition posture. In practical terms how does the world back down?

Back in the 80s I was listening to Abrams talk about nuclear deterrence. It made sense to me. The only problem is the Russian American standoff worked because both sides had a common sense of survival and did not want destruction. I believe nukes prevented a WWIII in Europe. The Soviets wanted Europe or as much as they could get.

The problem is wildcards. NK, Iran, Pakistan.

 

[Bronzeage]

War is not healthy for children and other living things. That should be on a tshirt.

In the end, how a person is killed in war, or why, is irrelevant to the discussion. There is no score card, where extra credit is given for deaths accompanied by minimal suffering.

In the closing days of the war in Europe, it was acknowledged by military strategists that bombing campaigns had not been remotely effective as expected. There were a lot of reasons for this, but it came down to a few simple facts. First, targets are hard to hit. Second, bombers are easy to shoot down. This made bombing an expensive pursuit with small results.

The strategist who were given the task of planning the invasion of Japan were faced with these facts. By the end of the war in Europe, the bombing was concentrated on civilian housing. The rationale given was the discomfort of the workers having everything they owned buried under rubble would hamper war production. The real reason was that the bombers could hit a city block.

The same fate awaited the Japanese if the Allies launched an invasion.

War and a bar fight have something in common. Whatever may have started the conflict, the immediate goal is to convince the other guy that continuing to fight is a bad idea. If an atomic bomb is what you have, it's what you use.

Any moral argument which condemns the use of atomic bombs has to address the obvious point, which is it worked. The killing stopped.

Of course, but given human nature defined at least partly by genetics how do we eliminate conflict? Russia nad Chima are in an aggressive pre WWII land and resource acquisition posture. In practical terms how does the world back down?

Back in the 80s I was listening to Abrams talk about nuclear deterrence. It made sense to me. The only problem is the Russian American standoff worked because both sides had a common sense of survival and did not want destruction. I believe nukes prevented a WWIII in Europe. The Soviets wanted Europe or as much as they could get.

The problem is wildcards. NK, Iran, Pakistan.

The tactical value of nuclear weapons has been reduced by precision weapons. Instead of leveling a couple square miles, cruise missiles and other guided weapons can take out key targets with an accuracy which could only be dreamed of in WW2. This greatly reduces the likelihood of a super power using an nuclear weapon. If I were a despotic leader who feared regime change by more powerful nations, a nuclear bomb might make me feel more secure, but a really good investment would be a weapon system which could disable GPS satellites.

 

[bilby]

Yup. Nukes are literally overkill for most military scenarios; Their only real value is as a deterrent.

That wasn't the case in 1945, when the only way to destroy an enemy military base or munitions factory was to try to wipe out the entire city in which it is located, and hope that at least some of the destruction befalls the primary target. But these days, an occupier doesn't need to take charge of a pile of rubble - far better to invade a working city with a few holes where defensive installations used to be. And occupiers likely get less hatred from a population that has experienced limited casualties than from the survivors of a population that has been almost wiped out.

The only scenario other than deterrence where a nuclear weapon is useful today is an attack on a very well hardened target - But even these targets can usually be destroyed by conventional weapons. The RNEP may be more effective as a 'bunker buster' than the GBU-28 or the GBU-57 MOP, but few bunkers can survive a hit from any of these weapons, and the conventional options are far superior from a diplomatic perspective - use of nuclear weapons, like use of chemical or biological agents, is seen as particularly evil by the general public, and as such will only likely be considered in an extreme circumstance, and even then likely as a second strike option only.

A nation with inadequate conventional options might have sound strategic or tactical reasons to use a nuclear weapon; But a modern superpower can almost always achieve an equally effective military result with conventional weapons, and avoid the diplomatic fallout.

If nuclear weapons are only ever used in response to nuclear attack, then nobody will ever use them - unless they mistakenly believe that they are under nuclear attack.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The obvious logic is the long history of conflict and the evolution of military technology. If that is not clear then I can say no more.

So, you don't really have logical steps in mind for your 'the logical conclusion of' statement.

DARPA Defense Advanced Research Agency. In the offing is autonomous fighter jets and compact robots. The logical evolution of military technology that makes use of modern technology as it evolves I worked for Locked in the 80s on weapons systems..

Yeah, I've worked with Lockheed, on and off, during the 80s, 90s, 00's and 10's... Most everything they and we do is 'more of the same, but smaller and cheaper.' Because tech.

But the justifiably expected advancement of technology as a vague increase in shiny stuff is not the same as claiming nuclear weapons are a logical conclusion from conventional bombs. That's the part that's being challenged, and you're falling back further and further from that actual claim.

 

[steve_bank]

War is not healthy for children and other living things. That should be on a tshirt.

In the end, how a person is killed in war, or why, is irrelevant to the discussion. There is no score card, where extra credit is given for deaths accompanied by minimal suffering.

In the closing days of the war in Europe, it was acknowledged by military strategists that bombing campaigns had not been remotely effective as expected. There were a lot of reasons for this, but it came down to a few simple facts. First, targets are hard to hit. Second, bombers are easy to shoot down. This made bombing an expensive pursuit with small results.

The strategist who were given the task of planning the invasion of Japan were faced with these facts. By the end of the war in Europe, the bombing was concentrated on civilian housing. The rationale given was the discomfort of the workers having everything they owned buried under rubble would hamper war production. The real reason was that the bombers could hit a city block.

The same fate awaited the Japanese if the Allies launched an invasion.

War and a bar fight have something in common. Whatever may have started the conflict, the immediate goal is to convince the other guy that continuing to fight is a bad idea. If an atomic bomb is what you have, it's what you use.

Any moral argument which condemns the use of atomic bombs has to address the obvious point, which is it worked. The killing stopped.

Of course, but given human nature defined at least partly by genetics how do we eliminate conflict? Russia nad Chima are in an aggressive pre WWII land and resource acquisition posture. In practical terms how does the world back down?

Back in the 80s I was listening to Abrams talk about nuclear deterrence. It made sense to me. The only problem is the Russian American standoff worked because both sides had a common sense of survival and did not want destruction. I believe nukes prevented a WWIII in Europe. The Soviets wanted Europe or as much as they could get.

The problem is wildcards. NK, Iran, Pakistan.

The tactical value of nuclear weapons has been reduced by precision weapons. Instead of leveling a couple square miles, cruise missiles and other guided weapons can take out key targets with an accuracy which could only be dreamed of in WW2. This greatly reduces the likelihood of a super power using an nuclear weapon. If I were a despotic leader who feared regime change by more powerful nations, a nuclear bomb might make me feel more secure, but a really good investment would be a weapon system which could disable GPS satellites.

When I was at Lockheed there were always unclassified military journals around. I read an article about potential scenarios for a Soviet invasion of Europe circa 1980s. There is only one route to transport large numbers of troops and equipment. It is well known. NATO has distributed stockpiles to last a certain amount of time. while America resupplies.

The war game predicted it would rather quickly go nuclear. There are tactical nuclear cruise missiles. Russia has been boasting of new long range nuclear cruise missiles that can evade interception. All sides are working on so called agile weapons that can avoid detection and interception.

The evolution continues.

There have been close calls. In the 80s Warsaw Pact was conducting exercises that began to look like an invasion. The situation escalated to the point where NATO tactual nuke missiles were raised and ready to fire.

In another case the USA launched a science missile with the proper international notifications. For a time on Russian radar it looked like the track of nuclear missile would take over the pole. The info had not passed down to the military. The Soviet premier was within seconds of launching a nuclear strike before the word got around.

And of course the Cuban crisis. McNamara said afterwards he went to be wondering if he would wake up.

IMO they will ne used again in the future.

 

[bilby]

The 1980s are a very long time ago.

The political and technological picture today is wildly different.

Precision bombing wasn't widely available to any military force until the mid '90s - Much of the ordinance used in Desert Storm was 'dumb' bombs, and it was the tactical success of the few guided munitions in that conflict that led to their much wider adoption.

The Soviet Union also ceased to exist in the early '90s. I am surprised you weren't informed of this.

As to there only being one route to invade Western Europe for Soviet forces, that has to be the most hilariously absurd thing I have heard in months. Europe is a big place. And competent military strategists stopped believing that they couldn't be attacked through difficult terrain after the Ardennes Offensive of 1940.

Even if the Soviets had been limited to using existing roads and railways, the pattern of both in Germany is of widely separated parallel East-West routes, (with interconnectors to major cities), any or all of which could have been exploited by an invading force. Germany is practically unique in not having her major highways arranged in a 'hub and spokes' pattern centred on the capital city, and this oddity is a direct result of the systems being designed to transport large numbers of troops and their equipment across the country. The railways were built in the late 1800s with the Schlieffen Plan in mind; And the autobahns were built in the 1930s with a view to a similar war against both France and Russia.

Given that the Soviets already occupied the Eastern part of Germany, this infrastructure would have given them a wide range of strategic options if they had invaded.

And of course none of this has anything to do with your claim that "Nukes are the logical conclusion of the endless search for more efferent and deadly ways to wage war", which remains wrong in pretty much every detail.

 

[skepticalbip]

Yes, the French built the Maginot Line to defend the only invasion route that the Germans could use to invade France. Those fucking stupid Germans went around it, not going cross country but using the highways from Belgium to Paris to move their troops.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Yes, the French built the Maginot Line to defend the only invasion route that the Germans could use to invade France. Those fucking stupid Germans went around it, not going cross country but using the highways from Belgium to Paris to move their troops.

In WWI, the Germans went through Belgium. They were prepared to give ground where the Maginot line was later built, it was though that that would increase the force of the Belgian route. That was the subtlety of the Schlieffen plan.

 

[bilby]

Yes, the French built the Maginot Line to defend the only invasion route that the Germans could use to invade France. Those fucking stupid Germans went around it, not going cross country but using the highways from Belgium to Paris to move their troops.

In WWI, the Germans went through Belgium. They were prepared to give ground where the Maginot line was later built, it was though that that would increase the force of the Belgian route. That was the subtlety of the Schlieffen plan.

Yeah, but they stuffed it up - they were too keen not to cede any territory on the left, and reinforcements were sent there which Schlieffen's original plan had specifically said should not be allowed to happen. The right of the German advance ran out of steam on the brink of a decisive victory over the French, and the war bogged down into trench warfare. The French and British were divided and exhausted - just a few extra units sent to the Channel rather than to Alsace-Lorraine could have made all the difference - but the Germans couldn't bear the thought of letting the French have that territory back, even as part of a temporary strategic concession of territory.

 

[Bronzeage]

Yes, the French built the Maginot Line to defend the only invasion route that the Germans could use to invade France. Those fucking stupid Germans went around it, not going cross country but using the highways from Belgium to Paris to move their troops.

It's easy to take cheap shots at the Maginot Line, but the fact is, the Maginot Line worked. It's purpose was to prevent German forces from crossing the border and it did that very well. The French had every opportunity to use those Belgium highways to meet the Germans, but things didn't work out well.

There is a well known military truism, 'The winner of the last war thinks the next war will be the same, the loser is looking for a way to make the next war different." The French wanted a better trench and the Germans wanted something better than a trench.

 

[steve_bank]

Probably another thread.

Actually no one thought the next war would be the same. The French were behind the German and British curve. The French were still practicing cavalry tactics.

Guderian was the mobile armor promoter in Ge4rmny and wrote books still in print. There was British coputer part inter war, his name is not commi9ng to me. Post war he claimed he had colorated with Guderian pre war.

And Patton in the USA.

The French and the allies were unprepared. The Germans had already developed and battle tested the revolutionary concept of dynamic air, armor, and infantry coordination by radio. Today it is called Command And Control.

The Germs had deficiencies at the start that causght up with them. They had no large scale transport, the eqwuivalent of the American 2 1/2 ton truck or the Deuce And A Half.

They also lacked large numbers of long range heavy bomers like the B17 and Lancaster.

 

[Bronzeage]

Probably another thread.

Actually no one thought the next war would be the same. The French were behind the German and British curve. The French were still practicing cavalry tactics.

Guderian was the mobile armor promoter in Ge4rmny and wrote books still in print. There was British coputer part inter war, his name is not commi9ng to me. Post war he claimed he had colorated with Guderian pre war.

And Patton in the USA.

The French and the allies were unprepared. The Germans had already developed and battle tested the revolutionary concept of dynamic air, armor, and infantry coordination by radio. Today it is called Command And Control.

The Germs had deficiencies at the start that causght up with them. They had no large scale transport, the eqwuivalent of the American 2 1/2 ton truck or the Deuce And A Half.

They also lacked large numbers of long range heavy bomers like the B17 and Lancaster.

Germany lacked petroleum and rubber, and did not have the naval resources to maintain a supply of either. It would not have mattered if they had big trucks and bombers.

Their strategic goals depended upon their opponents capitulating quickly. Once war started, Germany was doomed as long as Russian and the UK maintained the political will to fight.

 

[steve_bank]

For those interested in WWII an historical note.

Also there was a small WWI naval battle where sea launched plabes had an impact. The Japanese and the Amercans began carrier development post war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._H._Liddell_Hart

Sir Basil Henry Liddell Hart (31 October 1895 – 29 January 1970), commonly known throughout most of his career as Captain B. H. Liddell Hart, was a British soldier, military historian and military theorist. In the 1920s and later he wrote a series of military histories that proved influential among strategists. He argued that frontal assault was a strategy that was bound to fail at great cost in lives, as happened in 1914-1918. He instead recommended the "indirect approach" and reliance on fast-moving armoured formations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achtung_–_Panzer!

Achtung – Panzer! (English: "Attention, Tank!" or, more idiomatically, "Beware the Tank!") by Heinz Guderian is a book on the application of motorized warfare. First published in 1937, it expounds a new kind of warfare: the concentrated use of tanks, with infantry and air force in close support, later known as Blitzkrieg tactics. The book also argues against the continued use of cavalry given the proven effectiveness of the machine gun, and advocates replacing the cavalry with mechanised infantry. It was never properly studied by the French or the English general staff, both of whom helped introduced the tank.[1]

The first half of the book focuses on the advent of positional or 'trench warfare' in World War I, and the subsequent development of the first tanks. Here Guderian outlines the development of tanks and tank tactics throughout the Great War and during the interwar period. Later he discusses the effects of the Treaty of Versailles upon the German armed forces before detailing the recovery from the setbacks the Treaty caused in terms of development of mechanised forces. Guderian concludes by promoting the further development of the German tank force and providing suggestions concerning the future application of tanks and their relationship with other arms.[2]