It would seem since the end of the cold war and the disarmming of all US and Russian warships of "tactical" nuclear weapons and cruise missiles (supposadly) , that this is a redundant question, but given China/Taiwan and other possible scenarios I think it is still relevant for the following reasons:
-The US has the dominant surface navy particularly because of it's carriers which make tempting targets because of their relevance.
-Many ex-Soviet missiles/torpedos were designed to nuke carriers, and wheather against the Russians or their weapons customers, the nuclear weapon would pose a solution to US sea dominance and carriers without necessarily "escallating" to the land use of nuclear weapons.
-The use of nuclear weapons at sea would only pose the possible risk of radiation poisening to distant civillians, but not necessarily, and mostly the only other casualties other than combatants would be fish.... Thus the use of nuclear weapons could be "limited" (as much as the term could ever apply in nuclear warfare) to the sea.....
Thoughts???
-The US has the dominant surface navy particularly because of it's carriers which make tempting targets because of their relevance.
-Many ex-Soviet missiles/torpedos were designed to nuke carriers, and wheather against the Russians or their weapons customers, the nuclear weapon would pose a solution to US sea dominance and carriers without necessarily "escallating" to the land use of nuclear weapons.
-The use of nuclear weapons at sea would only pose the possible risk of radiation poisening to distant civillians, but not necessarily, and mostly the only other casualties other than combatants would be fish.... Thus the use of nuclear weapons could be "limited" (as much as the term could ever apply in nuclear warfare) to the sea.....
Thoughts???
Comment