Celtic charge and nukes

[chimera]

The Celtic tradition was for all to stand in the frontline and charge as one. Being in second rank was seen as an insult to the clan. After this charge, the force with the most men left standing, won.
This resembles an all-out, pre-emptive MAD nuke launch. Use them or lose them, and prevent further launches. Have the military gone circular back to tribal days?

[IrishHitman]

Celtic charges didn't have missile systems to counter them...

[Feanor]

Roman legions could have been early versions of a BMD systems :)

[chimera]

Are you talking war-gaming or facts? GMD is Celtic fantasy.
"The Missile Defense Agency Ground-Based Midcourse Defense Program (MDA/GMD) intends to negotiate on a sole source basis with The Boeing Company, Huntsville, Alabama, a new Core Completion Contract for the GMD program that will be comprised of four major work content elements."

[Feanor]

Me? I'm just joking. Your comparison of the Celtic warriors to modern nuclear weapons is laughable and I'm doing just that. Laughing. If you do have a serious point to this thread I'm sorry for the derail, but please do post the serious information then.

[chimera]

It's not about warriors, but the tactics. The Celts and Romans had more "shield" than nuke nations. The pre-emptive total launch is the same "one-shot" battle as Celts had, and is high-tech and low tactics.
That seems an odd situation.

[Feanor]

Not quite. Only in the case of all out nuclear war. Otherwise modern warfare has moved far beyond that. There is a reason nukes are more of a deterrence weapon then a combat one.

[chimera]

But all-out is what we're discussing. It's planned within radar confirmation of incoming multiple heads. The planned German mobilisation before WW 1 was inherently unstoppable. The Celtic one-hit nuke barrage is deterrent because it is planned , MAD. We are in barbarian hands.

[Feanor]

No. We're in the hands of politicians. It hasn't caused world war in the decades when the USA and USSR stared off on hair width from war. And you're worried now?

[chimera]

Yes, because the politicians are focussed on Iran and the end of 2009. The combinations then become complex compared to 1:1 , US:USSR. And the interests of industrial India, China, Russia and EU meet in several senses, in Iran's oil. Then nuclear Saudi Arabia, Kuwait? along with Israel and Pakistan.
I worry.

[Feanor]

What? Nuclear Iran will be far more of a stabilizing factor then a destabilizing. Russia has no interest in Iranian oil, Russia is worlds second largest oil exporter. Pakistan has enough internal problems to deal with, to for the most part avoid getting involved in an Iranian mess. Why you think Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would get nuclear weapons is beyond me.

[chimera]

Well, it might just work. Iran with holy-war nukes for peace. The US gives North and South Korea 200 nukes each for stability and goes home. Palestine and Israel have matching artillery nukes, no problem.

[Feanor]

I'm sorry, but that entire post read like sci-fi to me. USA gives nukes to north and south korea? Palestine and Israel matching nukes? What?

[chimera]

It's the logical extension of your sci-fi about Iran being stabilising with nukes.
Thank you. I rest my case.

[Feanor]

.......... once again if Iran is hellbent on getting nukes and actually accomplishes it, they will have what..... several prehistoric nuclear bombs? Those warheads need delivery systems, and aren't very powerful. Iran will hold on to them, and probably use them as insurance against a possible US, or for that matter anyone else, invasion. Again look at North Korea. They have several nukes. And they're still technically at war with RoK. But we have yet to see any attempts to nuke Seoul.