This is a discussion on What could replace nukes for strategic use within the Missiles & WMDs forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; With nukes being such a big taboo for actual use, what type of heavy hitter could be a possible weapon ...
With nukes being such a big taboo for actual use, what type of heavy hitter could be a possible weapon that could be a first strike weapon without necessarily triggering WWIII?
With nukes being such a big taboo for actual use, what type of heavy hitter could be a possible weapon that could be a first strike weapon without necessarily triggering WWIII?
You need to clarify what exactly it is that you are asking. What makes nuclear weapons "taboo" as you put it, is the amount of damage they can do, and the potential for lingering after effects, hence why nuclear weaponry is categorized as a WMD, a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
For similar reasons, chemical and biological weaponry are also labeled as WMD's.
As for 'first strike' weapons, the entire point of such weapons are for their effects to be such that after the strike hits, the target is unable to respond after a single strike. This is why such massively damaging weapons like nuclear warheads are tasked with such a role.
Now if people were able to create another kind of weapon which did damage on a similar scale but without leaving behind radiation, etc, such a weapon would still get categorized as a WMD and would still be "taboo" to use.
Such a prohibition on use (and the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction) has kept warheads capable of killing millions of people each in flash of light and heat from being used. That is not a prohibition that any should wish to end.
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
A high yield EMP device could take out all major Civilian Electronics and communication gear which can cause a lot of damage for the economy without causing the loss of life and destruction a nuclear device does. Ofcourse it wouldnt affect non-electrical,non-electronic infrastructure so one cant take out lets say a building but you switch off the lights. However within its scope of action it can be considered a weapon with strategic intent basis on target area and yield of the weapon in question. Other than than i agree to Todjaeger's post above
With nukes being such a big taboo for actual use, what type of heavy hitter could be a possible weapon that could be a first strike weapon without necessarily triggering WWIII?
WW III ? For something can constitute as WW III, then the opposing forces must involved between two members of Big 5 or even involving all of them. As if only between one of Big 5 against smaller nation, then can't considered WW III, or we already have WW III longtime ago.
Thus if this involved 2 members of Big 5 as opposing forces, and it does not matter what they use. When they attack each other, they already start WW III, no matter what initial weapon they use. Do you even think it's possible to say if ; ' China navy launch missiles attack on USN CBG off Taiwan', then US will not retaliate the attack and launch a major War ?
Then when they do it, it's just matter of time (and I mean really short time) before nukes talking.
With nukes being such a big taboo for actual use, what type of heavy hitter could be a possible weapon that could be a first strike weapon without necessarily triggering WWIII?
The biggest heavy hitters today, next to tactical nuclear weapons are thermobaric weapons ( Russian FOAB is said to have a yield of 44 tons) . The ones that are able to do what small tactical nukes can are too big, prohibiting their launch platforms for first day use. However there is a 1500Kg thermobaric bomb that can be dropped from a flanker or Su-34 (i can't remember the name of the bomb) which has a kill radius of 400 - 500 meters for infantry. With advancements in nano technology, fuels can be interspersed with nano particles with a longer burn, creating a more massive shockwave and greater vacuum in the blast radius. Their usage shouldn't qualify for a retaliatory nuclear strike unless they are used over populated areas.
A few points to consider. Generally, a high yield EMP device is going to be a nuke, but instead of it being targets at a city, base, or piece of physical infrastructure, it would be a high altitude or perhaps exo-atmospheric burst, like a FOBS.
As for a thermobaric weapon with a kill radious of 600 m vs. infantry... Unless the OP is talking about a different form of 'first strike' weaponry, then such a thermobaric weapon does not quite cut it. Of course anyone in the kill radius would be effected, especially if they were in the open, but the side being hit with such a weapon would still be able to launch counterattacks. Unless of course the use of thermobaric weaponry was on a massive scale, i.e. hundreds or perhaps thousands of sorties being carried out simultaneously. Such operations are conventional in nature, and limited in the AoE of individual sorties.
-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
You need to clarify what exactly it is that you are asking. What makes nuclear weapons "taboo" as you put it, is the amount of damage they can do, and the potential for lingering after effects, hence why nuclear weaponry is categorized as a WMD, a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
For similar reasons, chemical and biological weaponry are also labeled as WMD's.
As for 'first strike' weapons, the entire point of such weapons are for their effects to be such that after the strike hits, the target is unable to respond after a single strike. This is why such massively damaging weapons like nuclear warheads are tasked with such a role.
Now if people were able to create another kind of weapon which did damage on a similar scale but without leaving behind radiation, etc, such a weapon would still get categorized as a WMD and would still be "taboo" to use.
Such a prohibition on use (and the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction) has kept warheads capable of killing millions of people each in flash of light and heat from being used. That is not a prohibition that any should wish to end.
to address several of your points
By taboo I mean that if you use nukes everyone states using nukes in a conflict. If you use nukes and the target doesn't have nukes then you will either be nuked by a ally of that country or shunned by the international community.
By first strike I mean the ability to use a weapon which is either A sufficiently devastating as to take combatant out of the conflict(by choice or otherwise) or B a strike that cannot be blocked by current tech.
So what I mean is any thoughts on weapons that could be used to end a conflict, take out the opponents leaders, or be used in a strategic way(i.e. main uses of nukes in a first strike role). All without the guaranteed nuclear escalation that using nukes would cause. (I say guaranteed because any conflict between nuclear power could easily escalate into a nuclear conflict)
By taboo I mean that if you use nukes everyone states using nukes in a conflict. If you use nukes and the target doesn't have nukes then you will either be nuked by a ally of that country or shunned by the international community.
By first strike I mean the ability to use a weapon which is either A sufficiently devastating as to take combatant out of the conflict(by choice or otherwise) or B a strike that cannot be blocked by current tech.
So what I mean is any thoughts on weapons that could be used to end a conflict, take out the opponents leaders, or be used in a strategic way(i.e. main uses of nukes in a first strike role). All without the guaranteed nuclear escalation that using nukes would cause. (I say guaranteed because any conflict between nuclear power could easily escalate into a nuclear conflict)
The description you provided is actually what I expected, but you seemed to have overlooked a key point. Such a devastating weapon is by its nature a WMD, whether it is nuclear or not. It is the use of WMD's which would trigger counterstrikes in kind by the target, or allies of the target if the target is unable. At the same time, non-involved nations would be expected to initiate some for of sanctions upon the country who first started WMD use.
It is not the fact that a weapon is a nuke which makes it so 'bad', it is the fact that a nuke is a WMD, and WMD's are 'bad'.
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
I agree with you but what im trying to discus is what Could be used, without triggering that response.
A sum-what farcical example would be a large rail-gun type weapon, since it could penetrate any bunker designed today and is virtually unstoppable.
If you still think that would be in the WMD category, then lets for future reference for this forum take whether a country would retaliate with nukes out of the equation.
I agree with you but what im trying to discus is what Could be used, without triggering that response.
A sum-what farcical example would be a large rail-gun type weapon, since it could penetrate any bunker designed today and is virtually unstoppable.
If you still think that would be in the WMD category, then lets for future reference for this forum take whether a country would retaliate with nukes out of the equation.
Who defines WMD? I know that recently the US has been quite liberal in labelling things as WMD, which is a bit ludicrous when they were standard munitions - US threatening Ghadaffi earlier this year. Technically speaking an explosive device could be a WMD for example a 2000lb GP bomb. How about mines? Or cluster bombs? Or IEDS? Or a GP machine gun? How do you define mass fatalities? Is it 10 fatalities? 100? 1000? See it all depends on who is doing the defining. I'm not trying to be pedantic nor am I using sophistry but just thought I would point it out.
I agree with you but what im trying to discus is what Could be used, without triggering that response.
A sum-what farcical example would be a large rail-gun type weapon, since it could penetrate any bunker designed today and is virtually unstoppable.
If you still think that would be in the WMD category, then lets for future reference for this forum take whether a country would retaliate with nukes out of the equation.
A railgun, or going back in time to WWII or WWI and re-examining one of the old railway guns, can deliver significant damage to the target hit by the shell/projectile. No question about that. However, hitting and individual target with something is not going to be able to stop the target from responding or launching a counterstrike, which from what I understand is supposed to be the point of the proposed 'first strike' weapon.
In fact, just a system might be no more effective, and potentially less effective as a delivery system than some of the new standoff precision-guided munitions which are in development like JASSM-ER. However, all such systems run into the limitation of not being individually sufficient to stop a counterstrike by the target. If fired en masse at strategic locations within the target nation, that is different, but then that is not using a single weapon system, but hundreds or thousands of different weapon systems at the same time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngatimozart
Who defines WMD? I know that recently the US has been quite liberal in labelling things as WMD, which is a bit ludicrous when they were standard munitions - US threatening Ghadaffi earlier this year. Technically speaking an explosive device could be a WMD for example a 2000lb GP bomb. How about mines? Or cluster bombs? Or IEDS? Or a GP machine gun? How do you define mass fatalities? Is it 10 fatalities? 100? 1000? See it all depends on who is doing the defining. I'm not trying to be pedantic nor am I using sophistry but just thought I would point it out.
Generally, at least when taking about 'first strike' weapon systems which are individually capable fo rendering the target unable to respond or react following a successful strike are considered WMD's because as an individual weapon, damage has been done to an entire city and/or region all at once.
While it is true that depending on the person defining the term WMD, it could even include a LMG (and media is so good at twisting or mixing terms...) for the purposes of this discussion, the OP seems to be talking about weapon systems which can be used for a 'first strike' of sufficient potency to leave the target nation-state in a position where it can carry out no effective counterstrike or response.
-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
This MIGHT be able to be used on an unsuspecting adversary that MIGHT give it a psychological advantage, but would need to go back to WWII era bombing campaign for the opening shots, for if it was between two of the big five tensions would be high between them already and their defence would be on higher alert so it might not make it feasible unless you wanted to send your pilots on a suicide mission. The whole idea about first strike with nuclear weapons is trying to disable your opponent from launching a counter strike to avoid MAD (mutual assured destruction).
A squadron of B2 Sprit Bomber or B1 Lancer with a mixture of GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb and the GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator, will be a conventional way of keeping the WMD out of the picture, but if things are going bad for one side they just might revert to using nuclear weapons if the war was not a localised bombing on the nation state. But for what the OP wanted their would have to be a build up of force’s on both side’s, for a conventional first strike would be by cruise missile and SEAD missions and depending who it is one of the forces might have to have a long logistic tail to commit to this type of action.
A railgun, or going back in time to WWII or WWI and re-examining one of the old railway guns, can deliver significant damage to the target hit by the shell/projectile. No question about that. However, hitting and individual target with something is not going to be able to stop the target from responding or launching a counterstrike, which from what I understand is supposed to be the point of the proposed 'first strike' weapon.
In fact, just a system might be no more effective, and potentially less effective as a delivery system than some of the new standoff precision-guided munitions which are in development like JASSM-ER. However, all such systems run into the limitation of not being individually sufficient to stop a counterstrike by the target. If fired en masse at strategic locations within the target nation, that is different, but then that is not using a single weapon system, but hundreds or thousands of different weapon systems at the same time.
Generally, at least when taking about 'first strike' weapon systems which are individually capable fo rendering the target unable to respond or react following a successful strike are considered WMD's because as an individual weapon, damage has been done to an entire city and/or region all at once.
While it is true that depending on the person defining the term WMD, it could even include a LMG (and media is so good at twisting or mixing terms...) for the purposes of this discussion, the OP seems to be talking about weapon systems which can be used for a 'first strike' of sufficient potency to leave the target nation-state in a position where it can carry out no effective counterstrike or response.
the rail gun was supposed to be a farcical example. Though the version I meant would be intercontinental, and with a weight of even a few tons would pack quite a punch(tens of kilos or more), especially if the launcher is in the US and can fire multiple rounds in a day. That kind of firepower raining down on command centers, airfields, and battle lines could very easily force someone who want willing to use nukes to that kind of attack into a ceasefire.
I like t68's post, it was along the ideas that I was trying to discuss.
Allow me to throw out one. A very potent virus. It could disable all their comms, thus slowing communication down to radio which would slow any enemy down greatly, also depending on how successfully inserted into their net it is it could even screw up things like fly by wire planes and radar arrays.
I am pretty sure that the use of any weapon having a hard hitting presence, WMD or not, is going to start a war if used against any nation capable of even remotely defending itself. If that target is not capable of defending itself, why use such a large weapon when smaller, more precise weapons exist that can do the job?
In this day and age of precision strike weaponry, the ONLY use for such a large weapon would be to cause massive damage to multiple targets against an enemy with similar capability. The only reason to form that kind of action would be for a preemptive strategic strike aimed at the destruction of a large amount of the enemies strategic forces before they can be employed. The end result is the same; you are going to start a war so you better get a good hit in first.
