Hypothetical Scenario of Super Austerity and Nuclear Doctine

[Tom Bryceland]

I have been thinking about the possiblity of such a scenario occuring, would be keen to have your thoughts on it.


2012: Second wave of Credit Crunch kicks in
2013: EU collapses, Worldwide Financial Disaster, Bank Runs in every country.
2014: Governments around the World need to decide " Guns or Butter"

A country Like France, UK, Israle, China or Even the USA Disbands its entire conventional forces.

All ground forces, Naval, Airforce, With the exception of Nuclear forces and those units responsable for their deployment and maintence, for the UK that would be keeping the subs,

Said country then Declares: Due to the current financial and economic situation we cannot maintain any form of non-nuclear deterrant, and as a result we will be changing our Nuclear first use policy and doctrine.

"We will respond to any acts of agression towards us or our treaty partners with tactical or strategic nuclear responses, no matter how small or large the incident. "


Could you imagine this change taking place?
I think this was kinda close to what happened after the breakup of the Soviet Union but not quite.

Do you think a nation would be able to rely only on nuclear forces on the gambit that no one would risk a nuclear strike?

(I know there would be a lot more problems in said country internally, mass civil disorder etc, but lets ignore those and discuss the plausability of such a doctrine)

 

[EXSSBN2005]

IMO it would be more likely to disband 1/2 of conventional / nuclear forces rather than all one or the other. In a small country hypothetically Israel (having never confirmed or denied the prescence of nuclear weapons though widely thought to have them) a conventional force from say Syria could get thru to Tel Aviv in a matter of what 45 mins. Closer still if Egyptian troops were to be allowed to move up thru Gaza strip. Thus they get your command and control people before you can react to the attack to authorize weapons release, your on site officer in charge probably wouldn't release / fire on their own w/o some direction from national command authority or similar.

For a larger country like France per your example, would they really want to jump right into trading cities with other countries over a border dispute of another country they had a treaty with, for example Toulon or Marseille for Sirte or Tripoli during the recient Lybia fighting / conflict / intervention. Another version Turkey and Greece come to fighting, do you nuke Greece, Turkey, or maybe some other country in the area to prevent them from jumping in?

As for changing nuclear weapons to a first strike weapon I dont really see that as a viable option, sending a few tanks to sit near the hostile area is very different from launching a nuclear war over a minor incursion by forces that might have accidentily turned the wrong direction in their travel.

 

[My2Cents]

"We will respond to any acts of agression towards us or our treaty partners with tactical or strategic nuclear responses, no matter how small or large the incident. "

Could you imagine this change taking place?
I think this was kinda close to what happened after the breakup of the Soviet Union but not quite.

Do you think a nation would be able to rely only on nuclear forces on the gambit that no one would risk a nuclear strike?

I do not think that it is a factor so much of “no one would risk a nuclear strike” as their thinking “will you risk the political fallout of a nuclear strike”? Because you will be deliberately targeting and destroying their civilian population, whereas they are engaging in a limited engagement that could, at least in theory, result in no civilian casualties.

Besides, unless you are willing to launch a preemptive strike their forces will already be across your border before you launch. Then:

• Are you going to nuke your own population?
• Are you going to risk starting a nuclear exchange with that country?
• What if the other country does not strike back with nuclear weapons, but instead just has those troops drive to your capital to arrest and put your government on trial for the war crime of attacking their civilian population with nuclear weapons? No matter how nasty the attacking country is, thanks to your first use of nuclear weapons, world opinion will be on their side (at least for the present), and your (former) allies will most likely refuse to talk to you (in public), much less send (politically unacceptable) help to defend you from your actions.
• Finally, your attackers will insist on reparations for your nuking them. They may even justify having to occupy your country to save the rest of the world from your imbecility/insanity.

As for launching a preemptive nuclear strike, consider this:

• If you were the leadership of another country having harsh words (words only) with your country after that preemptive attack, would you be nervous enough to launch your own preemptive nuclear attack in an attempt to take out their nukes, just in case?

That has always been the flaws in the nuclear warfare as the only defense scenario. It is also the reason that no one has used nuclear weapons in combat for 66 years. Once it starts, it can only get much, much, worse.