nazi info real or fiction?

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Sven

they are both meant to get rid of a lot of people at concentrated places in a short time.

Correct.

Atomic bombs weren´t made to kill tanks or bridges, theyre meant for cities full of civilians why else would mankind invent such a weapon?

Why are there nuclear warheads for artillery shells and torpedoes?

[winny]

On the subject of War Crimes.

There are obvious ones, mass executions being a good example. Then it gets murky really fast, Area bombing isn't considered a war crime despite it being indescriminate it's also 'indirect'. I don't think Hirosima was a war crime either. It makes no difference what label you give to it, it was still a low point in history.

War crimes are something we invented so that we could execute some top brass and government types after we'd beaten them. However much the UN try to sanitise war by applying rules when it comes down to it it's all criminal. You just need to make sure you win because it's also highly subjective.

On the subject of Little Boy and Fat man.

If you want a generic A-bomb included in the game then fine, if you get off on dropping nukes then who am I to object to that?

But, if you want Little Boy and Fat man in the game then I say no way. They are too specific to be included in a form of entertainment.

[Friendly_flyer]

Originally Posted by swiss

Why are there nuclear warheads for artillery shells and torpedoes?

Nuclear artillery shells are intended as last ditch weapons when you are in a situation where sacrificing your own troops, civilians or tracts of land (anything bombed will be largely be unuseable for a good while) is a thinkable strategy. In other words, it is for use on your own territory.

Nuclear torpedos are either intended as "land torpedoes" (the Soviet T-15, where you basically substitute the missile or long range bomber for a submarine), or as anti-submarine torpedoes (the ASTOR) to use on nuclear subs that you would otherwise have no chance of taking out. The first is just a marine version of a Hiroshima-type bomb, the other is a first strike weapon, to stop the enemy submarine from raining death on your own country. Neither are very practical, you are likely to loose whatever vessel is launching it.

There has been some movement to try to produce small, "tactical" nuclear warheads. Bush was arguing for a nuclear "bunker-buster". So far, the technical problem is to make nuclear weapons small enough to not be an city size destruction area weapon. That nuclear artillery shells and torpedoes exist does not mean they are a good idea. Cold war deterrent logic can make anyones head spin.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Friendly_flyer

In other words, it is for use on your own territory.

Nothing new. In the 60's Switzerland had it's own Nuclear program, it had exactly 2 goals.

1st: Being able to deliver a nuke to Moscow.
(That was sole reason we choose the Mirage3 back then)

2nd: Nuke our own country in case we're overrun.
Make sense, since we don't have an offensive army[or even the capability,lol].
Speaking of killing your own: The handgun each military officer carries is nothing but a "moral enforcer".


Torps:
During the Cuba crisis, the Russian subs were equipped with nuclear torpedoes - the decision to fire them was up to the captain, no need for an ok from the politbüro.
Don't you think they would also work pretty well against a flotilla/carrier group?

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by swiss

Nothing new. In the 60's Switzerland had it's own Nuclear program, it had exactly 2 goals.

1st: Being able to deliver a nuke to Moscow.
(That was sole reason we choose the Mirage3 back then)

2nd: Nuke our own country in case we're overrun.
Make sense, since we don't have an offensive army[or even the capability,lol].
Speaking of killing your own: The handgun each military officer carries is nothing but a "moral enforcer".


Torps:
During the Cuba crisis, the Russian subs were equipped with nuclear torpedoes - the decision to fire them was up to the captain, no need for an ok from the politbüro.
Don't you think they would also work pretty well against a flotilla/carrier group?

My understanding of the tests that the US did on ships leads me to believe the answer to that last question was "yes and no". A detonation of a small nuke (what an oxymoron lol) near a vessel would wipe it out immediately. Further away and the ship provides occupants some protection from the initial blast, plus ships are tough structures. Radiation becomes a problem, but that doesn't mean that vessels not taken out by the blast are out of commission immediately.

Even radiation to certain levels can be dealt with. I know the US did studies on radiation levels and how to decontaminate and protect people from radiation. It was surprising how "close" one could be a nuclear blast and survive, even long term, if they had some limited protection.

My understanding also is that NATO had "plans" to use tactical nukes against Soviet armor. The paths that the Soviets were likely to use to invade Western Europe were limited. Deny those paths and the armor columns could get bottled up. Soviet armor was one of the biggest concerns because it was decent and very numerous. That's why so much US development went into tank busting (Apache, A-10, etc..).

On the flip side, the "nuclear tank" and artillery piece were abandoned a long time ago to my recollection. Too vulnerable, not enough range, and not effective enough plus very expensive.

I'm not sure if anyone (nations) still subscribes to the concept of a limited nuclear engagement. Those types of encounters would seem to lead to escalation in short order.

No google was used on these assertions, all done from memory so take it for what it is worth.

Splitter

[Dozer_EAF19]

Also from memory - the Chenobyl disaster did a lot to persuade some of the USSR's more hawkish generals that the prospects of a 'clean', limited, no-nukes conventional war were non-existant. So when Poland led the defection of Eastern European nations from glorious Marxism to degenerate capitalism, the consensus was that military intervention was not possible - even 'conventional' warfare would involve airstrikes on both side's nuclear power stations, the fallout from which would strike the whole world and probably bring in NATO as 'peacekeepers'. The Chenobyl distaster may have indirectly saved many more lives than it took!

I wish I could remember where I read this. Very probably a library book. Should maybe see if they have long-term records of what I've borrowed...

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Dozer_EAF19

Also from memory - the Chenobyl disaster did a lot to persuade some of the USSR's more hawkish generals that the prospects of a 'clean', limited, no-nukes conventional war were non-existant. So when Poland led the defection of Eastern European nations from glorious Marxism to degenerate capitalism, the consensus was that military intervention was not possible - even 'conventional' warfare would involve airstrikes on both side's nuclear power stations, the fallout from which would strike the whole world and probably bring in NATO as 'peacekeepers'. The Chenobyl distaster may have indirectly saved many more lives than it took!

I wish I could remember where I read this. Very probably a library book. Should maybe see if they have long-term records of what I've borrowed...

1st: They discovered fall-out before Chernobyl

2nd: Chernobyl was in 1986

3rd: The USSR collapsed in 1991

Conclusion: There were only 4 years left for the USSR. During that time they never had a realistic chance to win any war against the west.


We could also discuss how bad this Ukrainian disaster really was. The countermeasures in (W-)Europe were, maybe, a little over the top.

[KG26_Alpha]

Chernobyl fall out

IIRC in the UK water supplies in some Northern areas was affected as were livestock and crops.

[Dozer_EAF19]

Originally Posted by swiss

1st: They discovered fall-out before Chernobyl

2nd: Chernobyl was in 1986

3rd: The USSR collapsed in 1991

Conclusion: There were only 4 years left for the USSR. During that time they never had a realistic chance to win any war against the west.


We could also discuss how bad this Ukrainian disaster really was. The countermeasures in (W-)Europe were, maybe, a little over the top.

I think I've been misunderstood. The potential war that Chenobyl might have helped avert would have been a non-nuclear attack on Poland by the USSR, when Poland rejected Communism (followed by most of the rest of Eastern Europe). I think I remember reading that, prior to Chenobyl, the USSR's response would have been military intervention in Eastern Europe if that happened, without using nukes, and supposedly not giving any justification for NATO to intervene. But post-Chenobyl, they (the USSR groupthink) realised that even without nuclear weapons, each side would attack the other's nuclear power stations, causing world-wide damage and giving NATO reason to respond too.