Prev: Re: Nukes was: Tin Cans versus Dreadnoughts Next: 2300 AD --> DS2/SG2

Re: Tin Cans versus Dreadnoughts

From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@t...>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 06:54:20 +0100
Subject: Re: Tin Cans versus Dreadnoughts

Matthew Smith wrote:

>I stand corrected! Still, what I said above applies equally to surface
>use, and explains why surface warfare is still necessary. Without
>something to stop nukes being used, what point is there in conducting
>a surface campaign?

We've had nukes on this planet for some 56 years, and so far only 2
have been used in surface campaings - in the very first of those 56
years. After WW2, not one single nuke has been used in anger - in spite
of a fairly large number of hot wars where at least one side had nukes
available.

Seems like there are some pretty strong reasons not to use nukes in
surface campaigns at least when fighting other humans, don't you think?

Regards,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry


Prev: Re: Nukes was: Tin Cans versus Dreadnoughts Next: 2300 AD --> DS2/SG2