|
Posts:
1
Registered:
12/12/03
|
|
(1 of 4)
The A-Bomb, the H-Bomb...
Dec 12, 2003 11:48 AM
|
My 2 cents:
The atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb along with the delivery systems in the form of missiles, launched either from protected silos or nuclear submarines, have come to change forever the way wars are fought. No nations that have this kind of weaponry are likely to go to war against one another in the foreseeable future. What we are left with are low level regional conflicts, more often than not fought by proxy. Also it becomes more clear than ever that wars now are fought over natural resources and not over ideology...
|
|
|
Posts:
1,543
Registered:
12/7/03
|
|
(2 of 4)
Dec 22, 2003 1:51 PM
|
|
and concur.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,274
From:
California
Registered:
7/8/03
|
|
(3 of 4)
Re: The A-Bomb, the H-Bomb...
Dec 22, 2003 3:02 PM
|
Hey Southener.
While I agree with what you are say, I don't think it adresses the question completely.
"The History of Warfare"?? Nuclear weapons only have a very short 57 year part in that history. And missiles even less time. I tend to think that nuclear weapons changed Politics, diplomacy, and certainly the "politics of war". But not so much war itself.
Does that sound wrong?
As far as changing the battlefield, I can't see where they have impacted at all, except, perhaps, to further the dispersion of C&C.
My point was that the crossbow and longbow, when brought into regimented use, changed warfare because of the change in battlefield tactics. From hand-to-hand to ranged attack and defence. Primitive hand cannons, firelocks, flintlocks, et., et., et. only increased these ranges, but didn't really change the tactics. Until that is, the first proper use of the machinegun, which again forced massive changes in tactics.
Nuclear missles as an extention of ranged weaponry? Perhaps. The problem is, that aside from to atomic "iron bombs", atomics have never been used in any battle!
I guess it boils down to how you want to define the question. Nuclear weapons, (as, in a way, you say) have most certainly changed who goes to war, (or, to be more correct, "who goes to war THRU whom"?? ) when, and why. But, I can say that they have "most influenced warfare".
Was Japans agression towards the USA a result of ideology, or natural resources??
|
|
|
Posts:
12
Registered:
3/6/04
|
|
(4 of 4)
Re: The A-Bomb, the H-Bomb...
Mar 7, 2004 12:42 AM
|
|
Nuclear weapons are political weapons, not military tools. Nuclear weapons are so powerful that civilian leadership in nuclear capable nations keep tight reigns on their use, thus they are essentially a non-factor on the battlefield. Over half a century after Trinity the United States still wages war with high explosives and gunpowder, to devestation effect I might add.
|
|
|
|
|
