Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.
You're not checking the Nordish reports then? It's given there.
2. You are hereby directed to compose or update all plans, files, or scenarios in order to advise the Defense Council and the Presidium regarding a national doctrine to actively encourage the termination of the Nordish atomic arms program using all necessary and applicable national-level assets, up to and including the preemptive use of military force.
3. You are hereby directed to consult upon the advisability of a program to design and acquire a deterent force of atomic arms under Russian control as part of the consideration of national political doctrine identified above.
2. You are hereby directed to compose or update all plans, files, or scenarios in order to advise the Defense Council and the Presidium regarding a national doctrine to actively encourage the termination of the Nordish atomic arms program using all necessary and applicable national-level assets, up to and including the preemptive use of military force.
3. You are hereby directed to consult upon the advisability of a program to design and acquire a deterent force of atomic arms under Russian control as part of the consideration of national political doctrine identified above.
And, as the Joker said, Here. We. Go.
I admit to being a bit amused that this admittedly predictable reaction is following an action that Nordmark only took to increase its own defensive security, though. Funny how history works out.
By definition a weapon or weapon system is neither solely defensive or offensive; it depends on how it is wielded by the user and perceived by the potential recipient. How is Nordmark threatened by any of its neighbors? Has Nordmark grown so paranoid that it must explicitly begin development of weapons of mass destruction to assure its security? If so, the development of comparable weapons by others is to be expected. As for preemptive actions, I think the term is "nipping a problem in the bud".
Ah yes, I do remember now, now I've found the reference.
I wouldn't get too jumpy about it, its still only a theoretical concept, sure the science is probably quite sound now but its a whole new unknown and the Nords haven't even got a pile going yet. I give them 10 years to do a decent job and without outside help its going to be a long slog.
As a weapon, I see it more as a strategic strike weapon. In the early 1940s they were viewed as 'Super-HE' type weapons, but they obviously are suited to large and industrial targets. As yet fine tuning for tactical uses is probably beyond the scope given the experience required to miniaturise the technology. Beyond 'super-weapon' scary propaganda, the rest is unknown as to its success or use.
At this point in history I don't think anyone views the Atomic bomb as a "defensive" weapon, quite the opposite actually as bombs are usually strapped to aircraft and flown in offensive sorties against an enemy. To be honest I doubt Nordmark would be able to afford an atomic bomb program, if as you say the Nordish military is making cutbacks but that's just my humble opinion. Speaking for my own country, Atlantis already has heavy bombers, an extensive radar network, a large air force and is capable of building Ballistic missile's with some fine tuning of its AAM project. Atomic energy/bomb developement would almost certainly be theoretically laid out. How and when that theory turns into practice is open to prediction.
You justify developing nuclear weapons because you lack the manpower to maintain a viable conventional defense against perceived foes...
Exactly who do you need to defend against? I think you are assuming a more predatory environment than actually exists; but certainly moving to develop such super weapons will be seen as a predatory measure by your neighbors and they will be constrained to act accordingly. Look at things from their perspective.
You justify developing nuclear weapons because you lack the manpower to maintain a viable conventional defense against perceived foes...
Exactly who do you need to defend against? I think you are assuming a more predatory environment than actually exists; but certainly moving to develop such super weapons will be seen as a predatory measure by your neighbors and they will be constrained to act accordingly. Look at things from their perspective.
International politics are fundamentally predatory, and you'll note that I in no way questioned Russia's position or logic on the matter, even if in retrospect their acquisition of and action on the relevant intelligence seem curiously abrupt to me given the degree of secrecy involved. I was remarking on the entirely appropriate parallels to the real-world's nuclear armament history, not complaining.
You justify developing nuclear weapons because you lack the manpower to maintain a viable conventional defense against perceived foes...
Exactly who do you need to defend against? I think you are assuming a more predatory environment than actually exists; but certainly moving to develop such super weapons will be seen as a predatory measure by your neighbors and they will be constrained to act accordingly. Look at things from their perspective.
International politics are fundamentally predatory, and you'll note that I in no way questioned Russia's position or logic on the matter, even if in retrospect their acquisition of and action on the relevant intelligence seem curiously abrupt to me given the degree of secrecy involved. I was remarking on the entirely appropriate parallels to the real-world's nuclear armament history, not complaining.
I do not believe you have answered my question... and your assumptions are self-serving.
I do not believe you have answered my question... and your assumptions are self-serving.
Since he did not, I would think that he has those warmongers to the south (i.e. the Huns you control) in mind but does not want to hurt your feelings by saying that directly. :)
That depends on the reason for the cutbacks; Nordmark is a fairly wealthy country and has, in my head, never had a problem affording new hardware or maintenance on what it has. The issue they're having is a manpower shortage - the Nordish population is only a little larger than that enjoyed OTL by the regions that make the country up, and that's too small to support a military that's capable of hindering any of their larger neighbors in a serious war.
Come to that, one of the reasons the Eisenhower-era US went in for a nuclear arsenal was the perception that it would be cheaper than maintaining full-scale conventional forces now that the atomic infrastructure was already in place.
Keep in mind both Britain and the U.S. both had nuclear programs, Britains more advanced that the Americans at first, then when war broke out and the British hesitated to share their research and were very quickly outpaced by the U.S. program, albeit due to their scientists working on "tube alloy's" were deverted to the American program. Essentially the British program was subsumed by the American one. Britain was a fairly wealthy country and it took them a decade with some knowledge gained via the Manhattan project (which took 3 years and a collective allied participation). Without a world war and allied cooperation I think 10 years is quite optimistic and that's before we take in wesworld economics into account. Britain has 50 factory's, Nordmark 21(?), factories being a rough gauge on a nations economic strength.
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH