Currently the Korean peninsula is not self - reliant but is rather absolutely dependent on
the nuclear war strategies of the superpowers in general and those of the United States in particular.
Not exact matches
WASHINGTON (AP)-- The Trump administration doesn't have a «bloody nose»
strategy focused on a military strike against North Korea's
nuclear program without provoking a full - scale
war.
«This creates a strong incentive for North Korea to develop its
nuclear capacity with all possible speed, which in turn may induce the United States to use its
nuclear superiority preemptively — in effect, to start a
nuclear war in order to prevent
nuclear war, an obviously self - contradictory
strategy,» he said.
The Iraq
War, however, is not being fought with
nuclear weapons and is in fact part of a
strategy — whether wise or not is another question — aimed at, among other things, preventing Iran from obtaining a
nuclear capacity.
Or James Schlesinger, former Secretary of Defense under Nixon and Ford, one of the foremost architects of late Cold
War nuclear targeting
strategy and
nuclear force modernization.
Originating in US Cold
War nuclear strategy, this theory holds that the key to winning a strategic conflict is enjoying the ability to escalate over your opponent at every rung of the «escalation ladder».
U.S.
nuclear policy and
strategy in this post-Cold
War and post-9 / 11 security environment have not been well articulated and as a consequence are poorly understood both within and outside American borders.
The big government (s) at the time were still considering whether a preemptive
nuclear first strike might be a good
strategy (the idea that World
War III could be won in a few days or a week and without a lot of collateral damage)-- or not.
Oil Rush is a 3D naval
strategy game that takes place in a post-apocalyptic world;
nuclear war has melted the ice caps, changing the face of the planet forever.
The big government (s) at the time were still considering whether a preemptive
nuclear first strike might be a good
strategy (the idea that World
War III could be won in a few days or a week and without a lot of collateral damage)-- or not.
I will also post some notes on stuff connecting ideas about advanced technology and
strategy (conventional and
nuclear) including notes from the single best book on
nuclear strategy, Payne's The Great American Gamble: deterrence theory and practice from the Cold
War to the twenty - first century.
Payne's book in a nutshell: 1) politicians and most senior officials operate with the belief that there is a dependable «rational» basis for successful deterrence in which «rational» US opponents will respond prudently and cautiously to US
nuclear deterrence threats; 2) the re-evaluation of
nuclear strategy in expert circles since the Cold
War exposes the deep flaws of Cold
War thinking in general and the concept of «rational» deterrence in particular (partly because
strategy was dangerously influenced by ideas about rationality from economics).