The thing is, no sane mad dictator will use nuclear weapons and think they can get away with it. No sane mad dictator will use nuclear weapons just to make a point. Make a few cities go up in mushroom clouds isn't a great way of retaining power - which is ultimately the only thing any mad dictator wants. They want to appear bellicose and blustering to their own people. Have Palais Del Presidente turned into glowing glass by the response - along with the rest of the country - isn't the way to do that. Dead Dictators don't get to enjoy their power... they just get dead.
Terrorists don't have that same brake. But they still have families, homelands and the like and the certain knowledge that the moment they go nuclear, there's no going back. Osama Bin Laden considered going nuclear.... destroying powerplants in this case. He thought better of it. Can you imagine the American response to a 9/11 that left a pall of radioactive fallout looming over large parts of the east coast, and several States and Cities uninhabitable for years?
The horror of nuclear weapons - for their owners at least - is the sure knowledge that the moment they use them, not only have they crossed an irrevocable line that makes them fair game for anything the target they used them on to do in return to them (And their families), they've also used up their major bargaining chip against them doing that anyway. By maintaining just the 'willingness' to use nuclear weapons, as opposed to actively using them, it acts as brake on how far the nations of the world can actually push them. Because there's always the risk that if you push them too far they'll get desperate and actually use them. It forces people to the negotiating table faster.
It's not that difficult to tell where a nuclear weapon came from.... and any nation harbouring such organisations as those that're willing to use them may find themselves in a very dangerous position.
Somehow, however, I think a full blown discussion on nuclear strategy might be a bit.... off topic. That said, nuclear weapons are counterintuitive things by their very nature. And Nuclear Spam is a trope I really amn't a fan of.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
Terrorists don't have that same brake. But they still have families, homelands and the like and the certain knowledge that the moment they go nuclear, there's no going back. Osama Bin Laden considered going nuclear.... destroying powerplants in this case. He thought better of it. Can you imagine the American response to a 9/11 that left a pall of radioactive fallout looming over large parts of the east coast, and several States and Cities uninhabitable for years?
The horror of nuclear weapons - for their owners at least - is the sure knowledge that the moment they use them, not only have they crossed an irrevocable line that makes them fair game for anything the target they used them on to do in return to them (And their families), they've also used up their major bargaining chip against them doing that anyway. By maintaining just the 'willingness' to use nuclear weapons, as opposed to actively using them, it acts as brake on how far the nations of the world can actually push them. Because there's always the risk that if you push them too far they'll get desperate and actually use them. It forces people to the negotiating table faster.
It's not that difficult to tell where a nuclear weapon came from.... and any nation harbouring such organisations as those that're willing to use them may find themselves in a very dangerous position.
Somehow, however, I think a full blown discussion on nuclear strategy might be a bit.... off topic. That said, nuclear weapons are counterintuitive things by their very nature. And Nuclear Spam is a trope I really amn't a fan of.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?