welsh
Junkmaster
SInce we have been going back to the issue of time in Fallout, I thought I would raise this issue.
Back in the early days of the Cold War, prior to MAD, there was a belief in a Ladder of Escalation. Basically the idea was that nuclear war would happen slowly. Both sides might actually slowly escalate and that perhaps even escalation could be controlled, and maybe, if there was a ladder of escalation, the two sides could descalate.
Thus, a crisis begins and the Soviets blocade Berlin, the US uses armor to break through, the Soviets counter attack into German and perhaps Turkey, the US counters that move by hitting the Black Sea Fleet, and so on and so forth, eventually hitting nuclear targets and major cities.
You can see a bit of this in the film "Threads" by which war happens only after a long series of events in a crisis, as depicted in the news dispatches.
The idea was that, because of the risks, neither side would push the war much further because of the risks. Armageddon would not happen in a flash but in a slow death.
Many people thought this was nonsense, that once begun the war would quickly escalate. The key here was the "use it or lose it" rationale. If you left the weapons unused, they could be destroyed and might even attract attack. With MAD the issue became whether to wait for the missiles to actually hit before launching, and the war, once hot, was seen as happening very quickly.
During the Reagan years, however, the idea of "winnable" nuclear war became fashionable again. More, Reagan proposed that such an escalation would occur not just in one theatre (as illustrated above) but globally.
Thus, a crisis in Berlin, the US uses armor to break through, the Soviets counter attack in Turkey, the US takes out the Soviet Pacific Fleet. The Soviets counter attack against US bases in Japan, etc.
What do you think? Was it possible to have a ladder of escalation? If so could you possibly control the escalation?
Back in the early days of the Cold War, prior to MAD, there was a belief in a Ladder of Escalation. Basically the idea was that nuclear war would happen slowly. Both sides might actually slowly escalate and that perhaps even escalation could be controlled, and maybe, if there was a ladder of escalation, the two sides could descalate.
Thus, a crisis begins and the Soviets blocade Berlin, the US uses armor to break through, the Soviets counter attack into German and perhaps Turkey, the US counters that move by hitting the Black Sea Fleet, and so on and so forth, eventually hitting nuclear targets and major cities.
You can see a bit of this in the film "Threads" by which war happens only after a long series of events in a crisis, as depicted in the news dispatches.
The idea was that, because of the risks, neither side would push the war much further because of the risks. Armageddon would not happen in a flash but in a slow death.
Many people thought this was nonsense, that once begun the war would quickly escalate. The key here was the "use it or lose it" rationale. If you left the weapons unused, they could be destroyed and might even attract attack. With MAD the issue became whether to wait for the missiles to actually hit before launching, and the war, once hot, was seen as happening very quickly.
During the Reagan years, however, the idea of "winnable" nuclear war became fashionable again. More, Reagan proposed that such an escalation would occur not just in one theatre (as illustrated above) but globally.
Thus, a crisis in Berlin, the US uses armor to break through, the Soviets counter attack in Turkey, the US takes out the Soviet Pacific Fleet. The Soviets counter attack against US bases in Japan, etc.
What do you think? Was it possible to have a ladder of escalation? If so could you possibly control the escalation?
