Another hashtag topic: The power of the nuclear bomb is so great that it can destroy humanity, so why did humanity make it?#
Set up a flag first, and W Jun is a nuclear pro-person who has properly penetrated into his bones. On the one hand, it is related to work, and on the other hand, it is related to cognition.
First of all, let's make a very important point: in the face of absolute power, there is no strategy to speak of.
Let's talk about a very simple example in life: everyone has trampled ants to death, right?When a person wants to step on an ant, is it necessary to set a strategy for stepping on the ant?Let's study the path of the ants beforehandChoose a specific location to give the ants an ambush battleCalculate whether to step with your left or right footNone of them, right?After the thought was moved, the ant died on the spot as soon as he stepped down!And if you don't die?One more kick ......Even if you are a child, it is easy to step on an ant. This is the absolute power suppression.
The emergence of nuclear ** is to make there be no strategy on the battlefield. But what is war?Clausewitz's On War defines war as follows: "der Krieg ist eine blo?".e fortsetzung der politik mit anderen mitteln.(War is nothing but a continuation of politics, but in a different way.) The central point in The Theory of War is that war does not exist in isolation, but is closely related to politics. The goal of war is to achieve political goals, while the means of war need to be adjusted according to the political situation.
From a historical point of view, "On War" was written in the first half of the 19th century, and although the author Clausewitz participated in many military operations with Napoleon and experienced the Russo-French war of 1912, he saw both the invincibility of Napoleon's army and the collapse of the French war machine in the face of the harsh Russian winter and the resistance of the people. In addition, he himself served as a staff officer and instructor in the Prussian army for a long time, constantly studying and pondering the nature of war and the laws of war, hoping to find a theory to explain what he saw and heard. Thus came the manuscript of "On War".
However, the so-called wars at that time are all "small fights" now, especially the emergence of nuclear **, this kind of stud effect has challenged many basic theories in the "Theory of War".
For example: "War has borders and limits", after the advent of full-scale nuclear war and ICBMs, war became borderless and limitless;"War is purposeful", and under a full-scale nuclear strike, human civilization will be greatly destroyed, which is obviously not in line with the purpose of war;"The role of rational decision-making in war", war is a science, rational decision-making is quite important, but under the threat of nuclear **, fear and uncertainty will greatly affect the generation of decision-making, making decision-making based on rationality more complicated.
Forcing the other side to submit politically is the only purpose of war, and there is no difference in political purpose between fighting a war that is completely devastating and leaving the other side disappearing, leaving behind a land that cannot be set foot in for decades. "The other side did not give in to your political views" and "no one came to obey your political views" are almost equivalent.
The emergence of nuclear ** has indeed given everyone the possibility of a "handful of studs", which has unstoppable and devastating results, and has also changed the nature and rules of war to a large extent. However, even in this case, the fundamental war theory that "war is a continuation of politics" has not been overturned.
In fact, modern nuclear strategy still revolves around this theory. The various countries that possess nuclear ** – the so-called members of the "nuclear club" – understand that while they have enough power to destroy the entire world, they also realize that if this power is really used, the results will be devastating and not beneficial to all. As a result, they have chosen to employ a tactic called "nuclear deterrence" to prevent other countries from attacking by other countries by demonstrating their nuclear capabilities, a worst and real consequence of war that can be seen by all.
In this sense, the presence of nuclear ** does not change the political nature of the war, but strengthens it. Conflicts and confrontations between states are still resolved by political means, including conventional war, and not by full-scale nuclear war. The existence of nuclear ** has only changed these political discourses, that is, the way politicians speak and bargain.
It is even said that the emergence of nuclear weapons has actually limited the scale of modern warfare to a very small range, and the various conventional means in warfare are much more "civilized" and "scruples" than those from the beginning of the 19th century to the middle of the 20th century.
In fact, the most tragic wars all took place before nuclear ** was created.