JSouthworth wrote:

In his book, Kahn is attempting a comprehensive survey of the problems of nuclear conflict, so for the sake of completeness, he has to mention the doomsday device and plans to use mine shafts as shelters, but they don't receive the emphasis that they get in the movie Dr Strangelove, that is the difference.

Simplistic and incorrect.

Kahn attempts to break through the consensus of the time that nuclear war was too catastrophic by definition to even think about rationally.  By calculating the realities as he saw them, his conclusion was and still is highly controversial: Thermonuclear war is survivable and winnable, which Kubrick satirized mercilessly in "Dr. Strangelove",  A MOVIE.

"It is necessary to be quantitative. For example, in describing the aftermath of a war it is not particularly illuminating to use words such as "intolerable," "catastrophic," "total destruction," "annihilating retaliation," and so on. These words might be reasonable if it were really true that in a modern war the total target system would be "overkilled" by factors of five or ten. It would then be fruitless to calculate or describe the exact degree of overkill. But as we shall see, the facts do not lead in this direction. It is therefore important to get a "feel" for what the levels of damage might really be under various circumstances."

" ...even though the amount of human tragedy would be greatly increased in the postwar world, the increase would not preclude normal and happy lives for the majority of survivors and their descendants."

Focuspuller wrote:

Simplistic and incorrect.

Kahn attempts to break through the consensus of the time that nuclear war was too catastrophic by definition to even think about rationally.  By calculating the realities as he saw them, his conclusion was and still is highly controversial: Thermonuclear war is survivable and winnable, which Kubrick satirized mercilessly in "Dr. Strangelove",  A MOVIE.

"It is necessary to be quantitative. For example, in describing the aftermath of a war it is not particularly illuminating to use words such as "intolerable," "catastrophic," "total destruction," "annihilating retaliation," and so on. These words might be reasonable if it were really true that in a modern war the total target system would be "overkilled" by factors of five or ten. It would then be fruitless to calculate or describe the exact degree of overkill. But as we shall see, the facts do not lead in this direction. It is therefore important to get a "feel" for what the levels of damage might really be under various circumstances."

" ...even though the amount of human tragedy would be greatly increased in the postwar world, the increase would not preclude normal and happy lives for the majority of survivors and their descendants."

What Kahn is actually telling us is that a nuclear war does not necessarily have to end with the total annihilation of both sides. Nuclear war may begin and end on the battlefield or with a limited strategic exchange. Winning and surviving are synonymous in this context.

This idea, the basis of Flexible Response, was a departure from previous military thinking, particular that of the USAF Strategic Air Command whose planning in the 1950s allowed only for a single, massive attack on the Soviet Union and China using all the available nuclear bombs.

JSouthworth wrote:
What Kahn is actually telling us is that a nuclear war does not necessarily have to end with the total annihilation of both sides. Nuclear war may begin and end on the battlefield or with a limited strategic exchange. Winning and surviving are synonymous in this context.

This idea, the basis of Flexible Response, was a departure from previous military thinking, particular that of the USAF Strategic Air Command whose planning in the 1950s allowed only for a single, massive attack on the Soviet Union and China using all the available nuclear bombs.

Uh, no.

JFK's Flexible Response was most definitely not a bi-product of Kahn's winnable and survivable nuclear war proposition. It was in fact a replacement for Ike's New Look policy which basically called for every skirmish in the Cold War to be met with a strategic nuclear threat, thereby theoretically deterring Soviet inroads in the Third World, but leaving no room for maneuver. This approach Kennedy replaced with Flexible Response, which] called for a range of proportionate non military and military and other sub-nuclear options to deal with aggressions not prevented by a less than credible threat of strategic nuclear response for every single Soviet provocation. This worked in The Cuban Missile Crisis. It did not in the Vietnam War.

JSouthworth wrote:
I think the war in Ukraine, as well as the threat to Taiwan demonstrates a need for NATO to re-evaluate everything they do, nuclear warfare included.

One way to deploy nuclear weapons in a defensive situation is to simply leave them in the path of advancing enemy forces, with time delay fuses. At one time the US Army had a small nuclear device for this purpose, the SADM.

Dumb...and dumber.

Think again. Considering Ukraine is not a NATO member, the alliance is doing quite well so far, actually, thwarting Putin's expansionist invasion without direct involvement. In fact, thanks to Putin's miscalculation, NATO is probably stronger than it has been in years. And Taiwan, FYI, is not a NATO member, nor is it contiguous with any NATO member. China's primary threat to NATO presently is in any support for Russia's Ukraine invasion. If you are suggesting NATO escalate Taiwan into its sphere of interest, that would be a provocation Xi could not ignore.

"One way to deploy nuclear weapons in a defensive situation is to simply leave them in the path of advancing enemy forces, with time delay fuses."

"SIMPLY"? What your field manuals don't tell you:

HOW GREEN BERETS PREPARED TO CARRY 'BACKPACK NUKES' ON TOP-SECRET ONE-WAY MISSIONS DURING THE COLD WAR

https://www.businessinsider.com/army-sp … 021-2?op=1

"During training, the instructors had told us we had about 30 minutes to clear the blast radius of the device. We never really believed that," a retired Special Forces operator who served on a Green Light Team told Insider.

"In every other mission, teams would have an extraction plan. We didn't. It was all up to us to get the hell out of dodge. But that's not how the Army works. So that's why we never really believed that we could get out alive in case we had to use one of those things. It was a one-way mission," the retired Green Beret added.

Focuspuller wrote:

Dumb...and dumber.

Think again. Considering Ukraine is not a NATO member, the alliance is doing quite well so far, actually, thwarting Putin's expansionist invasion without direct involvement.

As you say NATO is doing pretty well in Ukraine considering that they aren't doing any of the fighting, yet.

In principle, the use of small nuclear weapons as mines, booby traps and delayed demolitions would be more effective if done covertly rather than by uniformed military personnel, who might be observed by enemy agents. Covert operators could install the devices in a wide range of locations while posing as drainage workers, tourists, or just anybody. It would be a simple matter to install a nuclear device in an ordinary car, connected to the alarm system so that any disturbance would trigger a nuclear explosion. Remote detonation using a satellite phone would also be possible.

A conventional army is not necessarily the only type of organisation capable of using nuclear weapons in a tactical defensive role against an attacking army.

JSouthworth wrote:

As you say NATO is doing pretty well in Ukraine considering that they aren't doing any of the fighting, yet.

In principle, the use of small nuclear weapons as mines, booby traps and delayed demolitions would be more effective if done covertly rather than by uniformed military personnel, who might be observed by enemy agents. Covert operators could install the devices in a wide range of locations while posing as drainage workers, tourists, or just anybody. It would be a simple matter to install a nuclear device in an ordinary car, connected to the alarm system so that any disturbance would trigger a nuclear explosion. Remote detonation using a satellite phone would also be possible.

A conventional army is not necessarily the only type of organisation capable of using nuclear weapons in a tactical defensive role against an attacking army.

Sure, just leave a bunch of tactical nuclear weapons all over the place to be detonated accidentally by innocent civilians, discovered by children, the enemy, or left un-detonated.... Brilliant tactic.

Which is why actual practice would have had them placed by Special Forces, not "uniformed military personnel" and detonated by timer device for specific targets.at a specific time.

LightDreams wrote:
At the same time, the U.S. has obviously realized that there are now major strategic reasons to start directly providing Japan with the weapons that they want to buy.  Something the U.S. was very reluctant to do 10 years ago.

It is also true that the US-imposed Japanese constitution forced the country in a pacifist stance and prevented the accumulation of offensive strategic weapons or even a standing army, which became honored only in the breach. That began to be reconsidered when Shinzo Abe became Prime Minister. and then won a majority in the legislature.

JSouthworth wrote:
I was watching an old US Navy film from 1964, Red Chinese Battle Plan, which documents the rise of Chinese communism and Mao's strategy for global revolution. This is included in the six DVD set, Vietnam; The Ultimate Retrospective, it's also on the web. Worth a look if you want some historical background on today's events.

" Worth a look if you want some historical background on today's events."

For the connoisseur and regurgitator of official propaganda that you clearly are, sure. For my money, the best of them all is "Reefer Madness."

Focuspuller wrote:
The fallacy of nuclear stand-off preventing conventional conflicts has been known and strategized since, oh, I dont know, THE VIETNAM WAR??

No, the point is that a shortfall in conventional warfare capability increases military reliance on tactical nuclear weapons.

JSouthworth wrote:
No, the point is that a shortfall in conventional warfare capability increases military reliance on tactical nuclear weapons.

Utter crap.  "Tactical" nuclear weapons is a bluff.  It's not an actual "tactical" step.  Everyone understands, including the Russians (who do a heck of a lot of "nuclear bluffing"), that it is a mutually suicidal move.

So it's not a "real" option for anyone, DESPITE JSouthworth's previous claims that NATO SHOULD make use of them.

The real danger when it comes to ANY nuclear option, is if a leader is crazy, stupid, or suicidal.  And isn't stopped by those around him.

LightDreams wrote:
"Tactical" nuclear weapons is a bluff.  It's not an actual "tactical" step.  Everyone understands, including the Russians (who do a heck of a lot of "nuclear bluffing"), that it is a mutually suicidal move.

So it's not a "real" option for anyone,

The real danger when it comes to ANY nuclear option, is if a leader is crazy, stupid, or suicidal.  And isn't stopped by those around him.

There's at least one contradiction there. Possession of nuclear weapons obviously implies a willingness to use them under certain conditions, otherwise there would be no point in possessing them.

"Tactical" in military terminology means related to the battlefield or battle area, but of course the use of any nuclear weapon would in practice have strategic political implications as well.

JSouthworth wrote:
The idea that high tech conventional weapons can reduce military dependence on nuclear weapons is obviously conditional on the willingness of the armed forces to adopt new technology.

If NATO air forces and navies continue to resist the introduction of unmanned combat aircraft (UCAVs) and other robotic systems which can increase combat effectiveness for reasons of perceived self-interest, such as the effect they might have on careers or PR, effectiveness will inevitably be compromised and the end result will be increased reliance on nuclear weapons and/or the possibility of defeat in a major war. The usefulness of traditional armed forces is dependent on their ability to get their work done; to put it simply, if they cannot deliver the goods then alternatives will have to be found.

With regard to Taiwan, I think the US military needs to be able to say "we can stop a Chinese invasion of Taiwan if you give us what the RAND corporation say we need to to that". An alternative approach to the problem might be to consider the island of Taiwan itself as a large permanent platform for defensive weapon systems. US government agencies, the military and private companies could work closely with the Taiwanese microelectronics industry in developing the next generation of autonomous or semi-autonomous land, sea and air weapon systems for defensive purposes.

South Korea is a country whose defense problems are not unlike those of Taiwan in some ways, they have an aggressive neighbour state and their airfields are within a few minutes flight time for ballistic missiles.

A UCAV or unmanned combat aircraft, if small enough can be launched from a trailer using a rocket booster, making it dispersable and more survivable.

LightDreams wrote:
"Tactical" nuclear weapons is a bluff.  It's not an actual "tactical" step.  Everyone understands, including the Russians (who do a heck of a lot of "nuclear bluffing"), that it is a mutually suicidal move.

JSouthworth wrote:

There's at least one contradiction there. Possession of nuclear weapons obviously implies a willingness to use them under certain conditions, otherwise there would be no point in possessing them.

I think you'll find that everyone else understands the difference between a bluff for "FIRST USE" of a nuclear weapon (an attack), versus having them for security.  I.E. Used as a RESPONSE should someone else actually use them against you.

Responding to an actual nuclear attack is NOT a bluff.  Threatening to use them first, IS a bluff (barring madness), as it would be mutually suicidal.   Most people understand that once a nuclear exchange gets started, it's effectively game over for everyone involved.  Despite your previous promotion of actually launching a "tactical" nuclear weapon strike.

And no, it's not a contradiction (rather obviously).  And clearly there is an advantage to having them (to discourage a nuclear attack against you).  But we understand that you have a truly "unique" view on things generally.  And that you aren't likely to ever stop spouting this sort of stuff.

I'm not a religious man, but "thank God" they don't follow your advice on using nuclear weapons...

Responding to an actual nuclear attack is NOT a bluff.  Threatening to use them first, IS a bluff (barring madness), as it would be mutually suicidal.   Most people understand that once a nuclear exchange gets started, it's effectively game over for everyone involved.  Despite your previous promotion of actually launching a "tactical" nuclear weapon strike.

And no, it's not a contradiction (rather obviously).  And clearly there is an advantage to having them (to discourage a nuclear attack against you).  But we understand that you have a truly "unique" view on things generally.  And that you aren't likely to ever stop spouting this sort of stuff.

I'm not a religious man, but "thank God" they don't follow your advice on using nuclear weapons...

People sometimes do behave in a suicidal way, in a military context. Does the word "kamikaze" mean anything to you?

Nuclear deterrence relies paradoxically on demonstrating a willingness and preparedness to actually use the weapons, whether or not such use would be suicidal. If the other side are certain that you cannot or will not use the weapons, there is no deterrent.

Nuclear weapons are more destructive than conventional explosives in physical terms, but not to a degree that makes their use unthinkable, as we have seen already in WW2, when they were used in a context of strategic bombing.

Don't forget that there are also chemical and biological weapons, you have to factor those in to get a complete picture of the global strategic situation. The potential lethality of biological weapons probably exceeds that of nuclear weapons. Even with the existing technology, weapons based on anthrax may rival them in that respect on a weight for weight basis.

Use of chemical weapons on the battlefields of WW1 did not lead to their strategic use, even though the theory, practice and technology of strategic bombing was well established by the end of that conflict. So on that basis the assumption that battlefield use of nuclear weapons would in practice escalate to a strategic nuclear exchange is debatable.

US military doctrine states that commanders can request the use of nuclear weapons if US forces are surrounded or attacked with non-conventional weapons, according to the document I saw, but the exact policy seems to change over time. This document caused controversy when it was discovered in 2005:

https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/libr … _12fc2.pdf

JSouthworth wrote:
People sometimes do behave in a suicidal way, in a military context. Does the word "kamikaze" mean anything to you?

You obviously don't know the difference between a TACTICAL use of actual suicide fighter pilots and the STRATEGIC commitment of an entire country to a DETERRENCE policy of mutual assured destruction, which is NOT "suicidal". Do the words "laughable misfire" mean anything to you?

JSouthworth wrote:
Nuclear deterrence relies paradoxically on demonstrating a willingness and preparedness to actually use the weapons, whether or not such use would be suicidal. If the other side are certain that you cannot or will not use the weapons, there is no deterrent./quote]

Your thinking its muddled. Mutual Assured Destruction, US policy since the 50's, is NOT a "suicidal" policy. It is a deterrent to a first strike; suicide for the attacker. Faced with all-out nuclear assault, perception of a reluctance to respond in kind would indeed be suicidal, inviting an attack.

JSouthworth wrote:
Nuclear weapons are more destructive than conventional explosives in physical terms, but not to a degree that makes their use unthinkable, as we have seen already in WW2, when they were used in a context of strategic bombing

Nonsense. The US was the sole possessor of a weapon never seen before. When the US lost nuclear exclusivity and nuclear warfare between nations became possible, nuclear war became "unthinkable."

JSouthworth wrote:
Don't forget that there are also chemical and biological weapons, you have to factor those in to get a complete picture of the global strategic situation. The potential lethality of biological weapons probably exceeds that of nuclear weapons. Even with the existing technology, weapons based on anthrax may rival them in that respect on a weight for weight basis.

Use of chemical weapons on the battlefields of WW1 did not lead to their strategic use, even though the theory, practice and technology of strategic bombing was well established by the end of that conflict. So on that basis the assumption that battlefield use of nuclear weapons would in practice escalate to a strategic nuclear exchange is debatable.

"The potential lethality of biological weapons probably exceeds that of nuclear weapons. Even with the existing technology, weapons based on anthrax may rival them in that respect on a weight for weight basis."

ABSURD. Do cite a source other than your standard personal opinion based on unnamed references.

The discussion was supposedly about nuclear strategy, but if you insist on going off on a distraction, let's...

"Use of chemical weapons on the battlefields of WW1 did not lead to their strategic use, even though the theory, practice and technology of strategic bombing was well established by the end of that conflict"

Oh really?

"...chemical weapons were employed by British forces in the Russian Civil War (1919), Spanish forces in Morocco (1923–26), Italian forces in Libya (1930), Soviet troops in Xinjiang (1934), and Italian forces in Ethiopia (1935–40).

"During the Sino-Japanese War (1937–45), Japanese forces employed riot-control agents, phosgene, hydrogen cyanide, lewisite, and mustard agents extensively against Chinese targets."

"After World War II, chemical weapons were employed on a number of occasions. Egyptian military forces, participating in Yemen’s civil war between royalists and republicans, used chemical weapons, such as nerve and mustard agents, in 1963, 1965, and 1967. During the Soviet intervention into the Afghan War (1978–92), chemical arms, such as mustard and incapacitating agents, were used against the mujahideen rebels. In 1987 Libya used mustard munitions against rebels in Chad."

"The most extensive post-World War II use of chemical weapons occurred during the Iran-Iraq War (1980–88), in which Iraq used the nerve agents sarin and tabun, as well as riot-control agents and blister agents like sulfur mustard, resulting in tens of thousands of Iranian casualties"

"Iraq also used chemical weapons (thought to be hydrogen cyanide, sarin, or sulfur mustard gas) against Iraqi Kurds who were considered unfriendly to the regime of Saddam Hussein. The most notorious such attack was the killing of 5,000 Kurds, including many civilians, in the city of Halabjah in 1988."

"The most notable use of chemical weapons in the 21st century was during the Syrian Civil War. Syrian troops were reported to have used chemical weapons at Homs and Aleppo on several occasions in early 2013. A larger release of chemical agents took place in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21, 2013, killing several hundred people."

https://www.britannica.com/technology/c … estruction

"So on that basis the assumption that battlefield use of nuclear weapons would in practice escalate to a strategic nuclear exchange is debatable."

Maybe in your mind. Fortunately not in the minds of those who matter.

JSouthworth wrote:
... the assumption that battlefield use of nuclear weapons would in practice escalate to a strategic nuclear exchange is debatable.

[EDIT]  Why bother.

No matter how much of a risk his nuclear "first strike" proposals would be in practice (duh), no one of any importance actually listens to him, for rather obvious reasons.  So he can continue plotting his "nuclear attacks on the enemy" from his basement, or wherever, all quite harmlessly (fortunately).

JSouthworth wrote:
Does the word "kamikaze" mean anything to you?

You are not in a position to be condescending to anyone.

Focuspuller wrote:
"The potential lethality of biological weapons probably exceeds that of nuclear weapons. Even with the existing technology, weapons based on anthrax may rival them in that respect on a weight for weight basis."

"Use of chemical weapons on the battlefields of WW1 did not lead to their strategic use, even though the theory, practice and technology of strategic bombing was well established by the end of that conflict"

The tactical use of chemical weapons in WW1 did not escalate to strategic use during WW1. You can add Cambodia (Kampuchea) Laos and Afghanistan to your list.

To quote the Wikipedia article on biological warfare; "When indexed to weapon mass and cost of development and storage, biological weapons possess destructive potential and loss of life far in excess of nuclear, chemical or conventional weapons. Accordingly, biological agents are potentially useful as strategic deterrents, in addition to their utility as offensive weapons on the battlefield".


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biologica … 0of%20war.

The tactical use of chemical weapons in WW1 did not escalate to strategic use during WW1. You can add Cambodia (Kampuchea) Laos and Afghanistan to your list.

To quote the Wikipedia article on biological warfare; "When indexed to weapon mass and cost of development and storage, biological weapons possess destructive potential and loss of life far in excess of nuclear, chemical or conventional weapons. Accordingly, biological agents are potentially useful as strategic deterrents, in addition to their utility as offensive weapons on the battlefield".

JSouthworth is losing his grip. I did not post the above. He did.

Focuspuller wrote:
Focuspuller wrote:
"The potential lethality of biological weapons probably exceeds that of nuclear weapons. Even with the existing technology, weapons based on anthrax may rival them in that respect on a weight for weight basis."

"Use of chemical weapons on the battlefields of WW1 did not lead to their strategic use, even though the theory, practice and technology of strategic bombing was well established by the end of that conflict"

You didn't post that did you? It's far too good. I suppose I should offer my apologies for making you look more knowledgable than you are in reality. Something went wrong with the quote function, that does seem to happen sometimes.

Focuspuller wrote:

You obviously don't know the difference between a TACTICAL use of actual suicide fighter pilots and the STRATEGIC commitment of an entire country to a DETERRENCE policy of mutual assured destruction, which is NOT "suicidal". Do the words "laughable misfire" mean anything to you?

There were strategic reasons as well, the idea was to convince people that the Japanese military could avoid defeat through strength of will. The Japanese state media exaggerated the effectiveness of the kamikaze and did everything possible to encourage civilians and military to follow their example of self-sacrifice in the face of adversity, ultimately to the point that they would die as guerrilla fighters against an Allied invasion rather than accept defeat. Nevertheless there were many in the Japanese military who opposed the use of kamikaze tactics on professional or philosophical grounds.

JSouthworth wrote:
"You didn't post that did you? It's far too good. I suppose I should offer my apologies for making you look more knowledgable than you are in reality. Something went wrong with the quote function, that does seem to happen sometimes."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Careful, old chap. You are getting VERY close to the drain.

Focuspuller wrote:
"The potential lethality of biological weapons probably exceeds that of nuclear weapons. Even with the existing technology, weapons based on anthrax may rival them in that respect on a weight for weight basis."

ABSURD. Do cite a source other than your standard personal opinion based on unnamed references.

Wikipedia contradicts you on the lethality of biological weapons, although the effects are more dependent on climatic conditions and environmental factors.

In the period from WW2 through the 1960s the view taken by the US Government and military, was that the global situation necessitated the development of biological weapons in order to give the US a lead in this technology. This ended with the decision by the Nixon administration to sign the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention in 1972. All US biological weapons had been destroyed by 1973.

JSouthworth wrote:
Wikipedia contradicts you on the lethality of biological weapons, although the effects are more dependent on climatic conditions and environmental factors.

In the period from WW2 through the 1960s the view taken by the US Government and military, was that the global situation necessitated the development of biological weapons in order to give the US a lead in this technology. This ended with the decision by the Nixon administration to sign the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention in 1972. All US biological weapons had been destroyed by 1973.

"Wikipedia contradicts you on the lethality of biological weapons"

Oh really? Do you actually understand the term "cite a source"? Apparently not.

"...the global situation necessitated the development of biological weapons in order to give the US a lead in this technology."

Your usual irrelevant filler crap which does not address the issue which is the relative "lethality of biological weapons". REMEMBER?

"This ended with the decision by the Nixon administration to sign the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention in 1972"

More irrelevant filler.

" All US biological weapons had been destroyed by 1973."

Believe that if you want.

Focuspuller wrote:
"Wikipedia contradicts you on the lethality of biological weapons"

Oh really? Do you actually understand the term "cite a source"? Apparently not.

"...the global situation necessitated the development of biological weapons in order to give the US a lead in this technology."

Your usual irrelevant filler crap which does not address the issue which is the relative "lethality of biological weapons". REMEMBER?

"This ended with the decision by the Nixon administration to sign the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention in 1972"

More irrelevant filler.

" All US biological weapons had been destroyed by 1973."

Believe that if you want.

I seem to remember posting a link to the wikipedia article on biological warfare a while back. There's also a wikipedia article  specifically on the US biological weapons program.


Everyone's seen videos of nuclear explosions. The idea of a biological weapon being equally lethal might well seem absurd, if like you, you don't really know what it is, or you don't have a well defined concept of what it is in terms of hardware.

JSouthworth wrote:
I seem to remember posting a link to the wikipedia article on biological warfare a while back. There's also a wikipedia article  specifically on the US biological weapons program.


Everyone's seen videos of nuclear explosions. The idea of a biological weapon being equally lethal might well seem absurd, if like you, you don't really know what it is, or you don't have a well defined concept of what it is in terms of hardware.

"I seem to remember posting a link ..."

"There's also a wikipedia article  specifically on the US biological weapons program."

And yet..you just cant cite it.

"The idea of a biological weapon being equally lethal might well seem absurd, if like you, you don't really know what it is, or you don't have a well defined concept of what it is in terms of hardware."

As if you do.

You may think a very difficult to deploy all-out biological attack would be as devastating as all out nuclear war, but that's between you and your basement tabletop fantasy battlefield commanders.

Focuspuller wrote:
"I seem to remember posting a link ..."

"There's also a wikipedia article  specifically on the US biological weapons program."

And yet..you just cant cite it.

"The idea of a biological weapon being equally lethal might well seem absurd, if like you, you don't really know what it is, or you don't have a well defined concept of what it is in terms of hardware."

As if you do.

You may think a very difficult to deploy all-out biological attack would be as devastating as all out nuclear war, but that's between you and your basement tabletop fantasy battlefield commanders.

Southy has been embarrassed many times before after citing Wikipedia articles which were subsequently demonstrated to be wrong, unreliable or not relevant to his argument. Also, Southy doesn't comprehend the relevance of Wikipedia's own alerts when articles aren't sufficiently supported by authoritative citations.

I suspect that the reason he now refuses to cite his sources is because he knows from experience that he's certain to look like a buffoon yet again if he does.

P R E S T O N wrote:

Southy has been embarrassed many times before after citing Wikipedia articles which were subsequently demonstrated to be wrong, unreliable or not relevant to his argument. Also, Southy doesn't comprehend the relevance of Wikipedia's own alerts when articles aren't sufficiently supported by authoritative citations.

I suspect that the reason he now refuses to cite his sources is because he knows from experience that he's certain to look like a buffoon yet again if he does.

Ha, especially if some of those unvetted crowd-sourced  contributions reveal a "Kingston upon Hull" origin.