Why don't historians talk more about just how radically nuclear weapons have altered warfare itself...

No, it really can't. They can't even be deployed tactically without the risk of killing your own men.

Nuclear proliferation is inevitable, however slow, and eventually, someone with a nuke won't give a shit. Just a matter of time, really.

So this is what cold war fearmongering looks like

During the Cold War, all the nukes were firmly in the hand of large established nations. This will not always be the case.

Nevermind how easy germ warfare is getting.

How the fuck can you with nukes?

Gas can be dropped over cities like bombs. They weren't because of mutually assured destruction. They can also be deployed on the enemy upon engagement, like WW1 but worse at that point, but it wasn't, because of mutually assured destruction. Neither side knew WW2 would get as bloody as it did. Had they known they would have just gone all-in, but you never know.

This was the reasoning for the bomb in Japan, because at that point we knew what to expect.

I'm not sure I get your question. WW1 could only do long range bombing with zeppelins, and they probably figured starting a fire with what little payload they had per aircraft was a better use of it. And the German Nebelwerfer(sp) was designed for firing gas canisters, but gas really isn't that great for using tactically. Kind of like how flamethrowers have been phased out in favor of thermobaric weaponry.

I'm just saying, they're bad comparison. So would biological weapons, as they could be used to spread terror, but would not be the same as, say, the nightmare contingency scenario where they thought Saddam could've wiped out the entire western desert flank with a tactical nuke.

I was not discussing WW1, I was using WW1 as an example to something that actually happened... we actually used gasses in WW1, they could have been used in the same way in WW2 and still avoid your own troops.

They weren't because of mutually assured destruction.

Mutually assured destruction is nothing new to nukes. It was applied in WW2, the bloodiest and most brutal war of all, and if you can apply it there, you can apply it anywhere.

Mutually assured destruction is just basic common sense and unless you have a death wish, you won't make that stupid gamble, whether it be nukes or biological weapons, as was the case in WW2.

>when some "historian" claim that arms race doesn't always lead to war because of the cold war and nuclear weapons
he should know that in ww1 battleships didnt turned the world into a wasteland

Because they haven't. Large scale industrial warfare post WW2 is a hell of a lot more affected by a bipolar and then unipolar military power balance than it is about nuclear weapons. People have been saying that the awesome new weapon will make war impossible since at least the Gatling Gun, and it was bullshit all the way.

Yes, nuclear weapon exchanges are devastating. Millions would die in such an exchange, and most wars will not be worth that kind of pain. But both the Soviets and Chinese developed doctrines around limited, "Winnable" nuclear wars, and there's really no case studies to show they're not wrong and that it's the west go all out or go home model of nuclear war that is "right".

In either case though, deterrence has worked along the exact same lines as it has since day 1. A credible threat that will raise the costs of an action past the point of benefit will often stop that action from being taken.

>They're wrong but they are actually right

No, they're just wrong. Learn to read.

There was no bio-MAD in WWII. They were on the verge of it, but not ever at any point able to do it. Hell, even Unit 731 who was arguably the most along infecting hundreds of thousands in China, would have no hope of reaching the mainland of the U.S. even with their balloons.

Except that's wrong

K. You sure proved me wrong