„Name one situation where a nuclear power totally got its way because the non-nuclear entity bowed to the threat of nuclear annihilation.”
–
We don't know for sure, do we?
Say, one of the incidents regarding losing nukes („Broken Arrows”), that happened in Spain. Did that seeded paranoia into Franco's mind and the rest of his acolytes? Spain wasn't nuked, obviously, but the threat of contamination, the intervention, worked in favor of the US, respectively NATO.
Or India and the Portughese colonies. Or Hong Kong and Britain – probably the recent example where a nuclear power threatened another nuclear power with invasion, everything ending up an agreement of withdrawal.
These are subtleties, I admit, but one has to wonder if any warhead ignition/explosion, any at all, needs to happen and only just rely on dirty contamination, preworded as „accident”.
It's a workable tactic, no?
Just as Russia continued to use the nuclear plants as hostages & threatened a Samsonic suicide scenario using contamination rather than mushrooms over Europe's urban citadels. Why kill them with a bang, instead of killing them painfully and slowly? Europe – specially all of their civilian, military & intelligence structures – took the bluff, unfortunately.
Humans don't react that bad to death – it's scary, sure, though inevitable.
How one reaches towards death is/will be the game-changer, and you own their minds: nobody wants to die in pain, so everybody wants to avoid pain (not death itself).
Your original premise is a majority [half-]truth, although the proverbial „stick” (nuclear warheads) being used is the incorrect one, as you pointed out. However, let's change a bit the premise: Name one situation where a nuclear power totally got its way because the non-nuclear (or/and middle nuclear power) entity bowed to the threat of that bigger nuclear power?
The answer would be Europe (EU) and Russia. Russia permeated into Europe (intelligence, military, soft power nodes), using the gospel of the Western world – capitalism, free markets, finance, tranquility – for +20 years. In these 20 years, Putin&Co, the silovikis, managed to compromise a generation or two of spearheads in European circles: industrial, financial, political, even military/intelligence. European lackluster lies on the fear that Russians will expose their kompromat, even a small financial irregularity is a deathblow to any politician, officer, securocrat, policy thinker, and so on.
Sabotage, framing, compromising materials are a two-way street: first it demolishes the bearer for colluding, secondly they're being ritualistically sacrificed via the legal/criminal/constitutional limbo.
Can a nuclear power force a non-nuclear power to its bidding? Besides asymetric infiltration & sabotage (Russia-Europe), it's doable – via „accidents” trainings, spilling over the targeted non-nuclear power, and force a crisis into that country's internal affairs.
It is doable but not in the kinetic [MA]destructive way, only passive: „accident”, „goof”, „gaffe”, „mistep”, „flight accident” and so on.
It's a grey area but I always considered that „gray areas” in national & international affairs can be abused maliciously to infinitum.
Don't take my observations as criticism or corrections, as I'm not a distinguished person such as yourself. It's my attempt at geopolitical clarvoyance & strategy.
Send this to the NYT as an editorial.
„Name one situation where a nuclear power totally got its way because the non-nuclear entity bowed to the threat of nuclear annihilation.”
–
We don't know for sure, do we?
Say, one of the incidents regarding losing nukes („Broken Arrows”), that happened in Spain. Did that seeded paranoia into Franco's mind and the rest of his acolytes? Spain wasn't nuked, obviously, but the threat of contamination, the intervention, worked in favor of the US, respectively NATO.
Or India and the Portughese colonies. Or Hong Kong and Britain – probably the recent example where a nuclear power threatened another nuclear power with invasion, everything ending up an agreement of withdrawal.
These are subtleties, I admit, but one has to wonder if any warhead ignition/explosion, any at all, needs to happen and only just rely on dirty contamination, preworded as „accident”.
It's a workable tactic, no?
Just as Russia continued to use the nuclear plants as hostages & threatened a Samsonic suicide scenario using contamination rather than mushrooms over Europe's urban citadels. Why kill them with a bang, instead of killing them painfully and slowly? Europe – specially all of their civilian, military & intelligence structures – took the bluff, unfortunately.
Humans don't react that bad to death – it's scary, sure, though inevitable.
How one reaches towards death is/will be the game-changer, and you own their minds: nobody wants to die in pain, so everybody wants to avoid pain (not death itself).
Your original premise is a majority [half-]truth, although the proverbial „stick” (nuclear warheads) being used is the incorrect one, as you pointed out. However, let's change a bit the premise: Name one situation where a nuclear power totally got its way because the non-nuclear (or/and middle nuclear power) entity bowed to the threat of that bigger nuclear power?
The answer would be Europe (EU) and Russia. Russia permeated into Europe (intelligence, military, soft power nodes), using the gospel of the Western world – capitalism, free markets, finance, tranquility – for +20 years. In these 20 years, Putin&Co, the silovikis, managed to compromise a generation or two of spearheads in European circles: industrial, financial, political, even military/intelligence. European lackluster lies on the fear that Russians will expose their kompromat, even a small financial irregularity is a deathblow to any politician, officer, securocrat, policy thinker, and so on.
Sabotage, framing, compromising materials are a two-way street: first it demolishes the bearer for colluding, secondly they're being ritualistically sacrificed via the legal/criminal/constitutional limbo.
Can a nuclear power force a non-nuclear power to its bidding? Besides asymetric infiltration & sabotage (Russia-Europe), it's doable – via „accidents” trainings, spilling over the targeted non-nuclear power, and force a crisis into that country's internal affairs.
It is doable but not in the kinetic [MA]destructive way, only passive: „accident”, „goof”, „gaffe”, „mistep”, „flight accident” and so on.
It's a grey area but I always considered that „gray areas” in national & international affairs can be abused maliciously to infinitum.
Don't take my observations as criticism or corrections, as I'm not a distinguished person such as yourself. It's my attempt at geopolitical clarvoyance & strategy.