Back in the 70s when I spent time on the Comprehensive Treaty Negotiations seconded to ACDA, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, we had concepts of nuclear war such as counter force and counter value.
The enemy could have a counter force attack, one targeting airfields, silos, manufacturing, military bases. Or they could have counter value, attacking civilians. Think Dresden and Hiroshima. The intent of counter force was to cripple the enemy's ability to continue to fight by suppressing their weapons. The intent of counter value was massive civilian destruction reducing the moral of the enemy and forcing surrender.
Counter force often had limited value. Counter value was massive human destruction, and the elimination of the will to fight.
As I noted, Dresden was just such in Germany a case of counter value, as was almost all of the strategic bombing. Hiroshima was a sine qua non of counter value in Japan. It led to the unconditional surrender of Japan.
Counter force attacks can go on forever. Counter value attacks can be short lived but are potentially morally questionable.
Thus in the current war with Iran one must ask which strategy to deploy. So far it is just counter force. Is there room for another strategy>
Posts
