Quote:
so the last 60 years of nuclear stand off didn't happen then? they'd never really have pressed the buttons because, hey, it's all stupid really, lets bin them and not have huge SALT agreements and non-prolif. rules and regs etc, and the UN security council? it's just coincidence that all are nuclear armed nations eh?
when the tank was invented a large section of the population and armed services met it with horror, the dehumanisation of combat into a mechanical killing machine, ugh, they'll never be used again after the end of WW1 will they? horrible useless things
You misinterpretted what I said: Nuclear weapons are utterly worthless in a tactical sense. They cannot be used to subdue a force and occupy the area thus subdued. All they can do is render an area inhospitable to both sides. Thus, it is called "MAD" for good reason. One nuclear armed nation would not use its arsenal against another so armed, for both would lose in the resulting conflagration. There, you are correct: the last 60 years of nuclear standoff did happen, but no nation has used the destructive force of nuclear weapons, partly for fear of retaliation. Thus, nuclear weapons are quite useless as weapons. Sure, as threats, as MAD; but as actual weapons they have no use.
Think in practical terms, using real world examples. The tank is a poor choice, as it has no where near the scope or destructive force of a nuclear weapon. A tank can be countered with convential means: a lone soldier with a LAW can destroy a tank. A nuclear weapon can only be not used; once launched, the only option is to bear the attack or retaliate. The weapon is pratically impossible to deter, as evidenced by the repeated failures of various missle defense systems. Neither side can counter a nuclear assault, so the only option is retaliation when attacked. Furthermore, a tank, after being used, can occupy and hold territory. A nuclear weapon can only blast it, making it useless to both sides.
America did not use large scale nukes in Iraq: such would have been unthinkable, as no country would have remained - only a radiated desert. The Soviets never used nuclear weapons instead of an artillery barage. Why? Because you cannot move your own troops onto radiated land and expect them to live long. You can always say "They COULD have," but the very fact that they -did not-, even though given ample oppertunity in many situations, proves that nuclear weapons were considered and rejected by both sides as conventional style weapons.
Furthermore, the danger posed by burning tanks with depleted uranium armoring to the lungs is no greater then breathing in the particles in a sand storm. It takes quite a lot of radiation, giving in consistent doses, to induce cancerous cells to grow; you need enough radiation to warp the DNA of the cells, or cause malignant growth. Small particles can tear the lungs, causing growths. However, I severly doubt that unless exposed to constant radioactive storms of dust from burning tanks (such as weeks or months of exposure), cancer would develop.
I am not a doctor (IANAD?), however, so this may be in error, but what I have read elsewhere seems to say cancer due to radiation must have long term exposure.