By CYRIL FALLS H OW hot can the cold war become
without rising to thermo-nuclear heat? This is one of the relatively few points for discussion in a bleak subject where the con- clusion seems promising. Past evidence suggests that the cold war can attain a high degree of heat without rising to the point of explosion. The Korean War, for example, was a big war by any standard short of that of world war. It is not blind. Thermo-nuclear warfare must be directed to a far greater extent against civilians than against combatants. The one does not threaten the foundations of civilisation itself; the other does.
Yet in war nations do not always reason on such lines. There can be no guarantee that they would. One side or both might possess a weapon half-way between the two. Which category would it stand in? What would be the result of introducing it? This supposition apart, might not the use of the tactical weapon lead to that of the strategic? The sober view must be that, while the tactical weapon would not necessarily or logically bring down the hydrogen bomb, there is a grave risk that it would. reached by short-service troops, exceptional leadership, excep- tional speed. Secondly, dispersion reduces the weight of the blow, unless sufficient concentration can be made in a very narrow margin of time. Thirdly, we must beware of such streamlining as would cripple troops for wars like the Korean or the 'Bandit War' in Greece. When the element of tactical atomic warfare is introduced the problems naturally become more complex still.
If space permitted, several other topics could be brought up, high among them that of mobilisation of reserves in the atomic age. The best to be hoped from what has been put forward is that it will serve to stimulate further thought.
Previous page
