1) A certain percentage of NATO's a/c where Nuclear Quick Reaction Aircraft (QRA's).  Pretty much 24-7x365 a certain number of a/c stood QRA Alert, so the a/c delivering nuclear strikes, initially, would NOT have to be a/c performing other missions, but would have been dedicated nuclear strike assets.

2) A certain number of delivery systems were NUCLEAR ONLY, not dual-capable...the Pluton and Hades for France, the Pershing II (post-1982) for the US, and the Pershing I for the Bundeswehr.  This systems stood on quick reaction alert, at least the P-II's (at least one battery near Neu Ulm) did again 24-7 X 365...in war-time they would have been dispersed throughout the operational area of their militaries awaiting orders to fire.

 

Bottom-line: between several dozen and several hundred nuclear weapons were ready, at all times, for use by NATO.  No doubt the WTO had similar arrangements.  So from the get-go nuclear weapons could have been employed, with no draw-down of conventional firepower.

So even if the air war was going badly for nato or the warsaw pact they would not take dual role strike platforms off nuclear duties to attempt to win air superiority?

 

Interestingly was reading the autobiography of one of the British pilots shot down in the first gulf war, it mentioned that even though he was on interception duty in Germany that he would have been ordered to land, rearmed with nuclear free fall bombs then used to drop them on Warsaw AA sites. Seems strange that interception assets would be given a nuclear strike mission instead of trying to swat bears out of the sky.

So even if the air war was going badly for nato or the warsaw pact they would not take dual role strike platforms off nuclear duties to attempt to win air superiority?

 

Interestingly was reading the autobiography of one of the British pilots shot down in the first gulf war, it mentioned that even though he was on interception duty in Germany that he would have been ordered to land, rearmed with nuclear free fall bombs then used to drop them on Warsaw AA sites. Seems strange that interception assets would be given a nuclear strike mission instead of trying to swat bears out of the sky.

NATO/WTO air forces could deliver, conventionally, a few Kilotons per day, literally, in conventional firepower...ONE tactical/theatre nuclear warhead, not an AFAP from the 155mm or 152mm howitzers, one warhead, say B-28, or P-I or a P-II warhead could deliver that level of destruction, in a few micro-seconds, no more than the space of a few hours, if you count prep and delivery times.  Given that disparity in destruction potential, a coalition would be absolutely foolish to worry more about conventional weapons than its nuclear weapons.

 

Nuclear weapons had to have an absolute priority, the results of their use wold have profound battlefield and political effects.

 

Bottom-line: A Tornado or Phantom with a Yellow Sun or a B-28 attacking a WTO air field is FAR more valuable than a Tornado delivering SP-233's or MW-1's or a Phantom delivering a load of conventional bombs tot he same target. 

So even if the air war was going badly for nato or the warsaw pact they would not take dual role strike platforms off nuclear duties to attempt to win air superiority?

 

Interestingly was reading the autobiography of one of the British pilots shot down in the first gulf war, it mentioned that even though he was on interception duty in Germany that he would have been ordered to land, rearmed with nuclear free fall bombs then used to drop them on Warsaw AA sites. Seems strange that interception assets would be given a nuclear strike mission instead of trying to swat bears out of the sky.

the US now has cluster bombs! These were new then but can be more effective than a tactical nuke. a M1 tank could withstand a near miss by a tactical nuke then the use of cluster bombs. now the USA no longer needs tactical nukes which wasted most of there kilotons against non combatant ground and dead space between units!!!

Sincerely,

 

Keith