Talk:Operation Dropshot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

Leaving aside the rather dubious claim attributed to the UK Parliament, which have no bearing on the subject of the Dropshot war plan and whose inclusion smacks of POV, I think the best examination of the Dropshot war plan can be found here:

http://www.johnreilly.info/ww3.htm

I am linking to it, but of course the work belongs to its author.

If his analysis is correct, incidentally, Dropshot was a general global war plan, not necessarily nuclear. When it was created, the nuclear arsenals on each side were a miniscule fraction of the sizes they reached in the 1970s. Significantly, one of Dropshot's fundamental assumptions is that nuclear weapons cannot be decisive in and of themselves. Given the assumptions at the time it was written, during the Korean War or thereabouts, this seems reasonable. Dropshot was written with the assumption that the only way to get a nuclear weapon, probably yielding 50 kilotons or less, to its target, was to put one or two of them on a propeller-driven B29 or B36 bomber and hope it reached its target without getting shot down.

[edit] possible defensive

It is defensive or offensive plan?--Jaro.p 16:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)