M *@*.* wrote:

Moreover 50 tac nukes needed to stop a mere 8 or 9 Soviet
divisions? Huh? Heck, the Finnish army would have had them
for breakfst, using conventional weapons, just like it did a
few decades earlier g. Uhm, well...

From late 40's to the late 60's it would have been other way
around. Army had not had practically any new equipment
since the end of the war, and for the Air Force and Navy was
about as bad.

For behalf of the Swedes, tactical nukes were the
buzzword of the 50's and early 60's, much like "information warfare"
or "transformation of warfare " are today. It was expected
that they would be used from day one onwards. Every country,
even Finland, hurrily modified their fighting doctrines and
organizations in order to meet this new threat. Those small
countries which had resources, like Sweden and Switzerland,
were trying to develop their own weapons.

This reorganization of armed forces was probably taken into
extreme by Americans in the early 60's, and later by the
French in late 60's. Aviation content of this post is that
most of the strike aircraft of period were principally meant
for nuclear weapons delivery.

Motto:
"There is no such thing as mystical radiation sickness"
(quoted from memory) "Atomic Weapons in Land Combat" (1952)


terveisin,
jukka raustia


--
"Päinvastoin, olisi nähtävä, että Suomen turvallisuus _kaikissa tilanteissa_
nojautuu olennaisesti siihen, että tarpeen vaatiessa Suomi voi tukeutua
Neuvostoliiton apuun koskemattomuutensa säilyttämiseksi."
-s. 57, Kaksiteräinen miekka - 70-luvun puolustuspolitiikkaa"
Jaakko Blomberg, Pentti Joenniemi, Helsinki 1971.