Chinese carrier weapon

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

One understands the value of deterrence, but one must wonder how do people justify retaliation in these scenarios when deterrence fails and they've just eaten a limited strike.

You can't justify it in deontological ethics.

You can't justify it by saving your own people, since if the other guy thinks like you, he's just going to shoot off what didn't go the first time upon seeing your counterstrike.

Even if he doesn't, or he has no more nukes, it isn't like you are going to be bringing much back - you are just kicking the table over and cheaply killing some of his guys. Does it even make you feel better? The guy who shot first arguably had better motives than you!

Once deterrence fails and you've taken a major hit, arguably the right move in the ethical and self-preservation front is to say "Ah, that was a gutsy move. I thought I put on a fierce enough face. OK, I don't like this at all but you win."

[Buddahaid]

If the carrier is rendered obsolete, why is China building one and developing carrier based aircraft? Seems the US would have a big jump in regard to stealth weapons anyway.

Buddahaid

[Tchocky]

To an enemy with lots of fast ASuW missiles, like the Sunburn and this new one, a CVBG looks more like a big fat target than anything else.
With China buying up S-300 systems to defend the SSM launch sites, I can see a potential conflict being rather nasty.

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

To an enemy with lots of fast ASuW missiles, like the Sunburn and this new one, a CVBG looks more like a big fat target than anything else.
With China buying up S-300 systems to defend the SSM launch sites, I can see a potential conflict being rather nasty.

That's why a US CVBG would be absolutely insane to enter the Taiwan Straits.

If the US chooses to fight to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion, they will do so from carriers stationed behind the island and from faraway airbases like Guam and Okinawa. Anything on Taiwan itself or in the Straits (aside from subs) will be pounded into oblivion by missiles from the Chinese mainland.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

If the carrier is rendered obsolete, why is China building one and developing carrier based aircraft?

I don't think anyone is claiming carriers are obsolete, just that they are
obsolete in the case of a war between the world's super-powers.


They are certainly very useful in other situations, Iraq being a good example.

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

One understands the value of deterrence, but one must wonder how do people justify retaliation in these scenarios when deterrence fails and they've just eaten a limited strike.

You can't justify it in deontological ethics.

You can't justify it by saving your own people, since if the other guy thinks like you, he's just going to shoot off what didn't go the first time upon seeing your counterstrike.

Even if he doesn't, or he has no more nukes, it isn't like you are going to be bringing much back - you are just kicking the table over and cheaply killing some of his guys. Does it even make you feel better? The guy who shot first arguably had better motives than you!

Once deterrence fails and you've taken a major hit, arguably the right move in the ethical and self-preservation front is to say "Ah, that was a gutsy move. I thought I put on a fierce enough face. OK, I don't like this at all but you win."

You're right in terms of what's ethical and logical.

However, I think irrational factors such as ego and revenge would come into it as well. That was what happened in the wargame I was talking about. Once a certain number of nukes were in the air, the side that was about to be on the receiving end basically said "screw you guys" and launched everything they had. It wasn't going to save them, but they weren't going to let the other guys get away with nuking them.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

One understands the value of deterrence, but one must wonder how do people justify retaliation in these scenarios when deterrence fails and they've just eaten a limited strike.

You can't justify it in deontological ethics.

You can't justify it by saving your own people, since if the other guy thinks like you, he's just going to shoot off what didn't go the first time upon seeing your counterstrike.

Even if he doesn't, or he has no more nukes, it isn't like you are going to be bringing much back - you are just kicking the table over and cheaply killing some of his guys. Does it even make you feel better? The guy who shot first arguably had better motives than you!

Once deterrence fails and you've taken a major hit, arguably the right move in the ethical and self-preservation front is to say "Ah, that was a gutsy move. I thought I put on a fierce enough face. OK, I don't like this at all but you win."

Maybe you misinterpret the meaning of deterrance and MAD.

The deterrance simply lies in that you threaten to take revenge.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The deterrance simply lies in that you threaten to take revenge.

That is not enough.

You threats have to be believed.

Potential enemies must believe that you would carry out the retaliation
threats, despite it being illogical and unethical to do so for the reasons
Kazuaki pointed out.

The MAD mechanic only appears and works when everyone believes
that everyone else follows the MAD mechanic (over and above logic
and ethics).

MAD has a fragile existence born of a kind of circular reasoning.

Fortunately, it isn't MAD that is the main deterrent against using Nukes
anymore. MAD was born when there where only two major nuclear
powers: The USSR and the USA (and a few smaller NATO members).
Both sides had enough weapons to ensure the total destruction of the
other side. MAD was the only option.

Now there are more Nuclear armed countries and none of them have
the capability to utterly destroy every single other nuclear armed
country. Even if several countries are destroyed and they do not launch
MAD counter attacks, there is a good chance that other countries not
attacked or not completely destroyed will get nervous and start getting
preemptive. There is a good chance nukes will fly your way, even if no
one takes part in a post-strike MAD retalliation.

[JSF]

Kill their satellites first and the missle is useless.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

That is not enough.

You threats have to be believed.

No, they must worry you. A revenge on a scale that does not worry you, may take place or not - but you would not care anyhow.

It's not a question of ethics. It's a question of fear.

[Letum]

Can you worry about threats you don't believe in?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

Can you worry about threats you don't believe in?

If I don't fear them - no.