Chinese admiral "sink 2 carriers"

[ikalugin]

Nuclear forces were never mentioned as a mature, rational govt. would never think of using them in these modern times. The U.S outnumbers China with the variety and number of nuclear weapons it can field and the Chinese would do well to remember that.

This perception is not only wrong, it is dangerous, as it undermines credibility of deterrence.


Not only could nuclear armed states have reasons to use nuclear weapons first in general (for dammage limitation for example) and plan for it specifically (as documented by the US NPR for example), there are many, many ways a conventional war may push for use of nuclear weapons, for example via entanglement.
And then there is a whole group of scenarios where one side mis-perceives something of another.


I would suggest starting with this brief by Acton&co:
https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/1...ties-pub-77620
I can link more papers later.


p.s. there are many other mis-perceptions here, for example regarding the Soviet intentions and plans for the naval warfare, but they are less important.

[mapuc]

In our discussion we seems to have forgot one major factor

The power of the media in USA and in other Western countries.

I remember what an Iranian once said to me.

If a war between us and USA should break out, the only thing we have to do is sink one of their carrier or damage it real good, thereafter we can lay back and let the media in USA win the war for us.

Markus

[ikalugin]

Or maybe US public would be outraged and would demand blood, who knows.


Which is why you should develop significant conventional and nuclear capabilities to reliably deter US.

[Mr Quatro]

This is good that we discuss the possibilities of China's war like stance to Taiwan and the new islands they are fortifying in the South China Sea, but we have someone else doing this everyday. The U.S. Naval War College in Rhode Island.

They even study the new threat's of cyber warfare, which we as a whole should be more concerned about. Taking out one of two carriers would entail a complete and devastating warfare on us all of which nothing would ever be the same again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_War_College

The Naval War College (NWC or NAVWARCOL) is the staff college and "Home of Thought" for the United States Navy at Naval Station Newport in Newport, Rhode Island.[4] The NWC educates and develops leaders, supports defining the future Navy and associated roles and missions, supports combat readiness, and strengthens global maritime partnerships.

The Naval War College is one of the senior service colleges including the Army War College, the Marine Corps War College, and the Air War College. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Defense operates the National War College.

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

This perception is not only wrong, it is dangerous, as it undermines credibility of deterrence.


Not only could nuclear armed states have reasons to use nuclear weapons first in general (for dammage limitation for example) and plan for it specifically (as documented by the US NPR for example), there are many, many ways a conventional war may push for use of nuclear weapons, for example via entanglement.
And then there is a whole group of scenarios where one side mis-perceives something of another.


I would suggest starting with this brief by Acton&co:
https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/1...ties-pub-77620
I can link more papers later.


p.s. there are many other mis-perceptions here, for example regarding the Soviet intentions and plans for the naval warfare, but they are less important.

I am completely dumbfounded as to your logic and reasoning.

quote: Not only could nuclear armed states have reasons to use nuclear weapons first in general (for dammage limitation for example)

That would ensure a full retaliatory response so in fact, that is the basis for deterrence.

With regards to a conventional conflict having the potential for going nuclear- Just don't do it or there will be real consequences. If various governments are smart enough to know a conventional war could go further with a nuclear exchange, then they are smart enough to know not to try.That's deterrence. I hope that's the thinking within the U.S, anyhow.

It's that simple.


By the way, Russia deploying hyper-sonic weapons and nuclear torpedoes just to name a couple weapon systems isn't a threat to peace or deterrence ?

As the saying in Russia goes, " it's not the wolves in Gorky park you need to be afraid of, it's the ones you don't see. "


* Thanks for the link by the way. There is a lot of reading there *

[August]

Exactly. Damage Limitation as a theory isn't really workable when it comes to limiting the full nuclear arsenal of countries like the US or China. Even limiting it by half still means there will be enough left over to turn an aggressors country into a glass floored self lighting parking lot which is probably why the gambit has never been tried.

[ikalugin]

Wallace (this is the 2nd draft),


First of all nuclear weapons are not only used to deter a nuclear war, they are used to deter a large scale war in general. This is why there were no large scale wars between the great powers after WW2 and why nuclear weapons are viewed as being an extremely cost effective defense investment by the small countries, such as DPRK.
This is, ofcouse, now very inconvenient for the global hegemon, as said sole super power could not leverage it's military and military-industrial advantage to coerce even minor nuclear powers (ie DPRK). This is why US refuses (on official level) to accept being in the state of mutual vulnerability with anyone (including Russia).

However this does create problems, as without a potent conventional military the threshhold for nuclear usage becomes very low (and the deterrent itself becomes unstable, but that is a separate issue), which is why PRC (and Russia) were and are investing in conventional arms.


Now, dammage limitation. Because nuclear escalation is a highly likely product of a large scale conventional war due to various reasons (entanglement, desire of a weaker beligent to use nuclear weapons as a force multiplier, etc) it makes perfect sense for the stronger beligent to conduct dammage limitation strikes, as this would decrease the dammage it would take from (inevitable) nuclear endgame.


This is why in the official US policy there is no "no first use" pledge, in fact it is now considered to be normal to conduct first nuclear use in response to non nuclear actions by the adversary, ie cyber attacks.
This, coupled with the expressed desire to have more "usefull" nuclear weapons and poor quality of the US policy documents (such as the NPR) is very concerning.



As to the new delivery systems, they are second strike systems and their renewed development (the HGV development has been ongoing since the original star wars were announced) has been triggered by the US ABM and first strike weapons efforts, the Status-6/Poseidon nuclear powered UUV in particular, as it bypasses the US ABM system all together.
On the other hand US has been pursuing first strike weapons for quite some years now, even though many of those are sold under "modernisation" brand, for example the forward deployed B-61-12.


You are welcome, if you would like I can send a much longer and in depth PDF on that topic your way.

[ikalugin]

Back on topic, to repeat my point.


It is very difficult for the US to defend Taiwan against the PRC not only due to the local conventional balance of forces, or because there may be escalation due to various reasons in general, but also because the tools US is reliant on to win wars (deep strikes by cruise missiles and stealth bombers) carry significant risks of nuclear escalation, as their use would most likely be interpreted as a first strike effort by the US against the Chinese detterent.

[Catfish]

Up to recently nuclear deterrence worked, so placing a few ballistic missiles on Taiwan directed at China might be a strong and appropriate answer. But the west is weak and will not do anything, also because we let China own a lot of our territory, and economy.

If anyone read chinese papers lately, they will use whatever they think will make China "great". Even if there is nucelar deterrence working there can be no doubt they will launch their missiles at the slightest felt advantage. Their party leaders and military absolutely do not care for their own people, human beings or civilians, let alone foreigners. The scientific advantage and "modern" look cannot hide that China is one of the worst dictatorships, and they now celebrate that their way is obviously superior to that of "the West". And who could blame them, with Trump or brexit, or the EU doing nothing.

And deterrence.. well. Just of all Russia is working hard to make a "local, "limited" nuclear strike "socially acceptable", internationally. China will not even be that reluctant.

[ikalugin]

That is a bit harsh.


Also, what do you mean by:

And deterrence.. well. Just of all Russia is working hard to make a "local, "limited" nuclear strike "socially acceptable", internationally. China will not even be that reluctant.

this?
The various strike options have existed for decades by now.

[August]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

This is why in the official US policy there is no "no first use" pledge, in fact it is now considered to be normal to conduct first nuclear use in response to non nuclear actions by the adversary, ie cyber attacks.

Just who considers a first strike a "normal" response?

[Mr Quatro]

Most people will just laugh at prophecy, but this one keeps coming back as a point of reference when discussing China and the USA going to war.

Seems that this particular prophet from Romania prophesied that America would go to war with China and then Russia would sneak attack America to protect China.

Dumitru can't be questioned about his prophesy anymore due to I think he passed away in 1997.

https://z3news.com/w/dumitru-duduman...ttack-america/

In April 1996, prophetic Christian minister Dumitru Duduman received a vision of a coming attack on America coming from both China and Russia. Dumitru Duduman was a Romanian native who came to America and founded the Hand of Help Ministries. He received many visions and dreams during his life. He went home to be with the Lord in May 1997.

The vision shared below is just one of many that Dumitru Duduman received.

Dumitru's vision edited:

I saw a great light. A dark cloud appeared over it. I saw the president of Russia, a short, chubby man, who said he was the president of China, and two others. The last two also said where they were from, but I did not understand. However, I gathered they were part of Russian controlled territory. The men stepped out of the cloud.

The Russian president began to speak to the Chinese one. “I will give you the land with all the people, but you must free Taiwan of the Americans. Do not fear, we will attack them from behind.”

A voice said to me, “Watch where the Russians penetrate America.”

I saw these words being written: Alaska; Minnesota; Florida.

Then, the man spoke again, “When America goes to war with China, the Russians will strike without warning.”

[Catfish]

^ I really hope mankind gets its things together and leaves earth, as a united mankind of research, science and common sense, not as a nation.

Then the superpower leaders of the world can finally kill each other, since this seems to be what is driving them since the creation of 'nations'. The chinese lifetime leader or Putin or Kim were bad enough, but with a loose cannon like Trump on the other hand.. lmao.

And the people who left for other worlds can tell them to kill, poison, expose each other to nuclear radiation and altogether f.. each other up as much as they want.

One can dream

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by August

Just who considers a first strike a "normal" response?

NYT take on the problem:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/u...ack-trump.html
This is not exactly news worthy anymore due to it being a year old problem.

Final draft quote:

The United States would only consider the employment of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States, its allies, and partners. Extreme circumstances could include significant non-nuclear strategic attacks. Significant non-nuclear strategic attacks include, but are not limited to, attacks on the U.S., allied, or partner civilian population or infrastructure, and attacks on U.S. or allied nuclear forces, their command and control, or warning and attack assessment capabilities.

Note that this is not actually Trump administration specific (as NYT bias may imply), this trend in policy has been developed under Obama administration.
But then NPR is fairly flawed as a policy document (E2D is one of the biggest memes it includes).


As to the Russian nuclear policy, a few years ago it has been significantly changes, due to the growing power of our non-nuclear forces and introduction of the non-nuclear deterrence concept.

[August]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

NYT take on the problem:

All that article says is that it's an option (one of many) that hasn't even been approved by the administration. That is anything but "normal".
However I would support the policy in extreme circumstances. I think if you or any other country tries to take us out through a strategic attack then we should use any means we have at hand to stop you and make sure that you never try it again.