Chinese admiral "sink 2 carriers"

ikalugin · 01-04-19, 01:01 AM

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.

01-04-19, 01:01 AM	#24
ikalugin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 3,212 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ Grumpy as always.