|
The risk of nuclear war between the US and Russia is objectively low at the moment. Higher than the time before the Russo-Georgian War, far lower than the Cold War. This may of course change in the following years.
|
# ? Jan 20, 2017 16:33 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 04:28 |
|
Fojar38 posted:This isn't how nuclear strategy works. MAD is an equilibrium that can easily be disrupted if there is ever a circumstance where one side thinks that they can win a nuclear war with a first strike that disables the enemy's ability to retaliate. You're only thinking about China's capabilities in the context of a Chinese first strike when China's second strike capability is virtually nonexistent. This is fascinating, where does the consensus come from that America would only be superficially damaged in a nuke strike against china and that MAD principle of China being also able to hit back equally as hard not being a thing? Because they have less nukes?
|
# ? Jan 20, 2017 19:04 |
|
LolitaSama posted:This is fascinating, where does the consensus come from that America would only be superficially damaged in a nuke strike against china and that MAD principle of China being also able to hit back equally as hard not being a thing? Because they have less nukes? China currently has around 260 nuclear warheads. The US has around 1,750 active warheads and 6,970 total currently. In the event of a nuclear exchange, the US would be able to deploy enough warheads to possibly knock out China's ability to retaliate while China would have no ability to cripple the US nuclear response. This causes an imbalance in the MAD equilibrium and would allow the US to "win" a nuclear exchange, thus paradoxically making China's use of nuclear weapons much more likely. You can also do the same exercise with the US and any other state but Russia and Russia with any other state but the US. If you can prevent second strike, you can win a nuclear war, which is a very bad thing for global peace and stability. for reference here's how much everyone has Russia 1,790 active, 7,300 total USA 1,750 active, 6,970 total UK 150 active, 215 total France 290 active, 300 total China Unknown active number, 260 total India Unknown active number, 100-120 total Pakistan Unknown active number, 110-130 total North Korea Unknown active number, <10 total Israel Unknown active number, 60-400 total sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons axeil fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Jan 20, 2017 |
# ? Jan 20, 2017 19:15 |
|
axeil posted:China currently has around 260 nuclear warheads. The US has around 4,670 currently. In the event of a nuclear exchange, the US would be able to deploy enough warheads to possibly knock out China's ability to retaliate while China would have no ability to do so. This causes an imbalance in the MAD equilibrium and would allow the US to "win" a nuclear exchange, thus making one much more likely. But how do you knock out Nuclear Subs? Wouldn't the presense of those always ensure America couldn't knock out China's strike back potential? So is it because they simply have less that MAD isn't enforce or because they couldn't launch the little that they even had? If you could take nuclear subs out of the equation, and if this was the case, Israel would be in huge poo poo too. Not hard to knock out the Nuclear capabilities of a country the size of new jersey.
|
# ? Jan 20, 2017 19:16 |
|
LolitaSama posted:But how do you knock out Nuclear Subs? Wouldn't the presense of those always ensure America couldn't knock out China's strike back potential? So is it because they simply have less that MAD isn't enforce or because they couldn't launch the little that they even had? If you could take nuclear subs out of the equation, and if this was the case, Israel would be in huge poo poo too. Not hard to knock out the Nuclear capabilities of a country the size of new jersey. China only has 4 ballistic missile submarines (the Type 094 or Jin class) which may or may not even be deployed. They carry 12 nuclear missiles each. The US has 18 Ohio-class submarines somewhere in the water right now, each which has 24 Trident II nuclear missiles. It is unclear if 4 subs is enough to serve as a valid 2nd strike option as I am not a nuclear strategist, only someone who's studied a lot of game theory. 18 Ohio-class subs however are considered a valid amount for full second-strike capabilities so somewhere between 0 and 432 missiles are needed for a second strike threat to be credible. And yes, Israel is a major issue. Of course they deny that they have nukes, but everyone knows they do. This is why they've had the Samson policy of launching all their nukes at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option axeil fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Jan 20, 2017 |
# ? Jan 20, 2017 19:25 |
|
LolitaSama posted:But how do you knock out Nuclear Subs? Wouldn't the presense of those always ensure America couldn't knock out China's strike back potential? So is it because they simply have less that MAD isn't enforce or because they couldn't launch the little that they even had? If you could take nuclear subs out of the equation, and if this was the case, Israel would be in huge poo poo too. Not hard to knock out the Nuclear capabilities of a country the size of new jersey. You know the band "megadeth"? that is named after the concept of "megadeath" which was a cold war idea about counting out how many millions of people would die that was talked about in the context that as there could be an acceptable amount of megadeath. How many million people could those submarines kill? Not 300 million, so we would win, hurray! "tragic but distinguishable postwar states"
|
# ? Jan 20, 2017 19:25 |
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You know the band "megadeth"? that is named after the concept of "megadeath" which was a cold war idea about counting out how many millions of people would die that was talked about in the context that as there could be an acceptable amount of megadeath. How many million people could those submarines kill? Not 300 million, so we would win, hurray! for a real life simulation of this, please see the game "DEFCON" where you "win" if you can kill more of the bad guy than you yourself lose, even if the world is turned into a hellscape http://store.steampowered.com/app/1520/ And yeah, that's basically what I'm getting at. 18 SSBNs are enough to ensure there's enough megadeath on the attacking state that they wouldn't "win" if they struck first. It's unclear if 4 is enough to do that in a hypothetical Chinese/US nuclear war. Also there is doubt about whether the Chinese subs even have missiles on them. At a Congressional hearing back in 2015 members of the US military testified that the US does not currently believe there are any nuclear missiles on these subs. The history of nuclear strategy is really fascinating and horrifying if you all want to read more about it. These are all good places to start and more rigorously define/explain things like "second strike" and "no first use" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use axeil fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Jan 20, 2017 |
# ? Jan 20, 2017 19:28 |
|
axeil posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_strategy You missed the most hosed up one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
|
# ? Jan 20, 2017 19:58 |
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You missed the most hosed up one: I also like that instead of calling the opposite of "No First Use" "First Use" (AKA "We Will Totally Nuke You") they call it "Defensive Use Only" But yeah the Samson Option is one of the most hosed up nuclear strategies out there. It's basically "if our existence is threatened we will nuke everyone nearby including possibly ourselves with the primary goal being killing everyone and not the destruction of military targets". It's a suicidal version of Massive Retaliation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_retaliation Also kind of chilling that the Israeli government all but threatened the US government with implementing it during the Yom Kippur War if the US didn't send supplies. edit: Also would we be able to make this the general nuclear/chemical/biological weapon proliferation and policy thread? axeil fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Jan 20, 2017 |
# ? Jan 20, 2017 20:07 |
|
axeil posted:China only has 4 ballistic missile submarines (the Type 094 or Jin class) which may or may not even be deployed. They carry 12 nuclear missiles each. The US has 18 Ohio-class submarines somewhere in the water right now, each which has 24 Trident II nuclear missiles. While nuclear submarines are the best option for a "mininaml effective deterrent" 2nd strike capability (and China is of course aware of this and seeking to increase it's SSBN force), they aren't the only option. Mobile ICBMs, if effectively deployed and managed, offer a credible-enough 2nd strike capability that even an all out counterfoce 1st strike by the US would probably result in dozens of warheads being launched. On top of even a small SSBN force, the resulting destruction may not be "total" in the sense that it would be vs an all-out countervalue 2nd strike from Russia, but it would nonetheless decimate the US economy, dozens of major cities, and kill a double digit % of the population. To "win" a nuclear war with China, the US could not rely simply on its numerical superiority of warheads in a 1st strike, but would also have to have attack submarines in position to destroy some of China's SSBNs, and some means of identifying and destroying most land-mobile ICBM systems before they launch. This isn't impossible with stealth bombers and a good anti-submarine game, but it is getting into fantasy land. In any case winning a nuclear war with China is a good start to losing one with Russia.
|
# ? Jan 20, 2017 20:36 |
|
axeil posted:I also like that instead of calling the opposite of "No First Use" "First Use" (AKA "We Will Totally Nuke You") they call it "Defensive Use Only" I've never seen any credible support for the allegation that the "Samson Option" involved nuking a bunch of major countries in an attempt to destroy the world. All claims to that effect, as far as I can tell, ultimately come from one of three types of sources: writers with no real knowledge of Israel nuclear policies writing grandiose nationalistic fantasies about taking revenge on the world for a second Holocaust, anti-Semites and neo-Nazis who say it's one of the lynchpins of a Jewish conspiracy to either control or destroy the world, and conspiracy theorists who say it's one of the lynchpins of a Jewish conspiracy to either control or destroy the world. I've never seen even a trace of that description of the Samson Option in more reputable sources, which generally treat the Samson option as a standard nuclear deterrent (i.e., threatening to nuke the attacker if it looks like they're going to lose a defensive war).
|
# ? Jan 20, 2017 21:11 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:I've never seen any credible support for the allegation that the "Samson Option" involved nuking a bunch of major countries in an attempt to destroy the world. All claims to that effect, as far as I can tell, ultimately come from one of three types of sources: writers with no real knowledge of Israel nuclear policies writing grandiose nationalistic fantasies about taking revenge on the world for a second Holocaust, anti-Semites and neo-Nazis who say it's one of the lynchpins of a Jewish conspiracy to either control or destroy the world, and conspiracy theorists who say it's one of the lynchpins of a Jewish conspiracy to either control or destroy the world. I've never seen even a trace of that description of the Samson Option in more reputable sources, which generally treat the Samson option as a standard nuclear deterrent (i.e., threatening to nuke the attacker if it looks like they're going to lose a defensive war). Apologies if it came off like that, what I meant by "nuke a bunch of countries" was "nuking the countries attacking Israel". It does appear there is some vagueness about what that entails and whether say, an occupied Israeli city would be considered a valid target.
|
# ? Jan 20, 2017 21:15 |
|
axeil posted:Apologies if it came off like that, what I meant by "nuke a bunch of countries" was "nuking the countries attacking Israel". It does appear there is some vagueness about what that entails and whether say, an occupied Israeli city would be considered a valid target. Sorry, I guess I misinterpreted you. Usually when the Samson Option gets brought up as somehow different from regular nuclear deterrence, that's what people are talking about, and someone who just glances over the Wikipedia page might not notice the poor sourcing.
|
# ? Jan 20, 2017 21:43 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:Sorry, I guess I misinterpreted you. Usually when the Samson Option gets brought up as somehow different from regular nuclear deterrence, that's what people are talking about, and someone who just glances over the Wikipedia page might not notice the poor sourcing. Yeah I can see why it could appear like that. Most of my eyebrow raising at it is that, unlike everyone else's nuclear deterrence strategy Israel's is secret since they don't admit they have nuclear weapons, which is why you can get a lot of this telephone whispering. Also that in all the media I've seen discussing it, they never seem to know if enemy-occupied but de jure Israeli territory is a legitimate target. I mean, I would hope it isn't, but since we can't get confirmation it's a bit unnerving.
|
# ? Jan 20, 2017 22:08 |
|
axeil posted:China only has 4 ballistic missile submarines (the Type 094 or Jin class) which may or may not even be deployed. They carry 12 nuclear missiles each. The US has 18 Ohio-class submarines somewhere in the water right now, each which has 24 Trident II nuclear missiles. Hooray for that being debunked. Granted, I can see Bibi and Likud doing something so callous, much like Putin and Trump. Talmonis fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Jan 20, 2017 |
# ? Jan 20, 2017 22:22 |
|
Nuclear EMP. China, Russia, or North Korea could do it. You can shut the entire country down with one weapon at the right altitude. It could even be in a satellite in low-earth orbit.
|
# ? Jan 20, 2017 22:29 |
|
Three-Phase posted:Nuclear EMP. China, Russia, or North Korea could do it. You can shut the entire country down with one weapon at the right altitude. It could even be in a satellite in low-earth orbit. Oh sure, but thankfully that wouldn't stop 2nd strike from the sub force wiping out the perpetrator, maintaining the deterrant.
|
# ? Jan 20, 2017 22:30 |
|
Three-Phase posted:Nuclear EMP. China, Russia, or North Korea could do it. You can shut the entire country down with one weapon at the right altitude. It could even be in a satellite in low-earth orbit. it also has the advantage of not intentionally trying to kill anyone! i mean, loads of people would die from having no working electronics but that wouldn't be the primary purpose of the weapon. although that does raise the point, is the primary purpose of a nuclear weapon the loss of life, the terror, the denial of territory through fallout/contamination, or the destruction of infrastructure? axeil fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Jan 20, 2017 |
# ? Jan 20, 2017 22:32 |
|
axeil posted:Yeah I can see why it could appear like that. Most of my eyebrow raising at it is that, unlike everyone else's nuclear deterrence strategy Israel's is secret since they don't admit they have nuclear weapons, which is why you can get a lot of this telephone whispering. Also that in all the media I've seen discussing it, they never seem to know if enemy-occupied but de jure Israeli territory is a legitimate target. I mean, I would hope it isn't, but since we can't get confirmation it's a bit unnerving. I'd assume it depends on the severity of the situation, what kinds of weapons are in Israel's arsenal, and the objective of the strike. Obviously, no country really wants to rain down radioactive fallout on any territory they expect to keep after the war, but tactical nuclear weapons are mostly good for shooting at where the enemy are, rather than where they aren't. Strategic strikes would likely be aimed at the enemy countries' cities in hopes of inflicting so much damage to the country that it forces a quick peace agreement.
|
# ? Jan 20, 2017 22:59 |
|
axeil posted:it also has the advantage of not intentionally trying to kill anyone! i mean, loads of people would die from having no working electronics but that wouldn't be the primary purpose of the weapon. An EMP attack carried out by ballistic missile would still kill everyone in the attacking and target countries. An ICBM on track to detonate high above your country is indistinguishable in flight from one that's just going to keep flying and land in one of your cities. Any nuclear power with launch on alert capabilities would immediately retaliate as soon as confirmation was received, and the EMP-launching party would shoot back as well. As for the second part of your post, nukes can be specialized for different functions. A neutron bomb emits a disproportionate amount of its yield as high-energy particles that kill biological creatures dead but minimize damage to structures and vehicles. Obviously ground zero would still be blasted flat since it's still a nuke. Tactical nukes and cobalt bombs can both be used for area denial, either short- or long-term respectively. And for maximizing loss of life nothing beats a countervalue strike with a MIRV.
|
# ? Jan 20, 2017 23:59 |
|
You're assuming that there is a clear source location. There are a couple of ways to potentially get around that: 1. Launch a SLBM from a submarine 2. Launch from a ship (you may even be able to use something like a SCUD) 3. Have a nuclear weapon that's already in orbit (assuming the satellite is not tracked) - or maybe even something like an "undisclosed payload" launched by another country or private organization? 4. ICBM launched independantly by a non-government Those are scenarios where you might get sucker punched and not know for certain who the attacker is. Key military infrastructure is hardened. Most everything else is not. Three-Phase fucked around with this message at 03:41 on Jan 21, 2017 |
# ? Jan 21, 2017 03:37 |
|
Chinese nuclear submarines are also bad and in a state of heightened tensions wouldn't help China's second strike capacity all that much. They're really noisy and easy to track. Hell, the US Navy is probably tracking them a whole lot already, how else would they know that they probably aren't carrying any nukes?
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 03:49 |
|
axeil posted:I also like that instead of calling the opposite of "No First Use" "First Use" (AKA "We Will Totally Nuke You") they call it "Defensive Use Only" I've always waffles on the inclusion of chemical in the category. Like yeah, they serve no useful purpose other than a terror weapon / killing civilians, but they don't have the same sort of massive death potential. Worst case scenario you render a region dangerous to inhabit.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 03:55 |
|
axeil posted:for a real life simulation of this, please see the game "DEFCON" where you "win" if you can kill more of the bad guy than you yourself lose, even if the world is turned into a hellscape Do you happen to know of any longer form books or such that go into nuclear strategy and thinking? The topic is very interesting to me and I am looking for a new audiobook to listen to while driving.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 07:28 |
|
I think Trump also introduces a real danger from the use of imprecise language. Mixed messages sent to another country could lead to the perception that the US was okay with a conventional move (invasion etc) when they weren't. This leads to the possibility of conflict escalation in a number of ways. A good example of this was Saddam's interpretation that the US wouldn't intervene in his invasion of Kuwait. If Trump keeps on saying he's not going to assist NATO allies what happens after one gets attacked and he decides he will?
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 07:59 |
|
axeil posted:as we've never had a cabinet attempt a coup against a president it is unclear if the secret service/military would side with the coup or potus. testing that theory when we are under threat of a nuclear exchange is...unwise. i mean, they're people, not robots. common sense would dictate that they would not be okay with the world ending in nuclear loving hellfire. if it came down to that, it seems pretty blindingly obvious to me that they'd side with the cabinet, especially if it was a unanimous decision.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 08:01 |
|
axeil posted:China only has 4 ballistic missile submarines (the Type 094 or Jin class) which may or may not even be deployed. They carry 12 nuclear missiles each. The US has 18 Ohio-class submarines somewhere in the water right now, each which has 24 Trident II nuclear missiles. A couple of observations. 1. The USN has 14 Ohio SSBNs in total (4 of the original 18 have been converted to SSGNs). Not all of them are in the water right now. Also, all of them are capable of carrying up to 24 Trident D5s each, but they are not doing that. Each D5 is capable of carrying up to 14 warheads in a MIRV configuration (either W88 or the smaller yield W76), but they are not currently carrying as much. Right now, if all Ohios were out in the water and if all of them were permitted to carry the maximum amount of vehicles and weapons, each Ohio would carry 20 or 21 D5s, with each one having 4 MIRV warheads (for a total of 288 vehicles and 1152 deployed warheads). See the ratified - and in effect - New START. 2. China wants a credible SLBM deterrent, but they are not quite there yet. They are methodical in the way they are approaching this though, first fielding a prototype (092 Xia) and then going into production mode with 4 094s. It is currently thought that their earlier plans for a fleet of 8 Xia class SSBNs are scrapped, and that work is put in into bringing their next design into service, which has the capability of fielding up to 24 vehicles (096 Tang class). It is rumored that the sub will carry a modified version of the DF-41 ICBM, called JL-3. In that case, we are talking about a heavy SLBM in the R-39 Rif class (80 tonnes), capable of hitting the continental US from Chinese coastal waters. Much depends, however, on whether China shifts its overall nuclear posture from minimal deterrence to active pursuit of secure second strike capability. China has (correctly imo) identified that the best way forward is to field ICBMs in road mobile TELs, taking into advantage the vastness of the Chinese mainland for cover and concealment. This provides a credible minimal deterrence against a first strike (see DF-31 variants and DF-41 to replace the mainly silo based DF-5 and DF-4s), but China still does not have the numbers needed for a viable/secure second strike. This might change in the near (5 years) future. Dante80 fucked around with this message at 08:53 on Jan 21, 2017 |
# ? Jan 21, 2017 08:47 |
|
China is facing some problems in that regard, however. They are still struggling to develop submarines that are even close to the US in terms of quietness and longevity, combined with the fact that the US and Japan have the entire coast of China from Korea to India wired to detect Chinese submarines. This severely limits the ability for China to operate submarines without being detected even in their coastal waters, to say nothing of submarine-detecting aircraft located in US bases spanning the East and South China Seas. These waters are also really shallow and consequently it's easier to find submarines in them. A submarine isn't truly safe until it's on the high seas and this was a problem for the Soviets constantly, who faced similar geographical constraints and consequently by the end of the Cold War virtually every Soviet sub was being shadowed by the US Navy as soon as they left port. China is geographically boxed in, a fact that regularly vexes Chinese strategists. Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Jan 21, 2017 |
# ? Jan 21, 2017 08:56 |
|
This is true, and one of the main reasons for China spending some big bucks on developing a true blue water navy cap in the future (they do have some way to go still). Also, the choke-hold of the South/East China Sea theaters is one of the reasons for China bringing the ASuW IRBMs to the table in their first place, as well as developing bases on the SCS. Still though, this has not much to do with second strike SLBM cap. Ballistic submarines are designed to creep as close as possible to the mainland of the opponent undetected to launch a first strike that removes most of the reaction time for a massive retaliation or ABM measures. Depending on the number of fielded vehicles and warheads, a SSBN force in that scenario can work as a decapitation strike force (which prompted USSR to develop fail-deadly measures like the Dead Hand/Perimeter system), or as a massive first strike element against counterforce targets(*) to reduce or eliminate the opponents second strike cap. At the same time, they are fielded as a traditional and expensive first strike deterrent, with the mission of providing second strike capability. In that case, SSBNs can be fielded close to home and under the protective umbrella of the friendly air-force and navy forces. When used in that role SSBNs are "hardened" against SSN hunter attacks by the proximity and operations of those forces, and their mission is to provide the deterrent against a first strike on the mainland. In the Chinese example, to fulfill the second strike cap they need two things. 1. A delivery vehicle with enough range to target the mainland US from SCS or other coastal waters. 2. Enough actively fielded vehicles and warheads to provide a secure second strike cap. They are currently working on both, and this is consistent with Chinas' NFU policy after all. The question here is whether China truly wants to pursue a very expensive secure second strike cap or not. Their mobile TELs are much cheaper, and can also do that to a certain degree. Now. (*) Historically, SSBNs could only target countervalue targets (due to the innate CEP inaccuracy that early SLBMs had), but with the advances in electronics in the last decades it is possible to also use them now as a first and second strike counterforce element (in the latter scenario though, it is still more logical to go for the countervalue targets, as the deterrent becomes higher since most counterforce targets are already depleted from the first strike). Dante80 fucked around with this message at 10:13 on Jan 21, 2017 |
# ? Jan 21, 2017 09:48 |
|
Dante80 posted:This is true, and one of the main reasons for China spending some big bucks on developing a true blue water navy cap in the future (they do have some way to go still). Also, the choke-hold of the South/East China Sea theaters is one of the reasons for China bringing the ASuW IRBMs to the table in their first place, as well as developing bases on the SCS. My point is mostly that SLBM's are only useful insofar as they are mobile and invisible. China's submarines are neither and won't be anytime soon barring a massive leap in technology that we don't see any signs of occurring. While this means that they could theoretically launch from submarines near the Chinese coast, at that point you may as well just be using land-based systems. To be totally honest if I were in charge of formulating China's nuclear war strategy I wouldn't be wasting my limited nukes on strikes on the continental US; I'd be focusing them on US and Japanese bases in the Western Pacific in order to try and knock out the first island chain defense line. Of course, if someone asked me to formulate a winning nuclear strategy for China I would have to say that I couldn't without far, far more tools to work with, either more warheads or better boomers/bombers, and with China as weak as it is now even knocking out the first island chain would just be delaying the inevitable, which would just leave "try and reach the west coast as a final gently caress you" Which brings us back to the ultimate question of "what tensions exist between the US and China that either side would be willing to use nukes over." As much as the CCP huffs and puffs about Taiwan if it was so important to them that they would wage a nuclear war over it they would have invaded by now. As has been pointed out there isn't any coherent chain of escalation that could result in a nuclear exchange between China and the US. There is no theoretical Berlin or Cuba crisis that could be thought of because the fact of the matter is that great power tensions really aren't any more significant right now than they have been since the end of the Cold War. Trump is probably going to seek de-escalation and alliance with Russia, China is in decline and has to worry more about domestic problems at the moment and don't even really have the capacity to wage a distraction war, and all the other nuclear powers are US allies/have no ICBM capacity. The greatest nuclear risks remain a nuclear arms race in the middle east, proliferation in general, terrorism, and north korea, things that existed long before Trump. Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 12:24 on Jan 21, 2017 |
# ? Jan 21, 2017 12:16 |
|
Fojar38 posted:My point is mostly that SLBM's are only useful insofar as they are mobile and invisible. China's submarines are neither and won't be anytime soon barring a massive leap in technology that we don't see any signs of occurring. While this means that they could theoretically launch from submarines near the Chinese coast, at that point you may as well just be using land-based systems. What I explained above is that your point is mostly irrelevant since China is not pursuing a first strike cap against the US. SSBNs need deep sea invisibility if they have to be used as first strike weapons. As a second strike element, they simply need hardening and vehicle range. As I stated above, China has a NFU policy, and has also developed TELs for their ICBMs, which makes the strategic importance of SLBMs as a deterrence force smaller. Which is the reason that many are contemplating China moving/keeping more resources to the land part of the triad, instead of paying the very big expense for a secure second strike cap via SLBMs. Fojar38 posted:
Agreed, completely. Dante80 fucked around with this message at 12:41 on Jan 21, 2017 |
# ? Jan 21, 2017 12:34 |
|
"If you invade us we will nuke you" is the right policy for Israel to have and the one which makes it least likely they will ever either be invaded or use nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are mankind's greatest invention, the only machine that creates peace.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 12:49 |
|
hakimashou posted:"If you invade us we will nuke you" is the right policy for Israel to have and the one which makes it least likely they will ever either be invaded or use nuclear weapons. Dr. Gatling's dream is at last realized. Sort of relatedly, does anyone find no first use policies to be accidentally hilarious? Like, a nuclear power can say that they wouldn't launch first all they want but if an army they couldn't stop was genociding their populace and systemically crushing any resistance, they'd do it. Limiting situations in which nukes will be used is great but with a blanket NFU stance it's kinda like... come on.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 22:04 |
|
Using nukes on metropolitan areas as a component in a strategic exchange is one thing, but in the case of China in particular and also Russia I find the most primarily concerning use in a defensive posture as part of say, intervention in the South China Sea or Crimea. More knowledgeable folk than me have pretty aptly demonstrated why first-striking the US mainland is a pretty bad idea for anyone, and how second-striking is not terribly credible from any forseeable party, but what if China uses some of their limited stock to erase two or three carrier battle groups throwing their heft around in waters they claim? That is a much more plausible and thornier deployment of those weapons than outclassed subs taking a shot at the west coast USA, IMO.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 22:19 |
|
Willie Tomg posted:Using nukes on metropolitan areas as a component in a strategic exchange is one thing, but in the case of China in particular and also Russia I find the most primarily concerning use in a defensive posture as part of say, intervention in the South China Sea or Crimea. What happened to Japan after it bombed our navy?
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 22:24 |
|
Policies/pledges can, and do change in a jiffy, especially if we are talking about war. The NFU pledge China has is predominantly a political/legitimization weapon in the proliferation arena. Actually, this more or less holds true for every country. All nuclear powers (including North Korea, which has a stated NFU btw too), describe in their nuclear cap as a strictly defensive measure.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 22:26 |
|
Willie Tomg posted:Using nukes on metropolitan areas as a component in a strategic exchange is one thing, but in the case of China in particular and also Russia I find the most primarily concerning use in a defensive posture as part of say, intervention in the South China Sea or Crimea. The U.S. has zero problem with first use against nuclear armed opponents. If you're already in a hypothetical high threat possible war situation, multiple Ohio subs are going to already be right off the Chinese coast. If they get intelligence in time about what you're planning, everyone in Beijing has three minutes to live. If they don't get it time, everyone in Beijing has 3 minutes + Chinese missile TOT to the carrier group to live.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 22:29 |
|
Willie Tomg posted:Using nukes on metropolitan areas as a component in a strategic exchange is one thing, but in the case of China in particular and also Russia I find the most primarily concerning use in a defensive posture as part of say, intervention in the South China Sea or Crimea. There is functionally no difference between this scenario and nuking LA. Both would provoke a full nuclear response from the USA.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 22:32 |
|
Willie Tomg posted:what if China uses some of their limited stock to erase two or three carrier battle groups throwing their heft around in waters they claim? The US wouldn't need nukes to dismantle the Chinese government, but it would be quicker and there would be very few objections.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 22:34 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 04:28 |
|
I feel kinda bad about the gutrumbly feel of that last post so while my knowledge of nuclear capability and game theory is spotty, here's an essay that mostly encapsulates what knowledge I do have on the subject. Get ready to limber up that scrolling finger, boyosquote:The Nuclear Game - An Essay on Nuclear Policy Making This is why a tactical use on an invading force--almost certainly American unless designer drugs and too many Clancy novels have broken your brain--concerns me more than strategic use. We know what happens in strategic exchanges. It fuckin sucks
|
# ? Jan 21, 2017 22:34 |