|
Nonsense posted:lol This is kind of serious question, but do we just ignore using nukes in a real peer war with a country like China? Wouldn’t the nukes immediately start firing if 10k got wiped out?
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2023 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:21 |
|
|
dk2m posted:This is kind of serious question, but do we just ignore using nukes in a real peer war with a country like China? Wouldn’t the nukes immediately start firing if 10k got wiped out? Well that’s always been the end of the world question, and it’s why so much time goes into constructing techno political frameworks like mutually assured destruction or the idea of ‘tactical nukes’ or ABM systems etc. The continued existence of some parts of the MIC depends on being able to say “no this definitely won’t go nuclear”. Ultimately who knows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2023 22:56
|
|
|
dk2m posted:This is kind of serious question, but do we just ignore using nukes in a real peer war with a country like China? Wouldn’t the nukes immediately start firing if 10k got wiped out? None of the concrete gains a nation can achieve by launching a nuclear strike on another nation comes anywhere near the scale of the costs that would be inflicted by even the feeblest nuclear response. Only ten mushroom clouds over large American cities would leave the US economy as crippled as the economies of Europe were after the Second World War, with no Marshall Plan in sight; the impact of the full Chinese arsenal, small as it is by American or Russian standards, would likely mean the end of the United States as a functioning First World nation. Sure, much of China would be pounded into radioactive rubble; what imaginable advantage would this give to whatever was left of the United States? The mistake you are making is that you think that nuclear weapons exist to fight nuclear wars. That was true of the first two fission bombs ever made, Little Boy and Fat Man, but it hasn’t been true of any nuclear weapon since that time. They exist not to fight but to threaten. They will come out only if the cost of not using them is less than the cost of using them, which is a very very hard threshold to cross PawParole has issued a correction as of 23:22 on Nov 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2023 23:20
|
|
|
Rationally yes, losing a couple of carriers and a few tens of thousands of troops is not worth burning down the world But the people in charge of the US are not rational, they are insane fascists who literally cannot imagine a world they don't have total dominion of and there's a good chance they would choose to destroy it all rather than lose
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2023 23:25
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Rationally yes, losing a couple of carriers and a few tens of thousands of troops is not worth burning down the world every catastrophe can be monetized
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2023 23:26
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Rationally yes, losing a couple of carriers and a few tens of thousands of troops is not worth burning down the world Was just going to make this point as well. We currently live in a world where people are selected for key decision making positions for reasons other than ability. There are morons in charge. Idealogues. Short sighted planning is the norm not the exception. Emotional cognition trumps rational calculations. A great many mistake educational certificates (expensive toilet paper) for actual intelligence. So yeah it would be pretty dumb lose lose to nuclear anything. But so what? If I can't have it then nobody can. Etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2023 23:31
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Rationally yes, losing a couple of carriers and a few tens of thousands of troops is not worth burning down the world Hitler was very insane as well, even though he didn’t have nuclear weapons, but he did have the next best thing, massive stockpiles of three different, highly lethal nerve gases, and delivery systems that could readily have landed decent quantities of them on London and a variety of other military and civilian targets. He never used nerve gas-filled rockets, even when the Wehrmacht’s last battalions were fighting Russian troops in the suburbs of Berlin and his own death was staring him in the face. Why? Because the Allies also had them, and could be counted on to retaliate in kind; the military benefits of gassing London, or even the D-Day beaches, paled in contrast to the military impact of Allied nerve gas attacks, say, against German armies on the Eastern Front. That is to say, crazy doesn’t always mean stupid. PawParole has issued a correction as of 00:02 on Nov 14, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2023 23:37
|
|
|
PawParole posted:None of the concrete gains a nation can achieve by launching a nuclear strike on another nation comes anywhere near the scale of the costs that would be inflicted by even the feeblest nuclear response. Baudrillard asserted that nuclear weapons made warfare go from actual warfare, to deterrence, which is a simulated clash of policies, pronouncements etc to preclude an actual conflict. Here's an article I found that expands on this probably way better than I can. https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/in-theory-baudrillard-8/ But yeah, a war between two nuclear power like US/China is unprecedented and we don't really know how it's going to play out. What price is worth total mutual annihilation? Even if the US "wins" the nuclear exchange, that's still a few major cities gone, in a country where direct attacks like that never ever have happened, and this in a country that won't build critical infrastructure because it might inconvenience someone or cause a temporary loss of revenue. I don't know about China, but I imagine they won't be very happen to lose cities either because the Party wanted a wayward island back. Whereever the line is, I don't think 10,000 servicepeople is that. But it could be. Nobody knows until it happens. It'll depend on who the executive is at the time, whether or not Russia will participate etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2023 23:45
|
|
|
PawParole posted:Hitler was very insane as well, even though he didn’t have nuclear weapons, but he did have the next best thing, massive stockpiles of three different, highly lethal nerve gases, and delivery systems that could readily have landed decent quantities of them on London and a variety of other military and civilian targets. He never used nerve gas-filled rockets, even when the Wehrmacht’s last battalions were fighting Russian troops in the suburbs of Berlin and his own death was staring him in the face. By the time the Russians were at the doors of Berlin it was too late, he wouldn't have had access to the nerve gas stockpiles & rocket delivery systems. The last time it would have been an option would have been in, like, late 1944 or so, before the rocket sites were overrun and the luftwaffe wiped out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 00:13
|
|
|
PawParole posted:The mistake you are making is that you think that nuclear weapons exist to fight nuclear wars. That was true of the first two fission bombs ever made, Little Boy and Fat Man, but it hasn’t been true of any nuclear weapon since that time. They exist not to fight but to threaten. 2nd & 3rd 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 00:14
|
|
|
Votskomit posted:Germany lost two world wars and is still around. Don't hold your breath. Mhmhm, Germany is not a sovereign nation since WW2 (like Italy and Japan): they are condemned to oblivium, a worse fate than death. Knightsoul has issued a correction as of 01:28 on Nov 14, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 00:26
|
|
|
PawParole posted:Hitler was very insane as well, even though he didn’t have nuclear weapons, but he did have the next best thing, massive stockpiles of three different, highly lethal nerve gases, and delivery systems that could readily have landed decent quantities of them on London and a variety of other military and civilian targets. He never used nerve gas-filled rockets, even when the Wehrmacht’s last battalions were fighting Russian troops in the suburbs of Berlin and his own death was staring him in the face. That was never really technically viable, and even then chemical weapons are used as a substitute for regular munitions when there's a shortage because they're generally far less effective than conventional munitions If Hitler had nukes he would have used them 100%
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 00:54
|
|
|
Chemical weapons also suck because you need a weather control machine to really make it work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 00:56
|
|
|
Area denial and just plain spite is also an option. E.g you release the spicy air as you retreat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 01:08
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:Whereever the line is, I don't think 10,000 servicepeople is that. But it could be. Nobody knows until it happens. It'll depend on who the executive is at the time, whether or not Russia will participate etc. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/low-yield-warhead-nuclear-weapons-navy-trident-submarines.html quote:Sometime in the past two months, the U.S. Navy has deployed a new type of nuclear warhead in some of its Trident submarines. Called the W76-2, it is a “low-yield” warhead, which would explode with the blast power of about 8 kilotons—far less powerful than the Tridents’ other warheads, which have an explosive yield of 90 to 450 kilotons. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 01:09
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:Area denial and just plain spite is also an option. E.g you release the spicy air as you retreat. And then the wind changes and you're hosed Also there is an inverse relationship between how effective an agent is and how persistent it is Make no mistake: the only reason nobody used chemical weapons in WW2 and beyond is because they're pretty loving useless compared to just making more boom
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 01:16
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:And then the wind changes and you're hosed Agreed. Useless and needlessly escalatory. Which is a nice segue into tactical nukes. The thing is, nobody has fired a nuke of any kind in anger since 1945. For the same reason you mentioned nobody used chems in combat in WW2, it starts an escalation spiral. If you use one in a first strike, you broke the seal, and now nukes are on the table for the return shot. This doesn't automatically trigger "launch everything and go home to die" mode, but it's the first step to that, since you'll end up in a tit for tat exchange while the international community tries to get you to back down or defeat you, that will probably end up with your cities (countervalue strategy) eventually being destroyed. Or maybe you get away with it and you just trade low yielders a couple times on military targets (counterforce) until someone sues for peace, but nobody wants to deal with that when a low yield nuke is effectively the same thing as a bunch of conventional bombs that no will fault you for using.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 01:28
|
|
|
Part of the challenges with ww3 what-if is the impossible to reconcile starting conditions. American war boosters always assume a big bad evil china wants to genocide the people of taiwan, so they do a secret first strike against america. others predict a desperate america creating the pretext require to attempt a "quarantine" of china, leading to war. the populous' response to these, the chance for nuclear weapon use, and the response to that, etc of course wouldn't be the same in all these situations. loosing 10k american warriors in the defense of the hawaiian island to a sneak attack plays a bit differently than 10k american warriors dying in the attack on Mischief Reef.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 01:33
|
|
|
No, that is literally the fake made up feelgood reason nobody used chemicals in WW2. They didn't use them because they're not useful, nobody gave a flying gently caress about escalation when everyone was already firebombing cities and/or involved in a war of total annihilation, depending on who we're talking about. They got used in WW1 as an attempted substitute for conventional ordinance because that was in short supply. They simply are not very effective despite everyone's best efforts. That's it, there is no escalation prevention reasoning to it at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 01:33
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:No, that is literally the fake made up feelgood reason nobody used chemicals in WW2. Also they didn't get used because the Japanese surrendered before the US had a chance to use them...
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 01:38
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:No, that is literally the fake made up feelgood reason nobody used chemicals in WW2. Churchill was certainly in favor of chemical and biological weapon use quote:Winston Churchill issued a memorandum advocating a chemical strike on German cities using poison gas and possibly anthrax. Although the idea was rejected, it has provoked debate.[19] In July 1944, fearing that rocket attacks on London would get even worse and that he would only use chemical weapons if it was "life or death for us" or would "shorten the war by a year",[20] Churchill wrote a secret memorandum asking his military chiefs to "think very seriously over this question of using poison gas." He said: "it is absurd to consider morality on this topic when everybody used it in the last war without a word of complaint," and that: the argument that the allies should restrain from their use to secure the local populous' support is an interesting one, and also an argument that seems like it would have little purchase with current leadership
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 01:40
|
|
|
wasn't there an entire island in the UK that they turned into a completely uninhabitable wasteland from bombing it with chemical weapons as a test?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 01:44
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:the problem is the dumbdumbs in charge have a right-sized big boy retaliation option for just such a situation Can't wait to be freed from this mortal coil
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 01:44
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:wasn't there an entire island in the UK that they turned into a completely uninhabitable wasteland from bombing it with chemical weapons as a test? A little place called Great Britain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 01:46
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:Area denial and just plain spite is also an option. E.g you release the spicy air as you retreat. May the wind direction be in your favour.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 01:50
|
|
|
Germany is the luxury car mechanic of the American empire. The stable master if you will. stephenthinkpad has issued a correction as of 02:01 on Nov 14, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 01:56
|
|
|
Friends friends, please. There is no need to argue about whether a desperate and flailing US will use nukes as the empire crumbles or if fear of retaliation will rule the day. You'll have an answer within your lifetime, and quite possibly before the end of the decade. Then you can come back here ( hopefully) and gloat. But keep your tempers down here in the war thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 01:57
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Churchill was certainly in favor of chemical and biological weapon use Churchill was bursting with idiotic non-starter ideas yeah In that sense he's very similar to modern western leaders in that he never thought anything through and acted mostly out of blind belligerence
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 02:05
|
|
|
It's interesting how these arguments are framed because by the western policy establishment's own words and actions, it's clear time is on China's side. Why would they feel the need to start a war? Should a war break out, given they are the only ones capable of actually manufacturing anything, why would they be the first to use nuclear weapons? In both cases, the conditions for eventual Chinese victory already exist, peacefully or militarily, so really we're asking when does America instigate a war, and what is the American threshold for WMD use.That's really hard to know, because as we're seeing with Ukraine, or even Israel, 30 years of the End of History is not conducive to taking L's gracefully. e: I mean, since Britain was brought up, how much more desperate do the Americans have to get, and how much more clear does their decline have to be, before they consider a gambit like Britain and France did in the Suez Crisis?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 02:38
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:No, that is literally the fake made up feelgood reason nobody used chemicals in WW2. Chemical weapons were used for warfare in WW2. Japan used them heavily against the Chinese, include 375 separate occasions during the Battle of Wuhan from August to October 1938. The Nazis also used chemical weapons against the Soviets in a few cases. Toxic smoke was used in Sevastopol to clear the Soviets out of caverns, asphyxiating gas in Odessa to clear the Soviets out of the catacombs, asphyxiating gas was used in Crimea to clear the Soviets out of caves and tunnels near a quarry, and possibly poison gas in the Caucus mountains. Italy also used chemical weapons against Ethiopia but that doesn't count since it wasn't in WW2 proper. The Americans also accidently gassed themselves in Italy when their ship full of mustard gas was bombed by the Nazis. Of course the Nazi death camps used Zyklon B but that wasn't technically part of the war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 02:50
|
|
|
Spain also used mustard gas heavily in Morocco, but I know next to nothing about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 02:59
|
|
|
Fell Mood posted:Friends friends, please. There is no need to argue about whether a desperate and flailing US will use nukes as the empire crumbles or if fear of retaliation will rule the day. You'll have an answer within your lifetime, and quite possibly before the end of the decade. Then you can come back here ( hopefully) and gloat. But keep your tempers down here in the war thread. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 03:19
|
|
|
Fell Mood posted:Friends friends, please. There is no need to argue about whether a desperate and flailing US will use nukes as the empire crumbles or if fear of retaliation will rule the day. You'll have an answer within your lifetime, and quite possibly before the end of the decade. Then you can come back here ( hopefully) and gloat. But keep your tempers down here in the war thread. e: goddamnit
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 03:23
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:e: goddamnit  Shitposting is an arms race.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 03:24
|
|
|
Since I think America lacks the capacity anymore to fight any kind of conventional war I do wonder how tempted leadership would be to use nuclear weapons against someone who can't retaliate like Iran. If Iran makes the empire look impotent and our usual strategy of endless bombing goes nowhere when it's a country with functioning air defenses and forces so we actually start losing an awful lot of expensive pilots and planes even if we're "winning" where else can they turn. We can try to bomb them with money via cruise missiles but it's unlikely to make much of a military impact. Maybe that'd be enough for America to plausibly declare victory and go home to celebrate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 03:43
|
|
|
we get israel to bomb them and act hurt and surprised that they hid their bomb from us and then we tell israel they better not do it again or we'll be course with them in a letter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 03:48
|
|
|
Lead up to WW1 but with nukes It'll be fine
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 03:59
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:It's interesting how these arguments are framed because by the western policy establishment's own words and actions, it's clear time is on China's side. Why would they feel the need to start a war? Should a war break out, given they are the only ones capable of actually manufacturing anything, why would they be the first to use nuclear weapons? for the same reason that every Cold War Gone Hot fantasy involves the Soviets striking first, usually for either extremely contrived reasons or no clear reason at all - because we are Good and they are Bad
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 04:00
|
|
|
Knightsoul posted:Mhmhm, Germany is not a sovereign nation since WW2 (like Italy and Japan): they are condemned to oblivium, a worse fate than death. There was a sovereign German nation after World War 2, and it died so German teens could wear blue jeans and listen to lovely American hair metal
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 04:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:21 |
|
|
Mister Bates posted:for the same reason that every Cold War Gone Hot fantasy involves the Soviets striking first, usually for either extremely contrived reasons or no clear reason at all - because we are Good and they are Bad to be fair some of them involve the president being insane or the US just loving up and launching all the nukes accidentally
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2023 04:09
|
|
