When will the nukes be used?

[Reality Check]

For the purpose of beating a dead horse, here is another way of exposing the fallacies in the quoted report's assumptions:

Can you launch a conventional warhead, of exactly the same weight, as a thermal nuclear warhead, on exactly the same ballistic missile ?
Yes

Can a ballistic missile travel half way around the world from China to the United States and strike near a target in Eastern Wyoming ?
Yes. That is known as a long range ballistic missile.

Would a ballistic missile of identical size, and identical weight, with exactly the same weight of warhead look exactly the same, during the ascent phase if heading for the same destination?
Yes

Would a conventional warhead small enough to ride on a long range ballistic missile all the way from China to the U.S. be of any use against a hardened target in Wyoming?
None whatsoever.

Do highly accurate short and medium range conventional ballistic missiles have any useful purpose?
Absolutely.

Can the U.S. tell the difference between a long range ballistic missile launch and a short/medium range ballistic missile launch while they are still in the ascent stage?
Absolutely. Either the trajectory would be very different, or there boost phase would terminate at a much different altitude, or both.

Would there be any reason for the U.S. to snap launch their fixed silo missiles in response to a large number of short/medium range ballistic missiles launched form China?
None whatsoever. They would be incapable of reaching the portion of the United States where the U.S. missile silos are, so therefore they would not be a threat.

Would there be any reason for China to launch a conventional warhead in a long range ballistic missile at hardened targets in the United States?
None whatsoever. The warheads on long range ballistic missiles are so small that such small amounts of conventional explosives have no effect on the target.

[John]

> With all due respect John, maybe you should actually read a post
> before you respond to it.

I guess I was being waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too subtle.

You've provided a perfectly logical explanation for why China's first
strike strategy is logically incorrect and will lead to problems.
It's almost a mathematical proof.

You could also provide a perfectly logical explanation for why Japan
should never have bombed Pearl Harbor.

The problem with such logical explanations is that they fail to take
into account the highly emotional and nationalistic behaviors at the
time of the first strike.

Here's something from my first book:

But what happens to the losers? Some insights into that question
are provided by Wolfgang Schivelbusch who studied the results of
defeat in war[[*]], and found that they follow a predictable
pattern:

[["Wolfgang Schivelbusch who studied the results of defeat in
war": Wolfgang Schivelbusch, <i>The Culture of Defeat: On National
Trauma, Mourning, and Recovery</i>, 2000, translated by Jefferson
Chase, Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt and Company LLC, 2001,
pp. 3-35]]

(*) An almost festive jubilation accompanies the declarations of
war on all sides. "The passions excited in the national psyche by
the onset of war show how deeply invested the masses [are] in its
potential outcome. Propaganda [reinforces the] conviction that
'everything [is] at stake,' and the threat of death and defeat
[functions] like a tightly coiled spring, further heightening the
tension." The jubilation is an anticipatory celebration of
victory, since "nations are as incapable of imagining their own
defeat as individuals are of conceiving their own death. The new
desire to humiliate the enemy, [is] merely a reaction to the
unprecedented posturing in which nations now [engage] when
declaring war."

(*) The illusion, the unshaken conviction of certain victory,
turns into shock when things start going wrong. In the words of
historian Carl von Clausewitz, writing in the 1830s, "The effect
of [defeat] outside the army -- on the people and on the
government -- is a sudden collapse of the most anxious
expectations[[*]], and a complete crushing of
self-confidence. This leaves a vacuum that is filled by a
corrosively expanding fear, which completes the paralysis. It is
as if the electric charge of the main battle had sparked a shock
to the whole nervous system of one of the contestants."

[["The effect of [defeat] outside the army -- on the people and on
the government -- is a sudden collapse of the most anxious
expectations": Carl von Clausewitz, <i>On War</i>, 1832 edition,
translated and edited by Michael Howard and Peter Paret
(Princeton, 1976), p. 231, quoted by Schivelbusch,
<i>op. cit.</i>, pp. 6-7]]

[Tom Mazanec]

Just a little reminder...
China might have 3,000 nukes:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... nnels.html

[Reality Check]

I guess I was being waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too subtle.

No, actually, you were not being subtle.

You were using a quote from a study that was attempting to be very logical, but was based on flawed assumptions, or put another way, flawed facts.

I am not sure what explanation you were trying to support with the conclusions from the quoted study ( I have not read all the footnotes from your book in your last post ), but I am sure the quoted study was trying to use logic to support the study's conclusion.

By quoting that study, you are, in a strange way, adding support to the study and it's conclusions.

In my humble opinion, your theories, and the conclusions you reach from them, are much more sound, and much more reliable for the purposes of prediction ( aka scientific ) than the quoted study.

Is there something going on? You are almost always the most reasoned, insightful and thoughtful poster on your forums ( unlike people like me ).

[Reality Check]

Just a little reminder...
China might have 3,000 nukes:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... nnels.html

Very interesting, and apparently new article, you might want to consider starting a New topic on that subject alone.

[John]

My little remark about Pearl Harbor was admittedly a little snarky,
but I never expected this kind of reaction. If I've offended you
somehow, I assure you it wasn't intentional.

I'm not disagreeing with any of your facts. I'm simply saying that
the facts are irrelevant, and they're being overridden by nationalism
and emotions. I'm assuming that someone in China believes in the
validity of that strategy, incorrect facts and all, and if China
believes in the strategy then that's all that matters.

An analogy would be Wall Street and S&P the 500 P/E index. It's been
well above average since 1995, but CNBC consistently declares that
it's at a historically low value. They're obviously lying on purpose,
but I know that a lot of people believe what they say, and so the fact
that they're lying is irrelevant to most people.

As long as we're having a heart to heart talk, this is probably a good
place to tell you what I plan to do. You've created dozens of threads
in the "Generational Theory" sub-forum, where they really don't
belong. I assume that the reason you've done that is because that
sub-forum is in the "Spotlight" area.

So what I propose to do is create a new "Reality Check" sub-forum, and
move it to the "Spotlight" area, and then move all your threads into
that new sub-forum. I assume that this will be pleasing to you, but
let me know if there's a problem.

John

[OLD1953]

I doubt the war will directly involve the US for a while, the US will simply refuse to participate. As it stands, the first use of nukes will probably be on an invading army inside another countrys' borders. Use of nukes in such self defense scenarios would cause some interesting reactions among other countries, and the final line up for the war would be made in a few days. But it's going to be interesting seeing the justifications for the nukes not being an allowable means of defense from invasion.

After all this lines up and positions harden, then we might see the ballistic missiles flying. But I see that at the end of the war, and a launch by the inevitable loser, not as a starting move.