Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

John says that every nuke will be used. But when? I can see two possibilities. There will be a fear of "use 'em or lose 'em" that might result in the birds flying in the early hours of the CoC war. Alternately, the thought of nukes may be so horrifying that they will be held in reserve until one side or the other is on the ropes and uses them in desperation. I hope it is the latter...I have a fear of suddenly going up in a mushroom cloud and not having time to make my peace with God (although living in Twinsburg, I probably will not be at a ground zero).
What are your thoughts?

December 21st, 2012. Sorry, couldn't resist.

I agree with John about WWIII being started with irrational leaders, which makes me think it will start with nukes.

If I understand the thought process on this, and I may not, it all comes down to it being a crisis war.

In a crisis war the very existence of the country is at stake. The leaders believe things are so bad that they can lose everything. Therefore they will use everything they have to make sure the other side loses, not them.

I take exception to John on this, because I do not believe China will be the first to use nuclear weapons on the enemy ( read U.S. ) homeland until China either builds a lot more Chinese nukes, or Obama destroys a lot more of the U.S. nuclear weapons.

China wants to win, and the best China can hope to do with the current strategic weapons balance is for both the U.S. and China to lose big in a major nuclear exchange, and a third party like say, Russia, Brazil, Turkey or India to win big. It would take China every Nuke they have to even make the U.S. lose as bad as China, and then Russia and others would be free to destroy what is left of China's nuclear weapons capacity without risk to the third party winner.

China has done a good job of using asymmetrical tactics and strategy to both make their nukes survivable against a first strike from the U.S. and at least make themselves believe they are the only ones who really know how many nukes China has. All of which is great for deterrence purposes, but not so great as a first strike decapitation threat.

The biggest problem I have with this reasoning, is that unless China can threaten the very existence of the U.S. without Nukes, or unless China can threaten to wipe out most U.S. Nukes before the U.S. can retaliate, then U.S. existence will not be at risk, and the U.S. will not be "forced" to use Nukes to survive.

The only other option is for the U.S. to believe they can destroy virtually all of China's nukes with a massive, surprise first strike. I believe the U.S. has way to much data on just how hard that is to do to even try it. China has likely stolen all that data ( the Clinton administration was literally giving it away ) , so they know as well.

1. I have no idea who will use nuclear weapons first, and it can't be
predicted.

2. Every nuke will be used by the time of the crisis climax.

China's nuclear dilemma is that:

* They don't want to be the first to use nuclear weapons

* Therefore a "defensive" first strike would have to be with
conventional missiles, and these missiles have to be ready to strike
first and hard.

* But the same military bases are used for both conventional weapons
and nuclear weapons

* Therefore, if they launch conventional weapons, their enemy (the
U.S.) won't be able to tell the difference, and will assume that
they're nuclear weapons, and will respond with nuclear weapons.

* Thus, "Escalation to nuclear war could become accelerated and
unavoidable."
http://phys.org/news/2012-09-china-nuclear-dilemma.html

John wrote:China's nuclear dilemma is that:

* They don't want to be the first to use nuclear weapons

* Therefore a "defensive" first strike would have to be with
conventional missiles, and these missiles have to be ready to strike
first and hard.

* But the same military bases are used for both conventional weapons
and nuclear weapons

* Therefore, if they launch conventional weapons, their enemy (the
U.S.) won't be able to tell the difference, and will assume that
they're nuclear weapons, and will respond with nuclear weapons.

* Thus, "Escalation to nuclear war could become accelerated and
unavoidable."
http://phys.org/news/2012-09-china-nuclear-dilemma.html

John,

Interesting group to quote as experts, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt.

IF the United States was that country being attacked by China, this scenario makes no sense at all.

First, while China may store it's nuclear missiles in the same place it stores it's conventional missiles, the United States does not.
The United States can determine where a Chinese basaltic missile is headed, at least to the nearest state, shortly after launch.
U.S. Silos are located in God's country. Drive though it and you will know what I mean. Central Montana, Eastern Wyoming, Northern Colorado,
Western Nebraska, the Dakotas. No targets there but silos ( nuclear and grain ), tractors, pickups and farms.
The U.S. nuclear missile silos are deep under ground and hardened.
Conventional ballistic missiles ( short range, long range, or any other range ) have nothing to shoot at anywhere near the U.S. hardened missile silos.
If the Chinese fire a ballistic missile at those areas of those states it is either a very accurate high yield nuke or a suicide attempt.

Second, the United States has approximately 450 widely dispersed, hardened missile silos, in the valleys between what people in New England call mountains.
If you have 1,350 high yield, extremely accurate, long range nuclear warheads to launch at them you will probably wipe them all out.
The U.S. has twice as many nuclear warheads on bombers and subs, so they would probably allow a country
like China with only hundreds of long range nuclear missiles to take their best shot
with as many missiles as they want to waste on the wide open spaces of Gods country. Let the gods of CEP decide the results.

Third, if China targeted U.S. bombers, the bombers would attempt to take off. They would either make it or they would not. No U.S. missiles launched.

Fourth, if they targeted U.S. subs, they might get some in port, some in port might get away.
Yes they leave the engines running at all times between refueling which occurs every 20 years or so.
The ones at sea are supposed to be untouchable by ballistic missiles because they are too fast and too invisible.

In summary, this scenario makes no sense for the very simple reason that China has no reason whatsoever
to fire a conventional ballistic missile at the region of the United States where the fixed,
shoot it or lose it, portion of the U.S. nuclear deterrent is located.
Even if you assume there is a shoot it before you lose it U.S. policy.

Reality Check wrote: In summary, this scenario makes no sense for the very simple reason that China has no reason whatsoever to fire a conventional ballistic missile at the region of the United States where the fixed, shoot it or lose it, portion of the U.S. nuclear deterrent is located. Even if you assume there is a shoot it before you lose it policy.

Haven't you also proven that Japan should never have decided to bomb Pearl Harbor?

I'm not so much worried about China than I am about irrational fatalists with a bent toward martyrdom and nuclear missiles to toss around.

John wrote:

Reality Check wrote: In summary, this scenario makes no sense for the very simple reason that China has no reason whatsoever to fire a conventional ballistic missile at the region of the United States where the fixed, shoot it or lose it, portion of the U.S. nuclear deterrent is located. Even if you assume there is a shoot it before you lose it policy.

Haven't you also proven that Japan should never have decided to bomb Pearl Harbor?

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

I was responding to a report, that you were quoting which made preposterous assumptions, as part of the quoted report ( not you ) reaching a ridiculous conclusion.

Your immediate above response has no logical relationship to either your original post, the report you were citing in your original post, or my response to it.

One is forced to ask, did you even read the report you were quoting, or my response to it ?

Is there something going on? You are almost always the most reasoned, insightful and thoughtful poster on your forums.

psCargile wrote:I'm not so much worried about China than I am about irrational fatalists with a bent toward martyrdom and nuclear missiles to toss around.

There is no doubt that crazy people, like religious fanatics who truly want to expedite the return of the 13th Imam, controlling a government with nuclear weapons, could start a nuclear war.

There is also no doubt that people who are not up to the task, due to personal limitations such as lack of intelligence, lack of emotional stability, or lack of sanity might end up, in, or very near, the chain of command that controls a nuclear trigger.

There are all sorts of ways nuclear weapons might begin to be used in a war.

In this series of posts I was only taking exception to a report that proposed, as facts, a preposterous set of assumptions and then the report used these facts to reach a ridicules conclusion.