Will the next conflict between major powers go nuclear?
- Thread starter legoboy
- Start date
vesicles
Colonel
Re: What is the likely hypothetical outcome of nuclear war between china and russia/u
OK, guys, we need to think of politicians are a lot smarter than they appear to be. Previous experience shows that usually cooler heads prevail in time of crisis. In the Korean War, the Americans were losing a lot of men on the battlefield and many top commanders, including MacArthur himself, wanted to use nukes. However, Washington decided against it and MacArthur got fired partially for insisting on using the nukes on China. The Cuban missile crisis would be another example. The US and the Soviets were at the brink of all out war. However, the cooler head prevailed. Although Cold War was cold, both nations were never too far away from an all out war. Both saw each other as arch enemy and as evil and did everything they could to counter each other. The exchange was open and often extremely heated. Both saw major conflict between the two nations as inevitable and catastrophic. Americans were practicing what they should do in time of a Soviet nuke attack often in the 50's and 60's. Yet, nothing happened... I am sure in that kind of extremely sensitive and heated environment, the leaders of both nations faced the decision of whether to go to war on multiple occasions. Yet, every time, they decided not to because of the potentially catastrophic consequences. The same went with the Soviets and China. In the 60's, the relationship between China and the Soviets was so bad that the border of the two nations was guarded by over a million troops. There were actually small-scale battles fought between the two armies early in the conflict, involving thousands of troops, for control of some islands. Yet, nothing major happened. In the later stages, to prevent all out war, the leaders in both nations actually ordered their troops to carry sticks, instead of rifles, on their patrols. So the kind of scenario you presented actually happened before at a scale even larger than you imagined, but nothing major happened.
The 50's and 60's were a dangerous time because ideology was front and center and everyone was sort of fanatic in terms of protecting their own ideology. Yet, nothing major happened. It shows that even in the most fanatic times, cooler heads prevail. Nowadays, people around the world are a lot more pragmatic. The consequences of an all out conventional war between two major powers would be too great for anyone to accept. It was too great to accept even between the two arch enemies in the Cold War... Not to mention a nuclear war. Everyone knows what would happen and no one will be crazy enough to pull the trigger.
So in my opinion, it will never happen.
Well, you need to understand that China's neighbors don't consider themselves adversaries of China. Each country has its own agenda and some of that may conflict with agendas of another country, which may lead to some ill feelings. That is about it. No nation hates China so much that they would think about attacking China whenever there is a chance. And history shows these East Asian nations had plenty opportunity to attack China if they wanted to in the 50's, 60's and 70's when China was economically and militarily weak and was in catastrophic domestic turmoil. In the 50's, China was locked in a war against the most power military in the world. Anyone who has the slightest sense of military strategy would want to attack China from the other side. In the early 60's, China experienced one of the greatest famines in the history of the country. Close to 60 million died within 3 years. Then the late 60's to the mid 70's saw the Cultural Revolution, which completely and thoroughly destroyed any meaningful economy and government and social structure in China. You can't find a better opportunity to attack than that. Yet, no one, not even Taiwan, attacked China. China will never be that weak again. So I don't think any of these nations would attack China.
By the way, historically speaking, there was very little conflict between China and its Southeast Asian neighbors. China and these nations have co-existed peacefully for centuries and many of these nations have a large Chinese immigrant population. And yes, nowadays the development of China might be interfering with some of the goals of these nations, but that does not mount to the level of military attacks.
OK, guys, we need to think of politicians are a lot smarter than they appear to be. Previous experience shows that usually cooler heads prevail in time of crisis. In the Korean War, the Americans were losing a lot of men on the battlefield and many top commanders, including MacArthur himself, wanted to use nukes. However, Washington decided against it and MacArthur got fired partially for insisting on using the nukes on China. The Cuban missile crisis would be another example. The US and the Soviets were at the brink of all out war. However, the cooler head prevailed. Although Cold War was cold, both nations were never too far away from an all out war. Both saw each other as arch enemy and as evil and did everything they could to counter each other. The exchange was open and often extremely heated. Both saw major conflict between the two nations as inevitable and catastrophic. Americans were practicing what they should do in time of a Soviet nuke attack often in the 50's and 60's. Yet, nothing happened... I am sure in that kind of extremely sensitive and heated environment, the leaders of both nations faced the decision of whether to go to war on multiple occasions. Yet, every time, they decided not to because of the potentially catastrophic consequences. The same went with the Soviets and China. In the 60's, the relationship between China and the Soviets was so bad that the border of the two nations was guarded by over a million troops. There were actually small-scale battles fought between the two armies early in the conflict, involving thousands of troops, for control of some islands. Yet, nothing major happened. In the later stages, to prevent all out war, the leaders in both nations actually ordered their troops to carry sticks, instead of rifles, on their patrols. So the kind of scenario you presented actually happened before at a scale even larger than you imagined, but nothing major happened.
The 50's and 60's were a dangerous time because ideology was front and center and everyone was sort of fanatic in terms of protecting their own ideology. Yet, nothing major happened. It shows that even in the most fanatic times, cooler heads prevail. Nowadays, people around the world are a lot more pragmatic. The consequences of an all out conventional war between two major powers would be too great for anyone to accept. It was too great to accept even between the two arch enemies in the Cold War... Not to mention a nuclear war. Everyone knows what would happen and no one will be crazy enough to pull the trigger.
So in my opinion, it will never happen.
Well, you need to understand that China's neighbors don't consider themselves adversaries of China. Each country has its own agenda and some of that may conflict with agendas of another country, which may lead to some ill feelings. That is about it. No nation hates China so much that they would think about attacking China whenever there is a chance. And history shows these East Asian nations had plenty opportunity to attack China if they wanted to in the 50's, 60's and 70's when China was economically and militarily weak and was in catastrophic domestic turmoil. In the 50's, China was locked in a war against the most power military in the world. Anyone who has the slightest sense of military strategy would want to attack China from the other side. In the early 60's, China experienced one of the greatest famines in the history of the country. Close to 60 million died within 3 years. Then the late 60's to the mid 70's saw the Cultural Revolution, which completely and thoroughly destroyed any meaningful economy and government and social structure in China. You can't find a better opportunity to attack than that. Yet, no one, not even Taiwan, attacked China. China will never be that weak again. So I don't think any of these nations would attack China.
By the way, historically speaking, there was very little conflict between China and its Southeast Asian neighbors. China and these nations have co-existed peacefully for centuries and many of these nations have a large Chinese immigrant population. And yes, nowadays the development of China might be interfering with some of the goals of these nations, but that does not mount to the level of military attacks.
Last edited:
Psychologically, it is very different, which was the original discussion.
You can argue that a 16" shell from USS Iowa is the same thing as a 0.22 pistol round as they both non self propelling round forced out of a barrel by an expanding gas from a chemical reaction.
The psychological difference is, there is a proven means to defend anti ship cruise missiles, while there is no proven way or hardware to deal with a ballistic missile. Perhaps it is also a knowledge that if the Chinese can master the aiming of the ASBM; they can put it on an ICBM meaning a 13 minutes global strike to any navel vessel anywhere on the planet - even in dry dock. And that being able to hit a moving target with a mach 15+ missile means that Chinese targeting and missile technology have advanced to a state where the centre of impact is withing a 15 m radius - that is JDAM accruacy on a nuclear capable missile.
Quite a different psychological threat than good old sea skimming missiles don't you think?
Kurt
Junior Member
It's more complicated on a technological level. That opens many doors for countermeasures. While I never doubted that it's a new idea, it shares a central concept with the sea skimming missiles. It's the naval missileer concept versus the naval rotary wing, the naval fixed wing and the naval artillery concept. While the US pushed the fixed wing concept, the Soviets pushed the missileer concept as their cutting edge in naval combat. China does experiment with the Soviet approach, but opted for a design that could far outclass the Soviet ideas.
Mmmmhmmm what is the purpose of having this division on a this level? stating and simplifying to this division contributes nothing to the discussion. It is like; is a JDAM from an carrier aircraft following the guided missile approach or is a Okha kamikaze plane following the naval fixed wing approach?
To me, that division did not exist. both methods deliver physical guided or unguided munition to a target which destroys it with kinetic and potential energy. Any air space defense systems which would work for against missiles will work against aircraft munitions. If you can lump ballistic missile together with cruise missiles; why do you not lump aircraft into it as well?
A ICBM is basically a carrier vehicle with warheads; same as aircraft being a carrier vehicle with munition. Both system you say - missile and aircraft - have piloted versions, carrier/munition model, remote controllable versions, guided and unguided warheads.
Like, do you consider a predator drone following the cruise missile doctrine or the aircraft doctrine? or piloted V1 and Ohka - are they aircraft?
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
There is interesting article about ASBM at Diplomat. Apparently the radar at Aegis system can track either air breathing missile or Ballistic missile but not both of them. Roger Cliff also confirm the discussion that we have at difficulty hitting ASBM
Here what he said
Actually intercepting the missile is probably the most difficult thing to do. The SM-3 has an exoatmospheric kill vehicle, meaning that it can only intercept the missile during mid-course, when it’s traveling through space, so an Aegis ship escorting the target would have to fire its SM-3 almost immediately in order to intercept the missile before it reentered the atmosphere, or else there would have to be an Aegis ship positioned right under the flight path of the missile. The DF-21D may be equipped with decoys that are deployed in mid-course, making the SM-3’s job harder. U.S. Aegis ships are also equipped with the SM-2 Block 4 missile, which is capable of intercepting missiles within the atmosphere, but the DF-21D warhead will be performing some high-G maneuvers, which may make it impossible for the SM-2 Block 4 to successfully intercept it.
How all this would work in reality is impossible to know in advance. Even after China has tested its missile against an actual ship, it won’t have tested it against one employing the full range of countermeasures that a U.S. ship would throw at it and, as you say, the U.S. Navy will never have tested its defenses against such an attack. Somebody is likely to be surprised and disappointed, but there is no way of knowing who.
My understanding is that an individual Aegis ship isn’t capable of simultaneously looking both for air-breathing threats, such as cruise missiles and aircraft, and for ballistic missile threats, so some of the ships would have to look for cruise missiles and aircraft while others looked for ballistic missiles. This decreases the number of ships available to defend against a given kind of threat and increases the likelihood that something will get through. The DF-21D isn’t necessarily a “game changer,” but it does add a dimension that wasn't there before. As we argued in our 2007 book, operating within about 1,000 miles of China’s coast is going to get increasingly risky due to a whole range of threats – aircraft, surface ships, submarines, and now ballistic missiles. A U.S. president or Pacific forces commander is going to think long and hard before he sends major surface ships into that area in a crisis and risks having the first aircraft carrier lost due to enemy action since World War II.
Here what he said
Actually intercepting the missile is probably the most difficult thing to do. The SM-3 has an exoatmospheric kill vehicle, meaning that it can only intercept the missile during mid-course, when it’s traveling through space, so an Aegis ship escorting the target would have to fire its SM-3 almost immediately in order to intercept the missile before it reentered the atmosphere, or else there would have to be an Aegis ship positioned right under the flight path of the missile. The DF-21D may be equipped with decoys that are deployed in mid-course, making the SM-3’s job harder. U.S. Aegis ships are also equipped with the SM-2 Block 4 missile, which is capable of intercepting missiles within the atmosphere, but the DF-21D warhead will be performing some high-G maneuvers, which may make it impossible for the SM-2 Block 4 to successfully intercept it.
How all this would work in reality is impossible to know in advance. Even after China has tested its missile against an actual ship, it won’t have tested it against one employing the full range of countermeasures that a U.S. ship would throw at it and, as you say, the U.S. Navy will never have tested its defenses against such an attack. Somebody is likely to be surprised and disappointed, but there is no way of knowing who.
My understanding is that an individual Aegis ship isn’t capable of simultaneously looking both for air-breathing threats, such as cruise missiles and aircraft, and for ballistic missile threats, so some of the ships would have to look for cruise missiles and aircraft while others looked for ballistic missiles. This decreases the number of ships available to defend against a given kind of threat and increases the likelihood that something will get through. The DF-21D isn’t necessarily a “game changer,” but it does add a dimension that wasn't there before. As we argued in our 2007 book, operating within about 1,000 miles of China’s coast is going to get increasingly risky due to a whole range of threats – aircraft, surface ships, submarines, and now ballistic missiles. A U.S. president or Pacific forces commander is going to think long and hard before he sends major surface ships into that area in a crisis and risks having the first aircraft carrier lost due to enemy action since World War II.