Military Options in dealing with China

[Temp name]

We are theorising here, are we not? He asked for an option, it is an option. The worst one, but hey, nukes ARE made with the idea that they actually might have to be used.
So the point is, that China can do some damage to USA, while being destroyed in return, via nukes.

They were used. Twice. Then we as a human collective agreed that they are too dangerous to ever be used again. The only reason they're still around is because of scare mongering. "but the baddies have them, so we have to have them too!"

Nuclear war isn't an option, it will end civilization. No one will launch, and if for some reason someone does, WW3 is started, and over in 2 hours, with every nuclear capable country dead, and probably some other countries as casualties.

[Skroe]

This is some crazy, crazy, crazy shit.

[Mythic-RaidLead]

Welcome to the future.

https://www.defensenews.com/land/201...ic-salvo-test/

[Shadowferal]

Just wait another decade. We will have anti ballistic missiles that can take out over 1000 incoming ICBMs. China is no match for the United States. It's time we start throwing our weight around to bring justice to the world. At the present time I only propose the use of low yield 100 kiloton nuclear warheads against the Chinese navy if they try to take taiwan. I doubt they would take aim at any civilian population if all we are doing is nuking their navy.

What's with the shitposting?
Isn't Russia enough for you?

[JohnBrown1917]

Just wait another decade. We will have anti ballistic missiles that can take out over 1000 incoming ICBMs. China is no match for the United States. It's time we start throwing our weight around to bring justice to the world. At the present time I only propose the use of low yield 100 kiloton nuclear warheads against the Chinese navy if they try to take taiwan. I doubt they would take aim at any civilian population if all we are doing is nuking their navy.

Is justice just another word for your brand of imperialism now? We all know the US does not care about muslims, or else they would not keep killing them in the middle east.

[Easo]

Just wait another decade. We will have anti ballistic missiles that can take out over 1000 incoming ICBMs. China is no match for the United States. It's time we start throwing our weight around to bring justice to the world. At the present time I only propose the use of low yield 100 kiloton nuclear warheads against the Chinese navy if they try to take taiwan. I doubt they would take aim at any civilian population if all we are doing is nuking their navy.

To be fair - I am sure that USA can deal with China's navy without using nukes. Plus, nukes versus ships is actually a kinda shit system unless they are in port - you need basically direct hits, as evidenced by the various USA nuclear tests. Bigger ships just refused to sink (though were mission kills).

They were used. Twice. Then we as a human collective agreed that they are too dangerous to ever be used again. The only reason they're still around is because of scare mongering. "but the baddies have them, so we have to have them too!"

Nuclear war isn't an option, it will end civilization. No one will launch, and if for some reason someone does, WW3 is started, and over in 2 hours, with every nuclear capable country dead, and probably some other countries as casualties.

The threat is still there. It will be there until the last nuke is gone. Until then it is on the table and will stay on the table.
Also, I kinda doubt nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would lead to WW3 and end of the world. Be realistic, USA and Russia would not unleash their arsenals in that case, anyone else does not even compare.

[Temp name]

Just wait another decade. We will have anti ballistic missiles that can take out over 1000 incoming ICBMs. China is no match for the United States. It's time we start throwing our weight around to bring justice to the world. At the present time I only propose the use of low yield 100 kiloton nuclear warheads against the Chinese navy if they try to take taiwan. I doubt they would take aim at any civilian population if all we are doing is nuking their navy.

Why use nukes against the navy? There are better options that don't involve indirectly destroying your own country.
"I doubt they would take aim at any civilian population if all we are doing is nuking their navy."
Are you kidding me? If you launch nukes, they can't see where you're aiming or at what. They will launch a counter attack. They will hit civilization centres because that's the obvious target.

[Blur4stuff]

We all have strong imaginations. Instead of spending your time fantasizing about billions of people dying, fantasize about finding peaceful solutions instead.

Put this on a smaller scale. Let's say you have a problem with one other person. Instead of fantasizing about kicking his ass, imagine how you could settle your differences and make each other's lives better.

It's your mind. You have complete control. You don't have to fantasize about violence and death.

[shimerra]

Op, you are asking left wing authoritians to take China as a serious threat...good luck with that.

This from the right wing authoritarian knob gobbler who see's Lenin in every dark corner.

Hey how's Trump's trade war going? Still harming the American consumer because anyone who isn't a moron knows tariff's are taxes on the consumer for no trade gains after he torpedoed TPP which would have made us the Dungeon Master of a pacific Alliance that gave a huge middle finger to China?

[Skroe]

Just wait another decade. We will have anti ballistic missiles that can take out over 1000 incoming ICBMs. China is no match for the United States. It's time we start throwing our weight around to bring justice to the world. At the present time I only propose the use of low yield 100 kiloton nuclear warheads against the Chinese navy if they try to take taiwan. I doubt they would take aim at any civilian population if all we are doing is nuking their navy.

(1) No we won't. We'll have enough to take down about 200, in very specific scenarios and modes of flight.

(2) The US Military is not the Avengers. It's not their job to "bring justice to the world". It also wouldn't quite work the way you think it is.

(3) The US Navy doesn't need nuclear weapons to destroy the Chinese Navy.

(4) If the US used nuclear weapons in such a manner, it would largely assure that such weapons would be used against it in a similar manner. One of the long running strategy discussion points dating back to the Cold War is how to beat an adversary, but not so badly as to leave them no other option but to resort to nuclear. By going nuclear early, you're countermanding that and assuring that, in short order, a US site would be nuked, like the Air Base at Okinawa, or Guam.

(5) In your insane war, it will be other people dying presumably? Because you're describing a conflict that will easily leave several million dead within four weeks. And for something that diplomacy and a containment strategy have a very good chance of being successful at?

You act like the US wasn't faced with this question vis a vis Russia during the Cold War. It was. Regularly. And the wisdom of then holds now.

You want to do something productive? Cut off China's access to any kind of advanced technologies, something the US is working steadily at doing.

[Belize]

This is some crazy, crazy, crazy shit.

If by crazy you ignorant, then sure.

Warmongering isn't exactly uncommon amongst right wingers.

[Temp name]

The threat is still there. It will be there until the last nuke is gone. Until then it is on the table and will stay on the table.
Also, I kinda doubt nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would lead to WW3 and end of the world. Be realistic, USA and Russia would not unleash their arsenals in that case, anyone else does not even compare.

It probably would though. Maybe I'm just too pessimistic, but if you're going to die, why not take everyone else with you?

[Skroe]

Welcome to the future.

https://www.defensenews.com/land/201...ic-salvo-test/

You really need to stay away from Defense sites, especially the National Interest. You don't understand the context of what you're reading whatsoever.

[Easo]

It probably would though. Maybe I'm just too pessimistic, but if you're going to die, why not take everyone else with you?

In my example of India vs Pakistan? They literally can't do the last part. It also implies random shooting of nukes at random targets while an actual threat is doing that to you. Just no.

[Skroe]

If by crazy you ignorant, then sure.

Warmongering isn't exactly uncommon amongst right wingers.

Hence I largely stopped my military posts. I was more interested in the ramifications and implications of pursuing certain policy options from many different angles - political, budgeting, trade, foreign relations, security. But it required explaining certain defense matters to contextualize what I was saying.

People in the mold of Mythic-RaidLead here took it as a kind of America-fuck year yeah porn thing. They treated something serious as something trival. Something complicated as a matter of manhood. It lead them to weird fantasy lands. Unsurprisingly in retrospect (and Embarrassingly on my part), many of them became Trump supporters here. They used to be my biggest fans (for the wrong reasons). Sickening, really.

As soon as I saw a National Interest Link, I knew exactly what this was. Crazy, ignorant and so much more. But I think most of all, sad, because only someone removed from the consequences of such grave policy choices would decide that a major nuclear war would be something we should choose.

[Azadina]

This is some crazy, crazy, crazy shit.

Just par for the course for that guy. His torture and human rights violation fantasies put Mengele and Al-baghdadi to shame.

[Shadowferal]

The worst part about the OP's ignorance is the lack of the economic consequences.

[Blade Wolf]

Nuclear war is NEVER the option. Its use will literally end humanity as we know it. Because if you launch, they will launch. If they launch, others might too.

The only solution to a nuclear war is to never have it be an option. China needs to be dealt with, but in a peaceful manner, not like this.

Also, I'm surprised you're against what China is doing to the Uyghurs considering your fetish for brain control

It won't just end humanity it will end the entire planet.

[Skroe]

To be fair - I am sure that USA can deal with China's navy without using nukes. Plus, nukes versus ships is actually a kinda shit system unless they are in port - you need basically direct hits, as evidenced by the various USA nuclear tests. Bigger ships just refused to sink (though were mission kills).

And also ships (particularly carriers) are really fast and an air-burst or just above sea-level nuclear blast isn't nearly as big as people think of them. To put a number on it, to destroy the Greater Los Angeles area - not just downtown but all of it - the other side would need on the order of 30-40 nuclear weapons to do so. It's big and the sprawl is real. Now at sea, a Carrier traveling at over 30 knots (and potentially as high as 40 knots) could get out of that area quickly. And considering no known nuclear weapon utilizes optical or laser guidance and instead relies upon GPS and Inertial Guidance, most likely a nuclear weapon at sea is going to hit open waters and kill a lot of dolphin.

The thermal radiation radius (burns) of a 200kt nuke detonated at sea is around 5 kilometers, with a window-breaking air blast extending out to 7km. A carrier traveling at 33 knots or 61 kph will clear that radius in minutes, well before the detected warhead arrives.

The best defense a carrier has is to spread out and keep moving. It'll be very hard to hit.

The threat is still there. It will be there until the last nuke is gone. Until then it is on the table and will stay on the table.
Also, I kinda doubt nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would lead to WW3 and end of the world. Be realistic, USA and Russia would not unleash their arsenals in that case, anyone else does not even compare.

So there are a lot of unknowns about this scenario. An India-Pakistan exchange could cause massive devastating fires as their cities and forests burn and pump the atmosphere full of soot. According to simulations, it only takes around 100-200 warheads to cause fires on the scale to cause a "year without summer".

Secondly, duds. One reason the US and Russia have/had so many warheads and aimed multiple at the same target is the dud rate. In an arsenal of 500 weapons of almost any type - missiles, bombs, bullets, grenades, shells, mines, - there is going to be some percentage that fail to detonate for some reason or suffer some other kind of error. Maybe it was a manufacturing defect. Maybe it was from age from sitting in storage. During the 2000s, academic papers had the US dud rate pinned at about 5%. Or in other words, if we launched all 2500 warheads we had at the time, about 125 would fail to detonate. Yes, one hundred and twenty five. For Russia, the number is perhaps as high as 25%.

And it's not just the warhead. There is also the launch vehicle. The use of ballistic missiles would constitute the largest simultaneous launch of rockets into the atmosphere in history by orders of magnitude. Countries with nuclear arsenals are pretty reliable at being able to launch one rocket at a time into space or the high atmosphere. But hundreds simultaneously? Or thousands? There are going to be rockets that fail to launch, rockets that break up in flight, rockets that fail to have stage separation, and so forth. So on top of the dud rate, you now have to account for a systemic rocket failure rate. Reliably, let's say 10% of nuclear weapons aren't going to reach their target for some reason.

So why am I mentioning duds and what not? Because India and Pakistan's technology in both these areas is not as good as the US and Russia's by far, and what happens when a misfire / dud lands in Russia or China? Or Afghanistan?

Or more directly, what happens when the fall out clouds from the smoking ruin that is where India once stood pass over China?

We can't predict the geopolitical effects of what countries would do when they suffer a nuclear attack (of a sort) by accident.

[PC2]

@Mythic-RaidLead

We beat China from within by turning them into a liberal democracy. If you like geo-political stability and wealth than this is the only option, not war and mass death. Once the whole world is full of liberal democracies then we'll all give each other high fives because we defeated all of the evil socio-economic systems.