Is a Non-Nuclear World War Possible?

[Okeefenokee]

There's a pretty massive difference between entering a conventional war, and launching nukes to destroy the planet (and yourself).

It doesn't start with the US launching nukes out of nowhere.

It starts with Eisenhower sending advisers to Vietnam in the fifties. Ten years later, we're fully committed.

Of course. Yet, Vietnam was never in danger of going nuclear, with the balance of terror fully established by then. It would have been suicide, as it is now.

Nuking Vietnam would not have resulted in the USSR going nuclear against the US. Maybe Turkey.

but that's how a small local conflict results in a world power being drawn in.

[Smitty-48]

There's a pretty massive difference between entering a conventional war, and launching nukes to destroy the planet (and yourself).

There is a wide spectrum of nuclear options, between the threshold of conventional defeat, and a massive countervalue nuclear exchange.

Step one would be an escalation all the way through a tiered campaign of strategic warning, before you dropped a single hydrogen bomb, but strategic warning, thus is the stuff proverbial Missile Crises are made of, that's all the Soviets were doing, those missiles were meant to protect the regime in Havana not obliterate the regime in Washington, problem being, that's not how the regime in Washington interpreted the warning.

Once nuclear weapons get trucked out into the open, rational, calm, reflection and circumspection, doesn't necessarily ensue.

The Soviets thought it was quid pro quo, you put missiles in Turkey, we put missiles in Cuba, you don't nuke us, we won't nuke you, you have an insurance policy, we have the same insurance policy, Comrades.

But what Washignton thought was; "ZOMFG Nuclear Pearl Harbor!!!"

[SuburbanFarmer]

What's the point of being a nuclear power if you're not gonna employ said nukes when you're facing total defeat?

There is no point. That is the point.

There's no point in dropping little boy and fat man?

There's no point in facing off against the Communist block for decades?

Better to live on you knees, than die on your feet, eh wot?

In the scenario that was being discussed - losing a conventional war - there is no point in launching thousands of warheads, knowing that thousands more will be returning shortly.

Amazing strawmanning, as always. you really bring something special to the board with this.

[Okeefenokee]

There is no point. That is the point.

There's no point in dropping little boy and fat man?

There's no point in facing off against the Communist block for decades?

Better to live on you knees, than die on your feet, eh wot?

In the scenario that was being discussed - losing a conventional war - there is no point in launching thousands of warheads, knowing that thousands more will be returning shortly.

Amazing strawmanning, as always. you really bring something special to the board with this.

It's not strawmanning, numb nuts.

As has been said many times before, there is more to a nuclear exchange than your hollywood interpretations.

The image of any nuclear exchange being one of MAD proportions ignores the numerous other possibilities. There is always the negotiating table. You're talking like all you know of it, you learned playing fallout.

[Smitty-48]

there is no point in launching thousands of warheads, knowing that thousands more will be returning shortly.

Ivan doesn't have to nuke Washington to make his point, if I was Mr. Ivan, I would start with just one carrier strike group, you're not going to launch thousands of missiles at Russia over that, you're not even going to launch one missile at Russia over that.

[SuburbanFarmer]

There's no point in dropping little boy and fat man?

There's no point in facing off against the Communist block for decades?

Better to live on you knees, than die on your feet, eh wot?

In the scenario that was being discussed - losing a conventional war - there is no point in launching thousands of warheads, knowing that thousands more will be returning shortly.

Amazing strawmanning, as always. you really bring something special to the board with this.

It's not strawmanning, numb nuts.

As has been said many times before, there is more to a nuclear exchange than your hollywood interpretations.

The image of any nuclear exchange being one of MAD proportions ignores the numerous other possibilities. There is always the negotiating table. You're talking like all you know of it, you learned playing fallout.

There is no other outcome than a full exchange, if it comes to that. As I've seen from about 100 pages of Smitty, the response time is nil. Maybe Russia launches a single nuke, just for shits, and we shoot it down. Can we abort the nuke that we fired off in response? Seeing that theirs went down, and we have one in the air, does Russia fire another one? Or twenty? Or a thousand?

[SuburbanFarmer]

there is no point in launching thousands of warheads, knowing that thousands more will be returning shortly.

Ivan doesn't have to nuke Washington to make his point, if I was Mr. Ivan, I would start with just one carrier strike group, you're not going to launch thousands of missiles at Russia over that, you're not even going to launch one missile at Russia over that.

As above, what happens if we shoot it down?

Even if we don't, you think we just stand down, and live with a destroyed carrier group? That lasts all of 10 minutes, and we have one on the way to a target of theirs, with slightly higher value. Then they launch 20 more. Then we launch everything, and it's over.

[Smitty-48]

I've never said that there is no other option than a massive countervalue exchange, in fact, I've said many times, the most likely scenario for a nuclear war, even a full on strategic one, is an entirely counterforce war, with plausibly no deliberate countervalue at all.

[Okeefenokee]

In the scenario that was being discussed - losing a conventional war - there is no point in launching thousands of warheads, knowing that thousands more will be returning shortly.

Amazing strawmanning, as always. you really bring something special to the board with this.

It's not strawmanning, numb nuts.

As has been said many times before, there is more to a nuclear exchange than your hollywood interpretations.

The image of any nuclear exchange being one of MAD proportions ignores the numerous other possibilities. There is always the negotiating table. You're talking like all you know of it, you learned playing fallout.

There is no other outcome than a full exchange, if it comes to that. As I've seen from about 100 pages of Smitty, the response time is nil. Maybe Russia launches a single nuke, just for shits, and we shoot it down. Can we abort the nuke that we fired off in response? Seeing that theirs went down, and we have one in the air, does Russia fire another one? Or twenty? Or a thousand?

there is no point in launching thousands of warheads, knowing that thousands more will be returning shortly.

Ivan doesn't have to nuke Washington to make his point, if I was Mr. Ivan, I would start with just one carrier strike group, you're not going to launch thousands of missiles at Russia over that, you're not even going to launch one missile at Russia over that.

Oh, he does, does he?

[Smitty-48]

Oh, he does, does he?

Limited counterforce is the most and only real rational option, nuking a city is a point of no return, nuking an aircraft carrier otoh; not personal, just business.