Is a Non-Nuclear World War Possible?

[kybkh]

It depends on to what ends the war is being fought for. This is a new position for me. I formerly did not believe that a non-nuclear WW3 was possible. Now, it is likely.

I have never been able to fully understand why Hitler didn't use chemical weapons in WW2. I imagine his personal experience was what kept him from doing so when all was lost. (I'd like to read up on that so any suggestions??) Still, the fact that he didn't is hard believe. It had to have been discussed and decided against almost unanimously by the general staff. WWII was a war of extinction, not a squabble over international sea lanes or a warm water port in the Black Sea.

Which leads me to today. If China, Turkey and Russia announced today a formal alliance and the purpose of that alliance was to push the US beyond the Nine Dash Line and out of the Baltic via the threat of military force I do not believe there would be a nuclear exchange. The hrumpfs would be plentiful and there may even be a large scale war but I don't see a reason why either side would use nuclear weapons. Only under the threat of regime change would we reach the brink and even then I am beginning to doubt the likelihood unless the US was trying to bring Putin up on human rights violations in the Hague.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4130491/c ... ry-parade/

[StCapps]

No, it's not really possible, whoever starts losing the conventional war would go nuclear, if they hadn't done it earlier. Why leave the Trump card on the table? Using chemical weapons wouldn't have won Hitler the war, not even close, nukes on the other hand would have been a lot more decisive.

[Speaker to Animals]

Yes, it's possible. You just have boundaries as to where you can go. Threaten a nuclear nation's home territory in a way that could convincingly cost them everything, and yeah, the nukes fly. But fighting over other territory wouldn't necessarily lead to a nuclear war.

[Okeefenokee]

Yes, it's possible. You just have boundaries as to where you can go. Threaten a nuclear nation's home territory in a way that could convincingly cost them everything, and yeah, the nukes fly. But fighting over other territory wouldn't necessarily lead to a nuclear war.

I don't consider that a world war, though.

[Speaker to Animals]

Yes, it's possible. You just have boundaries as to where you can go. Threaten a nuclear nation's home territory in a way that could convincingly cost them everything, and yeah, the nukes fly. But fighting over other territory wouldn't necessarily lead to a nuclear war.

I don't consider that a world war, though.

Why not?

[Smitty-48]

The nuclear war would still be there the whole time, in the background, while you're fighting this self limiting conventional war, the nuclear component is still manuevering and jockeying for position as you go, it's still a nuclear war, it's just in the pre launch phases, as the conventional war played out, and one side or the other started to lose, the nuclear war would accelerate towards the launch phase, the thing about a nuclear war, DEFCON 1, birds in the air; that's the end of the war not the beginning, all the manuevering in a nuclear war, has already taken place by the time you get to the event horizon of a nuclear exchange.

The Cold War was basically just a nuclear war, which never reached the event horizon, but it was still a nuclear war, manuevering and jockeying for a launch position the whole time, for 45 years.

The danger is in thinking that the nuclear component can be isolated and walled off from the non nuclear component, when it can't, thus, that's how you end up bumbling into an exchange, when the nuclear war busts out into the open, just from winding things all the way up to the brink of the event horizon, by constant jockeying for position, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, the more you jockey, the more the other guy jockeys, and eventually, somebody slips into the gravity well, even just by mistake.

The Russian Boomers are creeping, the American Hunter-Killers are in their baffles, you're only two steps away from a massive nuclear exchange, all day every single day; step one; the Russian Boomer hovers at launch depth, step two; the American Hunter-Killer floods tubes and opens bow caps; one turn of a key, or push of a button, by either boat, and it's a done deal, all the jockeying for position ends, at the event horizon.

You're in a nuclear war, right now, this is the manuever phase of the nuclear war, in progress, when the key turns at the event horizon, the war is over, that's not the beginning, just the beginning of the end, at H-Hour plus 15 minutes, there's nothing left to do, there is no more manuevering in play, with the birds in the air, as at that point, everything has become ballistic.

A nuclear war, is the silent war, it's all about the submarines, and they are fighting the war, as we speak, they never stop fighting the war, they are manuevering and jockeying for position, constantly, that's the war, when things for from there to ballistic, rounds downrange, that will actually be a return to peacetime, for the first time since launch on warning came into effect.

You're holding at DEFCON 5, because the Navy must have a track on all the Russian Boomers at sea, if even one of those Boomers shakes it tail, that goes all the way up the National Command Authority, that's DEFCON 4 right there, lose two tracks at the same time, DEFCON 3, somebody hovers at launch depth, DEFCON 2, tubes flooded, bow caps open, event horizon at the brink.

The Russians know this, the Russians know what it would take to get to DEFCON 2, and it wouldn't take that much, because for them to shake multiple tracks at the same time, they would have to be going for broke, just trying to do that, would be interpreted as an act of nuclear war, so if they ever do that, it will be deliberate, they will be sending the message; fights on now, next thing you see will be launch plumes on the DSP...

[Speaker to Animals]

That's an interesting point. If you want to define nuclear war in that fashion, then it's impossible to escape nuclear war after the point that nuclear weapons were invented.

[Okeefenokee]

Yes, it's possible. You just have boundaries as to where you can go. Threaten a nuclear nation's home territory in a way that could convincingly cost them everything, and yeah, the nukes fly. But fighting over other territory wouldn't necessarily lead to a nuclear war.

I don't consider that a world war, though.

Why not?

I don't know how you can call something a world war when the world powers fighting it are fighting in someone else's territory, and staying away from each other's base of production, manpower, economy, etc. That's 1984's style of war.

[Smitty-48]

That's an interesting point. If you want to define nuclear war in that fashion, then it's impossible to escape nuclear war after the point that nuclear weapons were invented.

It's like two gunfighters standing in the street; the gunfight was on, as soon as they stepped off the boardwalk and got their boots muddy, the gunfight is the space between the call and the draw, the bullets going ballistic at the draw, that's not the beginning of the gunfight, that's the end.

See the gunfighters; one boot in the mud, one still on the boardwalk, slow time down right there, slower, slower, slower, OK, that's where we are at right now, DEFCON 4 is both boots in the mud, DEFCON 3 is reaching the middle of the street and turning, DEFCON 2; hands on pearl handles thumbs on hammers...

[Speaker to Animals]

Alright. Smitty has the winning point here as far as I can tell.