4 ms·

Whether or not China has technology to directly threaten US aircraft carriers or air defenses is pretty inconsequential IMO. Both sides have had thermonuclear w

Whether or not China has technology to directly threaten US aircraft carriers or air defenses is pretty inconsequential IMO. Both sides have had thermonuclear weapons and ICBMs for decades. Are US aircraft carriers immune to Chinese anti-ship weapons? Then the US gets the opportunity to spark thermonuclear war if they press that advantage against Chinese forces. Are US aircraft carriers vulnerable to Chinese anti-ship weapons? Then it's the Chinese who can start WW III by sinking them. The movie Threads is still terrifyingly relevant: https://archive.org/details/threads_201712 https://archive.org/details/threads_201712 I suppose that with improved military forces China can intervene in weaker states' affairs like other P5 members do. There's always room for another nation to participate in the Syrian civil war.

hollerith 9y ago
By that logic, China never would've dared to send a million soldiers to drive UN forces from North Korea during the Korean war. Nor would Turkey have dared to shoot down one of Russia's warplanes based in Syria for violating its airspace.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > By that logic, China never would've dared to send a million soldiers to drive UN forces from North Korea during the Korean war. That happened before China had nuclear weapons.
- valuearb 9y ago
  Not only did it happen before nuclear weapons, but China has never been expansionist. The soldiers it sent into Korea were to help the north koreans. For a thousand years or more China has been content to stay within it's borders.
  - sidmitra 9y ago
    I recently finished Bertil Lintners China's India War which is a counterpoint to Neville Maxwell's India's China's war. It seems the Chinese way is not expansionist by definition but instead declaring countries, land, sea as part of their historical empire and justify a war as a means for re-aquiring them. It doesn't really matter whether it was justified or not because they do everything to integrate the region after the forceful takeover.
  - dingaling 9y ago
    > Not only did it happen before nuclear weapons Both Generals LeMay ( USAF SAC ) and MacArthur advocated widespread nuclear response to the Chinese intervention. They were overruled by President Truman. > For a thousand years or more China has been content to stay within it's borders Are the Paracel Islands, Spratly Islands and Formosa within China's borders? To all of which China lays claim.
  - gandhium 9y ago
    > China has never been expansionist Why they've attacked Vietham then?
rrggrr 9y ago
Your thinking is not supported by any historical evidence. The historical evidence demonstrates that countries with comparable conventional military capabilities will absorb fantastic losses to projected (expeditionary) forces and will negotiate peace before using nuclear weapons. For this reason, conventional military advantage is far more important than the balance of nuclear power. The corollary to this reality, is that pronounced conventional military imbalances increase the probably of nuclear war as either (a) the only available response to perceived aggression by a superior conventional force; or (b) the perceived correct strategic preemptive option in anticipation of (a). Its been awhile since I was mired in cold war nuclear strategy papers, but I seem to recall conventional military parity as a highly stabilizing factor in global competition and conflict. I would add that Chinese conventional superiority is as much a threat to India and Asian-pacific countries as to the United States. Many times on HN I've expressed concern over the new multi-polar world we find ourselves entering. US hegemony had advantages we may wish persisted.
- pjc50 9y ago
  Er, since when has there been a full scale conventional conflict between two nuclear-armed states?
  - state_less 9y ago
    Maybe it's a reference to recent China-India border skirmish?
  - rrggrr 9y ago
    Full scale isn't part of my comment... your assumption. Anyway, here are historical precedents that illustrate my point. For each conflict ask yourself how it may have been different if the disparity in conventional capabilities had been great. In some cases I don't recall dates, but do recall severity of conflict: US v. China - by proxy (Korean War) US v. Russia - by proxy (Vietnam War) US v. Russia - by proxy (Afghanistan Conflict) India v. Pakistan India v. China US v. Russia - by proxy (1973 Yom Kippur War Brinksmanship)
    - 9y ago
forapurpose 9y ago
The strategic nuclear weapons only apply in extreme situations: The great bulk of international relations happen without conflict, and they strongly depend on the perceived military power of nations. The United States' overwhelming conventional military power has been a guarantor of peace in the western Pacific for decades. If countries there no longer believe the U.S. can or will protect them, then they may arm themselves, which tends to lead to conflict, or they may side with China. Regarding U.S.-China conflict, unless survival of either country is at stake then there's reason to believe (and hope) that conflicts won't escalate to strategic nuclear weapons and destroying the world. For example, if mainland China attacks Taiwan, would either side use nuclear weapons? If not, then conventional forces come into play. I don't mean to downplay the risk. Conflicts escalate very easily and unpredictably; that's why the professionals in diplomacy and military affairs are very careful to avoid it, and are careful to choose options that don't escalate it. It's always the amateurs who want to escalate with an angry response, and as a result get masses of people killed and incur extreme costs - because they were angry.

hollerith 9y ago

By that logic, China never would've dared to send a million soldiers to drive UN forces from North Korea during the Korean war. Nor would Turkey have dared to shoot down one of Russia's warplanes based in Syria for violating its airspace.

forapurpose 9y ago
> By that logic, China never would've dared to send a million soldiers to drive UN forces from North Korea during the Korean war. That happened before China had nuclear weapons.
valuearb 9y ago
Not only did it happen before nuclear weapons, but China has never been expansionist. The soldiers it sent into Korea were to help the north koreans. For a thousand years or more China has been content to stay within it's borders.
- sidmitra 9y ago
  I recently finished Bertil Lintners China's India War which is a counterpoint to Neville Maxwell's India's China's war. It seems the Chinese way is not expansionist by definition but instead declaring countries, land, sea as part of their historical empire and justify a war as a means for re-aquiring them. It doesn't really matter whether it was justified or not because they do everything to integrate the region after the forceful takeover.
- dingaling 9y ago
  > Not only did it happen before nuclear weapons Both Generals LeMay ( USAF SAC ) and MacArthur advocated widespread nuclear response to the Chinese intervention. They were overruled by President Truman. > For a thousand years or more China has been content to stay within it's borders Are the Paracel Islands, Spratly Islands and Formosa within China's borders? To all of which China lays claim.
- gandhium 9y ago
  > China has never been expansionist Why they've attacked Vietham then?

rrggrr 9y ago

Your thinking is not supported by any historical evidence. The historical evidence demonstrates that countries with comparable conventional military capabilities will absorb fantastic losses to projected (expeditionary) forces and will negotiate peace before using nuclear weapons. For this reason, conventional military advantage is far more important than the balance of nuclear power. The corollary to this reality, is that pronounced conventional military imbalances increase the probably of nuclear war as either (a) the only available response to perceived aggression by a superior conventional force; or (b) the perceived correct strategic preemptive option in anticipation of (a). Its been awhile since I was mired in cold war nuclear strategy papers, but I seem to recall conventional military parity as a highly stabilizing factor in global competition and conflict. I would add that Chinese conventional superiority is as much a threat to India and Asian-pacific countries as to the United States. Many times on HN I've expressed concern over the new multi-polar world we find ourselves entering. US hegemony had advantages we may wish persisted.

pjc50 9y ago
Er, since when has there been a full scale conventional conflict between two nuclear-armed states?
- state_less 9y ago
  Maybe it's a reference to recent China-India border skirmish?
- rrggrr 9y ago
  Full scale isn't part of my comment... your assumption. Anyway, here are historical precedents that illustrate my point. For each conflict ask yourself how it may have been different if the disparity in conventional capabilities had been great. In some cases I don't recall dates, but do recall severity of conflict: US v. China - by proxy (Korean War) US v. Russia - by proxy (Vietnam War) US v. Russia - by proxy (Afghanistan Conflict) India v. Pakistan India v. China US v. Russia - by proxy (1973 Yom Kippur War Brinksmanship)
  - 9y ago

forapurpose 9y ago

The strategic nuclear weapons only apply in extreme situations: The great bulk of international relations happen without conflict, and they strongly depend on the perceived military power of nations. The United States' overwhelming conventional military power has been a guarantor of peace in the western Pacific for decades. If countries there no longer believe the U.S. can or will protect them, then they may arm themselves, which tends to lead to conflict, or they may side with China. Regarding U.S.-China conflict, unless survival of either country is at stake then there's reason to believe (and hope) that conflicts won't escalate to strategic nuclear weapons and destroying the world. For example, if mainland China attacks Taiwan, would either side use nuclear weapons? If not, then conventional forces come into play. I don't mean to downplay the risk. Conflicts escalate very easily and unpredictably; that's why the professionals in diplomacy and military affairs are very careful to avoid it, and are careful to choose options that don't escalate it. It's always the amateurs who want to escalate with an angry response, and as a result get masses of people killed and incur extreme costs - because they were angry.