5 ms·
Your thinking is not supported by any historical evidence. The historical evidence demonstrates that countries with comparable conventional military capabilitie
by 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 agoEr, since when has there been a full scale conventional conflict between two nuclear-armed states?
- state_less 9y agoMaybe it's a reference to recent China-India border skirmish?
- rrggrr 9y agoFull 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)
- pjc50 9y agoYou said that "countries with comparable conventional military capabilities will absorb fantastic losses to projected (expeditionary) forces and will negotiate peace before using nuclear weapons" You said "expeditionary", not "proxy", which is very different. The Korean war ended in 1953 and the Chinese government did not get nuclear weapons until 1965 and ICBM capability later. The actual shooting wars between India and Pakistan mostly pre-date both countries achieving nuclear weapons, indicating that MAD generally works.
- forapurpose 9y ago> 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. While I agree with the main point, I don't know about the evidence. Two nuclear-armed countries have never directly engaged in conflict, that I can think of. The Cold War was 'cold' precisely for that reason, afaik: Neither side wanted to risk a conflict that could possibly escalate to nuclear war.
- rrggrr 9y agoI don't view proxy wars any different from direct conflict for several reasons. First, its hardly a secret where support for proxy sources originates. Second, in many of these cases nuclear weapons were seriously considered or even threatened. Third, in many of these cases casualties were heavy for home country forces of one side.
- forapurpose 9y agoHmmm ... AFAIK Gen. McArthur did advocate for using nuclear weapons on China during the Korean War (note that China did not have nuclear weapons at that point). And Nixon tried to give the impression he was crazy and might use them in order to pressure the other side to end the Vietnam War; he even flew bombers toward (the USSR, I think); but that gambit failed. On the other hand, it's easy to imagine that the US and USSR soldiers directly fighting and killing each other could escalate more easily than the US fighting Vietnamese troops or the USSR fighting Afghans.
- dekhn 9y agoWhat historical evidence can you cite? While I generally agree with the idea, I haven't actually seen an extended war between two nuclear powers happen.