5 ms·

> For a high threat environment (i.e. China or Russia) In what fantasy world does anyone actually posit it not devolving quickly into nuclear war with these n

by A2017U1 8y ago

> For a high threat environment (i.e. China or Russia) In what fantasy world does anyone actually posit it not devolving quickly into nuclear war with these nations? We've had MAD for half a century and yet today so many people seem to spruik this idea that conventional direct warfare is possible between nuclear armed states. It's simply not going to happen.

_Codemonkeyism 8y ago
India and Pakistan have been there I think - and lately came close again, though both sides recognized the thin line.
- kakwa_ 8y ago
  And also, both sides don't exactly follow MAD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credible_minimum_deterrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credible_minimum_deterrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_deterrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_deterrence Basically, it's not "I can glass your whole country" but more "I can nuke a few of your main cities, you will survive but it will hurt". Mostly, only the USA and Russia can follow MAD, the other nuclear powers with a few hundreds warheads, follow Minimal Deterrence.
avar 8y ago
The exact same sorts of scenario as occurred in the Korean War & Vietnam. I.e. a proxy-war using non-nuclear assets between the great powers. Where do you think the North Vietnamese were getting MIGs from?
- kyboren 8y ago
  Not only were China, USSR, and North Korea supplying MiGs, they were training pilots, providing logistical support, manning AAA batteries, and in the case of the North Korea, flying combat missions [1]. The point isn't necessarily to be able to wage a conventional war against Russia or China. Other countries, like Iran or Syria, potentially have access to the same weapons systems. [1]: "Spartans in Darkness: American SIGINT and the Indochina War, 1945-1975", pp. 261-263. https://www.nsa.gov/Portals/70/documents/news-features/declassified-documents/cryptologic-histories/spartans_in_darkness.pdf https://www.nsa.gov/Portals/70/documents/news-features/decla...
philwelch 8y ago
It's only not going to happen because there's a conventional deterrent backing up the nuclear deterrent. Suppose Russia invades Poland. With a conventional deterrent, NATO can deploy ground and air forces to a defensive front and hold Russia to a stalemate. Eventually it would escalate to a nuclear exchange, but only through a stepwise process. Most importantly, this is why Russia doesn't invade Poland. Without a conventional deterrent, Russian tanks could reach Brussels and the only countermeasure would be a nuclear first strike against Russia. That wouldn't happen. Which means there's no reason for Russia not to invade every non-nuclear-armed country it wants to. Which means every single country in the vicinity of Russia is going to want their own nuclear deterrent, because that will be the only effective defense. (Also, missile defense is getting good enough that MAD might not survive the 21st century, and then we'll feel silly for not having any other military options.)

_Codemonkeyism 8y ago

India and Pakistan have been there I think - and lately came close again, though both sides recognized the thin line.

kakwa_ 8y ago
And also, both sides don't exactly follow MAD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credible_minimum_deterrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credible_minimum_deterrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_deterrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_deterrence Basically, it's not "I can glass your whole country" but more "I can nuke a few of your main cities, you will survive but it will hurt". Mostly, only the USA and Russia can follow MAD, the other nuclear powers with a few hundreds warheads, follow Minimal Deterrence.

avar 8y ago

The exact same sorts of scenario as occurred in the Korean War & Vietnam. I.e. a proxy-war using non-nuclear assets between the great powers. Where do you think the North Vietnamese were getting MIGs from?

kyboren 8y ago
Not only were China, USSR, and North Korea supplying MiGs, they were training pilots, providing logistical support, manning AAA batteries, and in the case of the North Korea, flying combat missions [1]. The point isn't necessarily to be able to wage a conventional war against Russia or China. Other countries, like Iran or Syria, potentially have access to the same weapons systems. [1]: "Spartans in Darkness: American SIGINT and the Indochina War, 1945-1975", pp. 261-263. https://www.nsa.gov/Portals/70/documents/news-features/declassified-documents/cryptologic-histories/spartans_in_darkness.pdf https://www.nsa.gov/Portals/70/documents/news-features/decla...

philwelch 8y ago

It's only not going to happen because there's a conventional deterrent backing up the nuclear deterrent. Suppose Russia invades Poland. With a conventional deterrent, NATO can deploy ground and air forces to a defensive front and hold Russia to a stalemate. Eventually it would escalate to a nuclear exchange, but only through a stepwise process. Most importantly, this is why Russia doesn't invade Poland. Without a conventional deterrent, Russian tanks could reach Brussels and the only countermeasure would be a nuclear first strike against Russia. That wouldn't happen. Which means there's no reason for Russia not to invade every non-nuclear-armed country it wants to. Which means every single country in the vicinity of Russia is going to want their own nuclear deterrent, because that will be the only effective defense. (Also, missile defense is getting good enough that MAD might not survive the 21st century, and then we'll feel silly for not having any other military options.)