4 ms·

Exactly. If red were a real country, it would fear nuclear retaliation. There's a limit to asymmetric warfare.

• fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
  What if Red weren't a country, but a widely dispersed group of people? Or, even a faction within a country?
  • adestefan 14y ago
    Then I doubt they'd be able to launch enough cruise missiles to sink 10 cruises and 5 amphibious ships.
• polymatter 14y ago
  If I am a self-obsessed evil dictator who is threatened with certain defeat, you think I am going to hold off on that master plan to take out a Blue carrier on the basis that Blue might nuke me?
  • shin_lao 14y ago
    There are too many if's. If you're threatened by certain defeat, I think your immediate concern is saving your own skin or avoid being back-stabbed. But this is a thought experiment. You could come up with a scenario where it's untrue, but that would only be a scenario. Additionally, if you're faced with certain defeat, this means you've lost significant deterrence. If not, it would be more intelligent to exhibit your capabilities to negotiate a truce. War is a power struggle.
    • polymatter 14y ago
      I was trying to illustrate a situation where the nuclear deterrent definitely doesn't apply. I'll remove some conditions then. In a war situation, Red will take out a Blue carrier regardless of Blue's nuclear deterrent because they are at war. The nuclear deterrent makes Red reluctant to get to the point of war. Once at war, Red will either surrender under the threat (and hence not be a threat), or call Blue's bluff. Edit: Also, the position that "they wouldn't dare take out my carrier because of the atrocity I'd do to them in return" is not a sensible military strategy during war.
      • talmand 14y ago
        While the nuclear capabilities may not deter the beginning of the war but if the political will is there to use that capability after such an attack, then it would possibly be a short war. So Red decides to strike and Blue returns with a nuke or three or dozen, exercise over. What's the point in that? But you are right, history shows that a "deterrent" of any nature, not just related to war, is often not considered leading up to whatever it is supposed to deter.
      • bd_at_rivenhill 14y ago
        Use of nuclear weapons against primary (i.e. military) targets that are isolated from civilian populations would not be an atrocity in this case. If e.g. Iran were to manage to sink a US aircraft carrier, I have no doubt that they would see the business end of some W80s, and justifiably so.
        • ucee054 14y ago
          and justifiably so Yeah! How dare they defend their own country! </sarcasm>
      • shin_lao 14y ago
        Of course nuclear deterrent doesn't apply in all cases and Red will definitely try to neutralize as many targets as they can and if they can sink all ships they will (that's what Japan tried to do in Pearl Harbor after all). However, where I feel we disagree is that how Red does it is important as they don't want to allow Blue to gain allies or to give the possibility to Blue to react in a way that would otherwise been politically impossible (ie nuclear weapons).
      • chris_mahan 14y ago
        I think it would be an interesting element in the simulation, that in order to actually beat Red, Blue would have to use nuclear weapons. It would show the limits of conventional warfare against asymmetric warfare, and as such be useful. It would be good for the simulation to say that Blue should win without using nukes, and if using nukes, not damage the environment enough to make life hell for Blue and Blue's allies' populations.
    • stcredzero 14y ago
      > If you're threatened by certain defeat, I think your immediate concern is saving your own skin or avoid being back-stabbed. Failing those, someone might decide, heck with it, I want my place in the history books.
• sgift 14y ago
  Give red the nuclear option too. Now, blue will think twice before they react with nuclear retaliation to asymmetric warfare.
  • talmand 14y ago
    Well, in that case that's no different than assuming that neither side has nukes with the same result. But considering the origin of the Red force, it is fair to assume that they do not have nuke capability. If they did, it would likely be limited in nature.
    • sgift 14y ago
      I don't see the reason for this assumption, e.g. Russia has a nearly unlimited nuclear weapon arsenal but probably very limited options regarding "network-centric warfare" (at least as far as I know) - so, using the techniques the red forces used in this scenario to overwhelm the "network-centric" enemy sounds completely reasonable.
      • talmand 14y ago
        The exercise did not use Russia as a possible origin for the Red Force, it was an unknown adversary from the Middle East. Therefore, you could have different assumptions about the rules of engagement, responses, and enemy resources. From what I understand of the exercise, it was to simulate going to war with an adversary that would fight differently because of the lack of modern military resources and hardware. I wouldn't categorize Russia in that way.
• rwallace 14y ago
  I find it difficult to believe the US government would be crazy enough to resort to first use of nuclear weapons in response to a legitimate use of conventional weapons. The legitimate purpose of a nuclear arsenal is retaliation in the event an enemy uses weapons of mass destruction, not playing sore loser in a conventional battle.
• angersock 14y ago
  Eh, I don't think so. The only countries I think have the sheer gall/crazy to use nukes would be China, India, Israel, or Pakistan. Russia, the US, etc. hopefully still remember enough of the Cold War to be very bearish on the use of nukes in response to a conventional attack.