3 ms·
Personally, I'd far prefer a small, relatively weak state attacked by a larger state respond with a single weapon detonated at high altitude, causing an EMP, as
by rdl 13y ago
Personally, I'd far prefer a small, relatively weak state attacked by a larger state respond with a single weapon detonated at high altitude, causing an EMP, as both a show of force and a way to cripple the higher tech aggressor, rather than with a countervalue strike against population, or even a non-nuclear strike against population.
Destroying communications and military infrastructure at the cost of very few lives (maybe some people in aircraft?) seems a lot more moral than incidental deaths of hundreds of thousands or millions of civilians in a counterforce strike, or intentional deaths tens or hundreds of millions in a countervalue strike.
(Similarly, I think assassination of foreign leaders is by far more moral than conventional warfare. The only problem is that decapitation strikes as a policy compress decision time and encourage postures like "launch on warning" or "launch on we're pretty fucking scared and think you might launch", which increases the overall odds of a nuclear exchange.)
- s_q_b 13y agoHigh-altitude EMP over the Pacific is often cited as the first step in a Chinese response to open conflict with the United States, followed by cyber-strikes against US infrastructure. It's a very good asymmetrical warfare weapon for weaker states. Regardless of what course I'd prefer an adversary to take, it certainly makes a great deal of sense from their perspective. By no means are the creators of this strategy of "low intelligence."
- rdl 13y agoI'd probably start with the cyber-strikes, before the EMP :)
- s_q_b 13y agoEMP over the Pacific primarily targets military communications, preventing an organized conventional response. Cyberstrikes are used to pressure the civilian population into demanding peace. Theoretically you could just blanket the North American continent with a few EMPs, but you'd likely provoke a nuclear response or an all-out war, hardly the desired resolution for China in such a scenario.
- rdl 13y agoI'm still amazed that until maybe 2002, the Chinese nuclear arsenal was most likely smaller than the (unconfirmed) Israeli arsenal, at around 50 weapons -- a genuine deterrent, but certainly not enough to wage a first strike, and probably not survivable vs. a counterforce first strike from US or Russia (probably enough vs. India/UK/France, though). Apparently they've stepped up to surpass the Europeans, though.
- caf 13y agoThis strategy is known as "Minimum Deterrence". Jeffrey Lewis has written a book on the PRC's strategic nuclear force posture that explores this: http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/minimum-means-reprisal http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/minimum-means-reprisal ...and a short essay on the broader concept of Minimum Deterrence: http://newamerica.net/node/8908 http://newamerica.net/node/8908 China's force is intended to be survivable despite its small size. Their ICBM force is road-mobile, launched from TELs rather than fixed silos.
- ljf 13y agoMy concern with assassination, is that by default they are a secretly run affair. War is a public statement, that brings with it judgement of the international community. Secret and private wars waged by countries against unfriendly leaders, while they may result in less loss of life, cannot be considered moral. Examples of assassinations and executions by MOSSAD certainly break local and international laws, and I would guess the moral code of the vast number of people around the world. History is written by the victors...
- eru 13y ago> History is written by the victors... It's written by those who can write. When the Germanic tribes came to Rome, the Romans still wrote the history.