In the event of a war between nuclear powers, would there be a nuclear exchange?

Well so shattered, you're saying that the term 'tactical nuclear weapon' is invalid?
en.wikipedia.org...

Oh my god, ok that only applies by application, not definition.

Wikipedia's definition of Tactical Nuclear weapon is the listed weapons only placed with a nuclear warhead. That does not at all change what you would actually use it for.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
I was under the impression that underground bases were strategic targets.

And even if they weren't, how do you gauge a nuke to do less damage? Have you done it? And if you would even go that far to avoid collateral damage, why not just simply use C4/Satchel charges? It seems cheaper and simpler to use plastic explosives instead of a nuclear device, kind of defeats the purpose in my opinion.

Shattered OUT...

Nuke yield and effects can be gauged. Oh yes - I do it for a hobby. C4/Satchel charge have to be brought in, and now that I think of it, you're not going to take out an underground bunker proofed against conventional weapons without engineers being on the ground a long, long time and doing a lot of demo. Kind of hard to 'erase' a target that's not supposed to be there in the first place and still keep plausible deniability. AKA if we want to vaporize a tiny underground part of Iran before they even realize what happened, nukes might come in handy whereas insertion of ground forces with enough C4 to take the place down would guarantee a war.

Well you never specified a delivery system, I assumed by tactical nuke, you were talking about a Spec Ops team deploying the device by foot.

Now if you're talking about an airdropped munition, why not use thermobarics/bunker busters or other bunker-defeating munitions?

They seem more logical than deploying a small tactical nuke.

Shattered OUT...

I think both the Cuba Missile Crisis and the India-Pakistan battles show that even Nuclear armed foes realize that real full out warfare between the two sides is not really possible, and in the long run calmer heads prevail. You can poke at each other, but you can't cut off an arm, kinda. What would happen if India marched all the way into Islamabad? They just wouldn't do it, knowing full well what would happen. You just have to give each side enough face to resolve the situation.

The real problem is when/where you don't have ANY calm heads on one side and they USE their nuclear weapons, then everything changes.

Just gotta hope nukes don't fall into the hands of the crazies.

Shattered OUT...

On this topic, what would worry me is if China and America, for example, went to war in the future this conflict could only be reasonably won if one of the combatants was prepared to use the Nuke option, and therefor rule out an expensive and long lasting 'boots on the ground' land war. Assuming that they were at this point equally armed regarding missiles, then MAD would come into play as it did between the US and Russia.

My thinking is that any future combatant in this scenario who hoped to win, without being himself destroyed, would have to have first developed a foolproof way of blinding his enemy to an imminent ICBM attack. I think this possibly might be done by a massive and overwhelming hack into his computer defence systems in advance of the missiles being launched, effectively shutting the enemys defence systems down.

In essence, I think that the MAD scenario would have to be negated before any overwhelming nuke attack would be attempted. Perhaps that is why we are hearing more these days about suspected Chinese Computer hackers probing the US computer defence systems ?

[edit on 10-3-2008 by enddays]

[edit on 10-3-2008 by enddays]

reply to post by enddays



What does either side gain from that? Even a successful surprise nuclear attack on one side leaves you with nothing to work with. You can't very well take over a country you just contaminated with your great nuclear exchange. What would China gain from "offing" their number one customer or what would the US gain from exterminating it's supplier of goods and cheap labor and financier? Both sides need the other more than they are willing to admit.

No, even if China and the US were to "butt heads", it would end up in a way where both sides could back down and claim they were the "good" one. Both sides would find a way to deescalate the situation.

reply to post by pavil


Just because a nuclear exchange occurs does not mean the attacking country would want to take over the target country. Take China for example. They REALLY REALLY want Taiwan. Who is to stop them? Japan and US. Best thing to do is strike US and Japan first, invade Taiwan, and entrench. It will take a while for US or Japan to respond after a preemptive nuclear strike. By then China could be so entrenched it would be too costly to liberate Taiwan. Diplomatic solutions may be the best option for Japan and US.

If you doubt this, read about China's preemptive strategy, called "Dragon's Lair".

China's Dragon's Lair Strategy
This is China's anti-U.S. sucker punch strategy.
It's designed to strike America's military suddenly, stunning and stalling the Air Force more than any other service. In a script written by Chinese military officers and defense analysts, a bruised U.S. military, beholden to a sheepish American public, puts up a small fight before slinking off to avoid full-on war.

This is pretty realistic. And the China military is taking this seriously. It is circling through their military networks.

Shattered, strategic and tactical nukes are very different. Biggest difference is their use and yield. Strategic is long-term. Tactical is short-term. You want to cause long-term damage like on a country's infrastructure, use a strategic nuke. You want to stop 5 armored battalions from entering your border, use a tactical nuke.

BTW, the someone on this post was right about the effects of nuclear weapons. A singular nuclear weapon effects a lot less than what the media wants you to believe. That's why MIRVs (Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicle) exist. You send one ICBM to a metropolitan. When it reaches, it unloads its multiple warhead payload. Boom! Job done. Because nuclear weapons have an effective blast range of like 3 - 5 miles. With a MIRV, you overlap your target with each warhead.

reply to post by guppy

Sorry, for all the lip service and bravado we put up over Taiwan, I don't think we, the US, would do much in the way to stop China from taking it over. In the grand scheme of things Taiwan doesn't hold that much strategic value to commit to a major defense of it should it get invaded. It's nice to have Taiwan on our side, but I can't see us sacrificing much for their defence.

As for your strategy of China attacking the US and Japan first, that would be rather silly and dangerous if all they wanted to do was take over Taiwan. Why really irritate the two other major regional players by attacking them outright. Doesn't make sense unless you plan on going all out war. All out war has far larger risks for China than a invasion of Taiwan. Even just an invasion of Taiwan would be met with very bad political and economic repercussions for China.


[edit on 19-3-2008 by pavil]

What is important is not the dirt that makes up the island of Taiwan, but what it represents. A hedge against China, both political, military, economical etc… If and when China tries to Take Taiwan is signals that they are finally going to expand their sphere of influence in the Pacific, via military force if they have to. If we fail to defend Taiwan and confront what that action signals and symbolizes then China will be encouraged to expand even farther in the Pacific and elsewhere in the world for that matter. Containment is already underway in the PACRIM and further preparations for when containment fails are ongoing.

reply to post by kaiheitain


robust nuclear penetrator

you do know that they are designed to blast shock waves into teh groud - via a nuclear explosion only a few feet under ground? its still a nuke , still goes bang and still puts a mushroom on the surface.

reply to post by pavil


Just remember what happened in the mid=90s, when China threatened to invade Taiwan. It was the old cat-and-mouse game Russia and the US played on each other. Chinese military leaders wanted to see who and with what woudl come to Taiwan's aid. Obviously, they wanted to see what US would send. They figure US would only send 2 to 3 Carrier Groups. Instead, US brought 6 Carrier Groups. It really opened China's eyes. Since then China has been upgrading and purchasing military hardware to combat what US responded with.

Well spoken, WestPoint. But, China's influence is not just limited to the Pacific Rim. It has been securing its supply lanes in the Indian Ocean. Too bad I can't find the article about this. I read the article on some military college website. Some paper that was written about the subject.

Yes China has been vigorously perusing energy and resource deals, partnerships and investment in the Middle East and Africa. Leveraging, economical, resource, political and other forms of aid. This form of expansion however is influential and or economical only and not military "physical". Bases, military personnel etc...

However regarding Chinese sea lanes, 80% of Chinese foreign resources, material and oil shipments pass through the Straight of Malacca's region. The US with bases in Diego Garcia, Singapore, Australia, Japan, Guam, SK and mobile CBG's can easily shut down air and sea trade into and from China both from the Pacific and Indian ocean.

[edit on 19-3-2008 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Just gotta hope nukes don't fall into the hands of the crazies.

Well, I think the nukes are already in the hands of the crazies and that is the countries that make up the nuke armed.

Deterrent? To think that there aren't military hawks that can't wait to use
nukes is extremely naive. Israel can't wait to use the nukes we gave them. Isreal will start the ball rolling and then wer'e all toast. As the Mid East conflicts esculate, the doomsday clock tick a little closer to 12:00.

reply to post by whaaa


If what you say is true, there should have been a nuclear exchange decades ago. There are larger powers at work here.

Shattered OUT...

reply to post by whaaa


whaaa, would you say the same thing if your country was completely surrounded by enemies with little help?

One thing you gotta give to the Israels is they know how to fight. And, we should be grateful Israel did their preemptive strike on Iraq's French-made Nuclear Reactor.

Originally posted by guppy
reply to post by whaaa

 

whaaa, would you say the same thing if your country was completely surrounded by enemies with little help?

Little help? The American military is at the beck and call of the Israelis at any time. If Israel is attacked full scale the Nukes will fly and that will be the beginning of the End. Bible prophecy and all that.

reply to post by whaaa


Exactly. What if US's borders touched Russia, North Korea, China, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq? And what if each of those countries have the same interest in ridding the world of US? How different would US be and its views? Very different.

Afterall, Israel didn't start the war in 1948. Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq all attacked Israel soon after its formation. Its no surprise that Israel is so aggressive. They have to when every neighboring nation keeps saying they are going to burn Israel.

Theoretical Scenario: What if the Cold War history was different where all of our neighbors -- Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Central and South America -- were communist nations and friends with Russia? Scary.

reply to post by guppy


Cold War history dictates that not all communists answered to Moscow.

There were plenty of communist nations out there that did not get a long very well with the USSR, especially not Stalin.

Were so many nations to be communist, I highly doubt all of them would be immediately and conditionally allied with the Soviet Union. Hell, most states in the Warsaw pact and under the Soviet rule were there because they were forced into it.

Shattered OUT...