Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EnigmaticHat]

It would be vaguely similar to what happened in the Cuban missile crisis.  Aside from that, never.  AFAIK since WW2 no nuke has ever been launched with the intention to detonate on a real target.

Launching a bomber on NK would be the Cuban missile crisis x5, but hey.  Trump is the president of Watergate x5.

[Reelya]

You can also call the bombers and tell them to abort at any point, so you can use them as a bargaining chip until the last minute.

How many times has that tactic actually been used? Doesn't seem wise to use that tactic against our larger adversaries with actual nukes.

I can definetly see Trump using that tactic on NK though.

It's not relevant to ask how many times a tactic has "actually" been used. Almost none of the weapons systems we're talking about have ever been used. It's entirely in the realm of "well you could do that". Basically everything about nuclear warfare is hypothetical. We don't actually know how any of these systems (military, technological and political) are actually going to respond in a nuclear crisis.

the point is, with modern communications you could fly a bomber at the enemy and say "the nukes are coming you have 20 minutes to accede to our demands or else". Which puts the other guy in quite a situation. You'd have to be at the "nukes are coming" point though, and we've never in fact been there (since WWII).

[wierd]

Which is entirely the point of MAD. (Both aspects, actually. The nukes are a show of force, not a threat on imminent intent.)

In this case though, lil Kim seems unable to grasp that his postage stamp sized nation can be destroyed dozens of times over, and at worst, he will give the US a really big black eye. His politics revolves around poking the bear.

[Reelya]

In this case though, lil Kim seems unable to grasp that his postage stamp sized nation can be destroyed dozens of times over, and at worst, he will give the US a really big black eye. His politics revolves around poking the bear.

Which is why I think all that is for internal consumption. NK leadership knows how small they are. But they have a fair number of indoctrinated citizens who literally believe they're the world's greatest military power (or at least profess to believe it). Trumpet blowing is about keeping up the facade of strength so there's no uprising. To do that, you keep each citizen who might be unhappy believing that they alone are unhappy in their little box and that the regime is all-powerful. Then even if people think it sucks they resign to fatalism.

[RedKing]

I don't think that anyone would launch nukes in retaliation to a strike against a third party. I think that would be the absolute last thing that anyone would do.

I strongly disagree. If China called and said, "Oh hey, we're gonna nuke Taiwan, but it's cool, right?" I think we would absolutely threaten nuclear retaliation. Or if Russia did the same with...well, about anybody.

Now, if it was a surprise strike, it would get a lot thornier because people would have time to do the cost/benefit analysis of "Do we want to make this worse?" vs. "Can we allow this to go unpunished?"

they have a fair number of indoctrinated citizens who literally believe they're the world's greatest military power

keep each citizen who might be unhappy believing that they alone are unhappy in their little box

even if people think it sucks they resign to fatalism.

I know we're talking about Best Korea, but damn does that sound familiar....

[Loud Whispers]

I strongly disagree. If China called and said, "Oh hey, we're gonna nuke Taiwan, but it's cool, right?" I think we would absolutely threaten nuclear retaliation. Or if Russia did the same with...well, about anybody.
Now, if it was a surprise strike, it would get a lot thornier because people would have time to do the cost/benefit analysis of "Do we want to make this worse?" vs. "Can we allow this to go unpunished?"

If you take our nuclear strikes and focus on a simple military strike it becomes a more contentious issue. If China launched an invasion of Taiwan would the USA respond with nuclear force? This issue faced France during the cold war, wherein they were concerned that in the event of the Soviets launching a rapid invasion through Germany into France, the USA would prefer to have a military defeat in Western Europe than to start a nuclear exchange.

[smjjames]

Which is entirely the point of MAD.

In this case though, lil Kim seems unable to grasp that his postage stamp sized nation can be destroyed dozens of times over, and at worst, he will give the US a really big black eye. His politics revolves around poking the bear.

You mean eagle, the bear is Russia, though yes I get what you mean.

Also, reelya, you made my point about whether that tactic has even been used. I've heard that at points in the Cold War, they kept some of those planes in the air, but they didn't aim their trajectory at anybody.

[RedKing]

I strongly disagree. If China called and said, "Oh hey, we're gonna nuke Taiwan, but it's cool, right?" I think we would absolutely threaten nuclear retaliation. Or if Russia did the same with...well, about anybody.
Now, if it was a surprise strike, it would get a lot thornier because people would have time to do the cost/benefit analysis of "Do we want to make this worse?" vs. "Can we allow this to go unpunished?"

If you take our nuclear strikes and focus on a simple military strike it becomes a more contentious issue. If China launched an invasion of Taiwan would the USA respond with nuclear force? This issue faced France during the cold war, wherein they were concerned that in the event of the Soviets launching a rapid invasion through Germany into France, the USA would prefer to have a military defeat in Western Europe than to start a nuclear exchange.

Honestly? Depends on who's in charge. With Trump, all bets are off.

10-20 years ago, would have been a no-brainer. China didn't have the amphibious capability to sustain an invasion of Taiwan, and the US 7th Fleet could take out the PLAN in its sleep.

Now...probably still would wind up using a combination of naval and airpower (and diplomacy) to bounce the PRC outta Taiwan, but it'd be a tougher fight. At some point (with increasing Chinese naval power and land-based airpower), the cost becomes high enough that nukes start to look like a viable option.

Remember, the whole justification given for the two times nukes have been used as a weapon was because it was cheaper and easier than a conventional response.


Conventional wisdom would say that Taiwan isn't worth WWIII. But Trump is anything but conventional. (Honestly, I think he'd sell Taiwan out in a heartbeat. But then again, maybe he got some shitty Peking duck the night before, so he decides to nuke Beijing. Who knows?)

[Il Palazzo]

In this case though, lil Kim seems unable to grasp that his postage stamp sized nation can be destroyed dozens of times over, and at worst, he will give the US a really big black eye. His politics revolves around poking the bear.

Posturing on the part of NK is par for the course, and how the regime stays in power.

The more pertinent question is whether lil Donnie can comprehend he's playing with millions of lives (on both sides, on both sides)?
After all, no matter how many drugs and crime North Koreans bring, no matter how many of them are rapists, some of them are good people (I presume).
But let's hope Donald's IQ is high enough, or even f-ing high enough, despite what some people say, with or without his morning covfefe.

[Starver]

You can also call the bombers and tell them to abort at any point, so you can use them as a bargaining chip until the last minute.

This is a nice little tale... : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail_Safe_(1964_film)

Not that I expect it to be mirrored in the current Administration. (Swap Atlanta for New York, maybe...  Get his own back for the failed Casinos...)

[Loud Whispers]

Honestly? Depends on who's in charge. With Trump, all bets are off.

10-20 years ago, would have been a no-brainer. China didn't have the amphibious capability to sustain an invasion of Taiwan, and the US 7th Fleet could take out the PLAN in its sleep.

Now...probably still would wind up using a combination of naval and airpower (and diplomacy) to bounce the PRC outta Taiwan, but it'd be a tougher fight. At some point (with increasing Chinese naval power and land-based airpower), the cost becomes high enough that nukes start to look like a viable option.

Remember, the whole justification given for the two times nukes have been used as a weapon was because it was cheaper and easier than a conventional response.

Conventional wisdom would say that Taiwan isn't worth WWIII. But Trump is anything but conventional. (Honestly, I think he'd sell Taiwan out in a heartbeat. But then again, maybe he got some shitty Peking duck the night before, so he decides to nuke Beijing. Who knows?)

imo the most dangerous thing is if the Americans don't believe they can defend Taiwan. Your Trumps, Bushes and Hillaries all had one thing in common: The reputation that they'd willingly defeat anyone anywhere at a single sign of threatening US interests without question, even if they were a US ally.
What's more, giving up Taiwan wouldn't assure peace, it would simply expand the range for China's submarines to safely operate further and further annex more of East and Southeast Asia's seas, with the ultimate aim of then contesting the USA in the entire pacific. But it would mean that in this contest, the USA's position would be much weaker, and China's much stronger.

Prolly why the current admin continues the subtle Taiwan #1 policy Obama himself quietly did

[Dunamisdeos]

Quick insert: The argument for both times in which nukes were dropped was that it was estimated to be cheaper in terms of human life. Multiple reasons were given by the administration of the day, but that one stands out as primary. IIRC the cost in lives was measured at something like 2 million on both sides if a traditional invasion was attempted.

(I'm not in a position to provide citations, sadly)

[Helgoland]

Fun fact: The purple hearts that were produced for the wounded of that planned invasion are the same ones that are being handed out today. They expected that operation to produce more casualties than all of the American wars post-45 incurred combined.

[Loud Whispers]

blud for the blud god

[Lord Shonus]

Quick insert: The argument for both times in which nukes were dropped was that it was estimated to be cheaper in terms of human life. Multiple reasons were given by the administration of the day, but that one stands out as primary. IIRC the cost in lives was measured at something like 2 million on both sides if a traditional invasion was attempted.

(I'm not in a position to provide citations, sadly)

IIRC, the worst case scenario was along the lines of

US Armed Forces: 1,000,000+
Japanese Armed Forces: 100%
Japanese Civilians: 99+%

Given that I've personally met people that still have the suicide pills they were given as children, the idea isn't that far-fetched.