The thread on Chinese anti-ship missiles has got me thinking; What circumstances would a nation not respond atomicly to a nuclear strike?
I’ve thought of two ones;
If you are obsenely mismatched in atomic weapon capability, they might not risk responding to a very limited tactical strike.
Another is when the side could easily win the war with conventional forces alone. For instance, if the Indian army had all but overrun Pakistan and one independantly acting Pakistani command officer launched the missiles he had to hand, I doubt nuclear weapons would be seen as necessary to finish the conflict.
I do not however think a dominant nuclear power would ignore a nuclear strike against carriers or any other high-value military target.
First of all, if a nation was attacked with nuclear weapons, and it had none, it won’t retaliate with a nuclear counterstrike.
Your two examples make sense. In both cases you aren’t worried about a second strike so you don’t need to use nuclear weapons, you use the best means at hand.
That would probably generate a counter force response against a peer target or the closest thing possible.
So the Russians take out a Nimitz class carrier, I would expect the USN to take out the Peter the Great, or what ever the Russians are calling their carrier. But I would not expect the US to take out St Petersburg in retaliation.
100% agreed here. IMHO after receiving a high stakes attack, it is best to match the aggressor’s intensity but never to escalate for fear of the whole deal spiraling out of control.
Is it assumed that the identity of the attacking nation will be known or reasonably guessed? If not, there’s another scenario where counterstrike may not happen - not knowing who to retaliate against.
:rolleyes:Come back and ask this question again when you have read up on sub continental geography, nuclear command and control and political dimensions.