Is the Balance of Power shifting, East versus West

[even_sven]

Thanks Lemur and Lust4Life for bringing some sense into this.

[XT]

@qpw3141

The poster seems to be suggesting that a nuclear power will sit on it’s thumbs whilst its infrastructure is destroyed by various conventional means by a power with whom it’s at war.

And yet, according to the OP, they supposedly just sank a capital ship of another country costing several thousand lives and billions of dollars, so look at it from the other side. If China could sink one of our super carriers and we didn’t resort to nukes, why would China suddenly resort to the things if we retaliated? Conversely, what was preventing the US from simply using nukes back at China if they sank one of our capital ships?

The entire scenario is unlikely in the extreme…it’s ALL ‘la la land’. But, if China DID sink one of our carriers we WOULD retaliate with conventional air strikes. If China then decided to up the ante with nukes then they would get nukes in return…approximately 100 to 1, since China’s nuclear arsenal isn’t anywhere in the neighborhood of the US’s.

And the US would be ruined and China would be a smoking pile of glass. Then what?

A non nuclear power might have no option but to think you could risk such shenanigans with a power that has a good quantity of deliverable nuclear warheads is beyond naive.

Um, no, it’s not. Because, you see, you seem to have forgotten that the US ALSO has nuclear weapons. So, in any sort of nuclear exchange, both sides will get hammered if they resort to nukes. And in this case, while the US would be in bad shape, China would cease to exist. Our sub based nukes alone would wipe out every Chinese city, and probably every good sized town too boot.

China, presumably not being complete idiots, would know this before they resorted to nukes. Of course, unlike the OP, they would probably have figured out that sinking one of our capital ships would be a bad move in the first place for this reason alone, if not all the other myriad reasons it would not be in their best interests to do so.

-XT

[Simplicio]

China has a no first-use policy regarding nukes. Obviously there’s no guarantee they couldn’t break such a policy, but their arsenal has been built with the policy in mind, so to some extent they are bound to it by practical concerns. Unlike the US, they haven’t spent a bajillion dollars developing weapons for a devestating nuclear exchange, presuming that even the prospect of a limited nuclear retaliation would be enough to scare off any prospective nuclear attacker.

So in short, I think its relatively safe to say the Chinese wouldn’t use nukes against the US unless they were nuked first or were in danger of being completely over-run, and the US would be equally unlikely to risk writing off their seven or eight largest cities and so themselves wouldn’t start a nuclear conflict.

As to the new missiles, what Stranger said. Supercarriers aren’t meant to be used in direct conflict between modern super-powers anyways. They’re too vulnerable. Instead they’re national prestige items, platforms to strike against countries like Iraq that don’t have modern weapons and a make-work program for US voters.

[qpw3141]

@xtisme

@qpw3141

The poster seems to be suggesting that a nuclear power will sit on it’s thumbs whilst its infrastructure is destroyed by various conventional means by a power with whom it’s at war.

And yet, according to the OP, they supposedly just sank a capital ship of another country costing several thousand lives and billions of dollars, so look at it from the other side. If China could sink one of our super carriers and we didn’t resort to nukes, why would China suddenly resort to the things if we retaliated?

Because there is a monumental difference between having a ship sunk and having your country’s infrastructure demolished. LDO. :rolleyes:

Conversely, what was preventing the US from simply using nukes back at China if they sank one of our capital ships?

Becuase the US does not want to lose NY, Washington, Chicago, etc, in the inevitable retaliatory attack. Again, LDO.

And the US would be ruined and China would be a smoking pile of glass. Then what?

The rest of the world would carry on as normal and be very thankful to the Chinese and the US for the object lesson that it’s not a good idea to behave so idiotically?

A non nuclear power might have no option but to think you could risk such shenanigans with a power that has a good quantity of deliverable nuclear warheads is beyond naive.

Um, no, it’s not. Because, you see, you seem to have forgotten that the US ALSO has nuclear weapons. So, in any sort of nuclear exchange, both sides will get hammered if they resort to nukes.

Um, yes. If you back someone into a corner they will (or may - you want to take the risk?) come out fighting.

Do you really think any US president would sacrifice the few dozen of the biggest US cities just to make a point?

Of course he wouldn’t.

No US president is gong to be so animal stupid to launch an attack against the mainland of any country with nuclear weapons.

[even_sven]

China and the US are not going to go to war. What would either side gain? China has no way to occupy the US. The US has no interest in occupying China. Despite all of the tough talk and saber rattling, both sides are pretty comfortable with how things are working out right now.

The only chance for conflict, in my opinion, is if China’s economy got shaky and the Communist Party starting ramping up nationalism in an attempt to build national unity (which is currently pretty heavily based on increasing prosperity.) There would be a chance that could lead to action in Taiwan. It’s not a sure thing that the US would intervene- we’ve never said that we would and have stuck to “strategic ambiguity.” It’s also not a sure thing that China would win even without US intervention. In any situation, if China moved towards Taiwan that would indicate that they are on very shaky ground domestically, and I think the US would just wait for the collapse rather than get involved.