Continuing the discussion from Is this how WW3 happens?:
Pretty sure it won’t be the kind of war my dad fought in.
More Cyber? Satellite destruction? Focused attacks on critical infrastructure? Drones? Long range missles? Nukes ranging from tactical to strategic?
This. An actual WWIII goes nuclear quickly.
I’ve been hearing that all of my 51 years. Can someone explain why another World War is automatically nuclear?
It will start out as cyber attacks. When enough people get pissed off over losing their life savings it will go nuclear. People will demand a response, it’s human nature.
Who’s demanding the end of human civilization?
First, because nobody with nukes is going to just let themselves be conquered and slaughtered. Which is the alternative to using nuclear weapons in such a world war; choosing to die rather than strike back.
And second, because that’s been a consistent result in war games where nuclear weapons are allowed; everyone goes nuclear. That’s even more true now with the insistence in inserting “AI” into everything, because AI overwhelmingly chooses to uses nuclear weapons.
A less apocalyptical possibility (not that I discount the possibility of everything going nuclear, Og knows that the current leaders are plenty idiotic/crazy for that) is something like the Ukraine war writ large:
An spectacular beginning that quickly bogs down to a war of attrition, eventually (perhaps after years, or god-forbid decades) of that either one side collapses politically or both sides agree that it’s a fool’s game and return more or less to the statu quo ante.
That’s IMO the more likely scenario.
IMO we can’t label anything as “WW III” until / unless at least two of the USA, Russia, and China are directly attacking each others’ military or internationally accepted pre-war territory.
In WW I & WW II in Europe, the main combatants had common land borders. The defining WW III players mostly do not. Good thing.
Also IMO, no nuclear well-armed power will allow themselves regime change / surrender without using their nukes. I say “well-armed” because I have my doubts that a country w just 1 or 2 that they’d struggle to deliver to their tormenter’s homeland would go nuke before surrendering.
One more happy thought: the more a warring country is ruled by a kleptocratic or authoritarian regime, rather than governed by statesmen, the more likely their part of the war will be conducted to benefit the strongman personally, not their country as a whole.
Massive global systems failures due to cyber attacks/counter attacks at first and then complete global destruction due to massive nuclear attackes/counter attacks….Whether Iran has a nuke or not, plenty of other nations do.
WW3 would not have the chance to drag on like the first two world wars.
And of course, WW4 would be fought with slings.
Nowadays I might add the EU, or some mostly-equivalent European conglomeration, to the list of big players, but any war that involves two of those four is likely to drag in the other two, and even with only two, the end result would be the same.
Going strategic nuclear is definite possibility, but I’d suspect more as a result of misread cues than a true intent to strike first. Using tactical nukes more probably.
My WAG is a war fought calculated to cause pain but not collapse of the other side.
The problem with tactical nukes, though, is that all scenarios wargamed during the cold war were one side started using tactical nukes soon involved strategic nukes. IIRC the conclusion was that the Strategic/Tactical nuke distinction was meaningless.
Good point.
That’s a close judgment call. EU / NATO ex-US is certainly a nontrivial collection of firepower. Though not always of nontrivial resolve.
I almost included them in my roster of big boys.
Yes.
As a separate matter, during the Cold War the West’s view was that there was a significant firewall between conventional weapons & chem/bio weapons, and then a yawning chasm between chem/bio and even tactical, much less strategic, nukes.
The Soviet’s published writings, and their classified doctrine, and their training, held no such distinctions. Chem / bio and nukes were turning up the lethality knob, but just a difference of degree not kind.
Which doctrinal disconnect all but assured any attempt to “signal resolve” by limited use of nukes would be utterly misunderstood even though both sides were fully aware of this dichotomy in nuclear war-fighting philosophy.
I know I don’t know beans about Chinese nuclear philosophy or doctrine. I also don’t know how much the West or Russia know about it either.
Lotta room for avoidable error there.
The only winning move…
I almost included that quote in my first post. Really.
It kinda leaps to the front of one’s mind when discussing these things.
I’d like to see a cite that a nuclear exchange is somehow going to spread to non-involved nuclear nations.
I mean, I keep hearing this trope that if say.. India and Pakistan start lobbing nukes, that somehow that’s bound to turn into some kind of general nuclear exchange between all nuclear powers, but that doesn’t make a lick of sense to me. Why would the UK or France automatically nuke Russia or China because the Pakistanis nuked the Indians? That’s absurd.
It strikes me as some kind of Millennial/Gen-Z misinterpretation of MAD and Launch-on-Warning as being generalized concepts that apply equally to all nuclear armed parties, instead of a very specific policy between the US and USSR during the Cold War.
If this war becomes WW3, which I highly doubt, it’ll largely take the form of air and naval combat. beciase as @LSLGuy points out, there aren’t land borders between the contending major powers, and I can’t see any compelling reason for the US to mount up and invade anyone WW2-style .
How would someone provide a “cite” for a future hypothetical? Time machines aren’t real.
At any rate, certainly the assumption I’ve seen since way back in the Cold War is that (regardless of any official position) any and all sides in a nuclear conflict would make a point of nuking third parties to cripple them as well, so the nuclear armed nations don’t get conquered before (if) they recover.
Because the scenario under discussion is World War III, not India versus Pakistan. The hypothetical presumes that escalation has already happened, so Europe and Russia and China would nuke each other because they are already at war. The nukes would just be an escalation.
I don’t think the idea is that France or the United Kingdom would nuke China or Russia because there was a nuclear war between India and Pakistan.
The idea that’s usually argued is that if a nuclear power is being attacked by one enemy, it’s going to retaliate against that enemy - and then pre-emptively attack its other enemies as well so they don’t hold an advantage over it when the nuclear exchange is done.
For example, let’s say there had been a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union. They would have launched their missiles at each other. But the United States would have also launched missiles at China and the Soviet Union would have also launched missiles at France and the United Kingdom. Because the United States wouldn’t have wanted to leave an intact China around and the Soviet Union wouldn’t have wanted to leave an intact Britain or France around.