Please notice the very first word in the title. I have no interest whatsoever in “they think…” or “they say…” arguments. If others wish to give arguments counter to yours, they are perfectly able to state their own opinions without your “assistance”. Is it possible to have a limited nuclear engagement involving bombing (and not just non-boom radiation poisoning) that doesn’t explode (sorry/not sorry about the pun) into an out-of-control escalation and, if so, is it feasible (however you define that word “feasible”)?
Sure. A rogue party could plausibly detonate a bomb and not trigger a conflagration. A rogue nation like Russia could plausibly fire a single tactical shell and not have it lead to annihilation. A brief exchange between say Pakistan and India that wrecks a couple of cities could plausibly lead to saner heads prevailing and a step back from the brink.
It’s just that the slope is so steep and teflon-slick it is extremely, extremely dangerous and plausible is far from likely.
Limited only to the extent of one of the parties arsenal. One side’s supply will eventually exhausted, so from their perspective it’s not limited, it’s all in. If the other side has a lot more but doesn’t need their entire supply, then it’ll be limited, but again, only from their perspective. I nuclear exchange will continue until one side runs out. My uneducated opinion only.
Is this possible without other nations stepping in and deciding that the only way to stop this one-sided “exchange” is to stop the offending nation by a limited nuclear targeting of that nation. Could you have that initial exchange without other nations saying “They have already shown a willingness to use, and we happen to have treaties with the nation they are attacking, so…”?
It depends on a lot of ifs, but I’ll be the dissenter and say no, not possible. It happened once because we were basically the only ones with them. Nowadays, in this world… not much of a chance.
Sing it with me:
First we got the bomb, and that was good, because we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb, but that’s ok, the balance of power’s maintained that way.
Who’s next?
Either the rest of the world responds to destroy the aggressor, or they don’t. Either option results in escalation.
I think Tamerlane got it in the first post. Possible but not likely. I would even go so far as to say it is very unlikely if you are talking about two major nuclear powers. For China, USA, and Russia, if they shoot at each other, then I think the “If one flies, they all fly” saying still holds.
On the other hand, I don’t think there is any chance the US or Europe would have responded with nukes if Russia had used a tactical nuke in Ukraine. We would have responded in a different way. By now, I think it is clear that the US, Europe, and especially China have made it known to Putin that the costs outweigh the benefits.
Your thoughts on whether a limited nuclear exchange is possible and/or feasible
Possible, but not feasible. War games & simulations that have “limited” nuclear usage consistently escalate to an all-out exchange, usually almost immediately. Sometimes longer, but the result is the same.
Perform a limited strike, and the response of the other side is likely to be to fire everything they have in return.
This is the only scenario that I see as even remotely plausible (that nobody else gets involved), and only if they somehow limit themselves to a handful each. Wiki says Pakistan and India have 170 and 190 warheads respectively. I don’t see any realistic way that doesn’t escalate badly.
They should just let the border guards duke it out during one of their retirement ceremonies. For being mortal enemies, they sure seem to have coordinated quite a bit on that choreography.
It’s been over 80 years since a nuclear detonation killed people. It’s a line that has never again been crossed. Once there is a “limited” exchange, the question becomes, HOW limited an exchange do we allow before it is no longer tolerable? I think if that awful day comes, it will be a matter of time before there is an all out nuclear war.
I do wonder if a limited exchange meaning nuclear weapons are only used on military facilities and not on population centers is something that could happen. Like if the US and Russia got into a nuclear war, they both use smaller yield nukes to destroy military installations rather than larger yield nukes to destroy large cities.
There’s two kinds of escalation - the “all the weapons fly at once” kind (which a border war between two nations might not trigger) and the slow motion escalation ("Nation A got away with bombing nation B, so what’s holding me (Nation C) from bombing Nation D if it’s in my interest), which is I think the real problem. Right now there’s a bright line - use a bomb and face immediate conflagration. If that becomes a dimmer line (use a bomb, get short term advantages, and maybe a conflagration next decade), then everybody starts focusing on the “cool - short term advantage” part, and we slide to conflagration anyway.
Yup, that’s what I was referring to.
That said, there is exactly one scenario I can imagine that stays limited: North Korea uses a nuke against South Korea, and all of South Korea’s allies respond by using conventional weapons to immediately flatten North Korea. I think that this is the only limited scenario possible, because it requires a nation that both has nukes, and which could be immediately flattened with conventional weapons, and I don’t think there’s any nation other than North Korea that meets that description.
Figured as much - just couldn’t resist spelling it out in detail
Israel?
Israel certainly can’t be immediately flattened with conventional weapons, and probably doesn’t have nukes, either.
The problem with the “flatten immediately conventionally” scenario is the time required to decapitate the target country’s nuclear command and control systems is longer than it takes them to be used. If e.g. NK was suddenly placed under massive conventional assault, and the regime suspected they’d be removed or destroyed, the assault’s timeline is hours and days whereas their nuke’s launch time is minutes and hour(s).
That was exactly what led to an all-out nuclear exchange in the Proud Prophet war game I linked to upthread. Much of the problem being that the military/civilian distinction is largely imaginary due to how large the area of effect of nuclear weapons is; striking military targets destroys cities and towns anyway.