Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nuclear war at sea

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Nuclear war at sea

    It would seem since the end of the cold war and the disarmming of all US and Russian warships of "tactical" nuclear weapons and cruise missiles (supposadly) , that this is a redundant question, but given China/Taiwan and other possible scenarios I think it is still relevant for the following reasons:

    -The US has the dominant surface navy particularly because of it's carriers which make tempting targets because of their relevance.
    -Many ex-Soviet missiles/torpedos were designed to nuke carriers, and wheather against the Russians or their weapons customers, the nuclear weapon would pose a solution to US sea dominance and carriers without necessarily "escallating" to the land use of nuclear weapons.
    -The use of nuclear weapons at sea would only pose the possible risk of radiation poisening to distant civillians, but not necessarily, and mostly the only other casualties other than combatants would be fish.... Thus the use of nuclear weapons could be "limited" (as much as the term could ever apply in nuclear warfare) to the sea.....

    Thoughts???

  • #2
    I don't think China would resort to the nuclear option, even in a tactical environment, unless things went horrifically wrong. Right now, or pretty soon, it can take out carrier groups by conventional means. It won't resort to tactical nukes.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Franco Lolan
      I don't think China would resort to the nuclear option, even in a tactical environment, unless things went horrifically wrong. Right now, or pretty soon, it can take out carrier groups by conventional means. It won't resort to tactical nukes.

      Taking out a carrier would take a nuke, particularly if they were losing.

      Remember they were designed, particularly the Nimitz class, to fight saturation attacks of bomber launched nuke missiles from Tu-22s.

      If I were a Chinese tactition, I wouldn't require anything less than a nuke warhead of some sort to take out our carriers, and even then given the distance they are spread out it would be only one at a time at best. The insulation of it being "at sea" and away from soverign territory would give a plausable excuse NOT to retalliate on the other's cities/bases (which would require counter strikes on the attacker's cities/bases). If there were ever a "limited nuclear war" scenario, it is at sea. It is the most plausable, most realistic, beneficial to the user against the carriers, and least risk putting the ball in the US's court as to the responsible response without ending the world....

      Comment


      • #4
        It seems to me that if any nation nukes a US carrier at sea they're likely to get a visit by a couple dozen Minuteman III ICBMs, and they probably DONT want that...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by M21Sniper
          It seems to me that if any nation nukes a US carrier at sea they're likely to get a visit by a couple dozen Minuteman III ICBMs, and they probably DONT want that...
          I agree, but that theory DEPENDS upon inevitable nuclear escalation as the common belief on both sides, which might depend upon other intangables within culture and military philosophy which we may have long left behind with the Russians within the context of the early bipolar Cold War. I am not sure we can bet on that with China. The Sovremmeny and her nuke capable Moskit missiles were purchased recently and surely can not be for any other use than to be within range of a carrier before the hostilities start, and even then they each only have 8 missiles. After hostilities start it can be assumed by all that the Sovremmenys would be dead if ANY carrier were within the range of her aircraft survived the first salvo. Maybe it is a bluff, but even the PLAN would not have the funds to waste money on a losing strategy.

          Comment


          • #6
            1. No carrier driver is going to put his ship in range of a Sov's Moskits, period.

            2. There is no evidence that the PLAN's Moskits are nukes, and even if they are, see #1.

            3. Any attack on a CVN is seen by the US as tantamount to an attack on CONUS. This is the US's stated policy. Attack a CVN, and you will have SSGN's launching SLCM's at land based targets, and it's a safe bet that a symbolic target will be taken out just to make a point. Nuke a CVN, well, just kiss your ass goodbye.
            "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

            Comment


            • #7
              What highsea said. ;)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by highsea
                1. No carrier driver is going to put his ship in range of a Sov's Moskits, period.

                2. There is no evidence that the PLAN's Moskits are nukes, and even if they are, see #1.

                3. Any attack on a CVN is seen by the US as tantamount to an attack on CONUS. This is the US's stated policy. Attack a CVN, and you will have SSGN's launching SLCM's at land based targets, and it's a safe bet that a symbolic target will be taken out just to make a point. Nuke a CVN, well, just kiss your ass goodbye.
                PLAN can do what it likes 'cos USG has to answer to a public ... Balance of (not power) but threat. Only a strike against a mainland city would lead to a politically viable strike back. A CG sunk by nuke is too deniable, ie "it was NK". That alone would give free room for the UN to get involved and thus endless committees ...
                Where's the bloody gin? An army marches on its liver, not its ruddy stomach.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by The Chap
                  PLAN can do what it likes 'cos USG has to answer to a public ... Balance of (not power) but threat.
                  The President answers to Congress. If a CVN is attacked, Congress would be screaming for blood. And so would the public.
                  Originally posted by The Chap
                  Only a strike against a mainland city would lead to a politically viable strike back. A CG sunk by nuke is too deniable, ie "it was NK".
                  NorK doesn't have the capability to attack a CVN with a nuke. Even the Soviets determined that it was extremely unlikely to be successful attacking a CSF with BM's (and they were miles ahead of NK and China in missile tech). That's why they developed nuclear torps.

                  If a CVN is attacked, the US will know who the attacker was. As far as politically viable, you are entitled to whatever opinion you wish. I was just pointing out the US's stated policy on a CVN attack. It is considered at a policy level as equal to an attack on CONUS. If someone wishes to test that out, so be it. You can check your theory at that time.
                  Originally posted by The Chap
                  That alone would give free room for the UN to get involved and thus endless committees ...
                  What the hell does the US care what the UN thinks? You actually think that would stay our hand if we lost a CVN?

                  ROFL. Keep'em coming, that was a good one.
                  "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    PRC wouldn't deny it. They would say "yea baby!". If it went to the point of "lets sink a carrier", nations won't be denying and playing diplomatic kiss ups.

                    Furthermore, SLCM's are not a big deal.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I think Franko has a point. The Chicoms don't have to agree with US policy regarding what level a nuke strike on a CVN reqires as far as a response. They see Taiwan as their territory, like we see Alaska , and if there were someone trying to take OUR territory, I would want to nuke strike a naval force at sea threatening to take my territory away from me. Too much of an upside, and not enough a downside using nukes in the case of nukes being used only at sea and only on combattants. To assume the Chicoms won't use nukes might be a fatal flaw in US policy that could lead to miscalculations, which cause wars.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        For the CHICOMs to assume we wouldn't nuke them til they glow in the dark in return would be a much, much bigger mistake.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The PLA 2AC (2nd Artillery Corps, the Chinese nuclear strike arm) may very well use nukes but not for the reasons stated.

                          The PLA modernization program has only deployed a single Theatre HQ (the Central Military Commission Headquarters) for all its forces - to be used wherever that theatre is (which also means that the Chinese are only capable of fighting one war at a time). Unfortunately, it is also the national command nuclear release authority.

                          Being a theatre HQ, the CMC HQ is a legitimate military target for any US strike package which means that if it is under threat from US assets, the CMC HQ might be very tempted to use its release authority before it is lost.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            That's an obvious attempt to deter us from hitting their brain, since they know that's our SOP.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Sorry for misinterpretation. I never meant to state nuke strike would be unleashed. i meant conventional sinking of carrier by PLA would not be such a great matter in case of war which is not what you were commenting on.

                              Officer of Engineers, you most definitely know your stuff.
                              I will be representing Germany at the Georgetown Model UN Conference Feb 4-7. I am in General Assembly Disarmament and International Security Council. Topics are 1)Taiwan Strait and 2)Nuclear Proliferation in ME

                              any advice on Taiwan Topic you can give me? What disarmament, if any, could Germany propose, in your opinion?
                              Last edited by Franco Lolan; 06 Jan 05,, 01:34.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X