World War Three

**lwarmonger** · 18 Feb 05, 00:38

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I've got a car older than you.

And your point is? I would consider myself to be quite well educated for my age, and while I haven't learned everything there is to know, to be fair, neither have you.

**dalem** · 18 Feb 05, 00:39

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

That was our policy before it became clear that the Soviet Union had matched our nuclear capability. Then it became our policy to build up conventional forces to be able to defeat the Warsaw Pact by non-nuclear means, because using nuclear weapons had become suicidal. Hence the arms build up in the late 70's and 80's.

But we never gave up the idea of First Strike. It was necessary to write in nukes when we believed the conventional balance of power had tipped to the USSR. As we began to beef up our convetional capabilities we still maintained the ability and doctrine for nukes.

Doctrinally, the use of battlefield or tactical nukes against advancing Sov forces in Europe is completely separate from the city-destroying strategic nukes that were part of the MAD policy. Now CLEARLY the realities of escalation theoretically demonstrated a frightfully short path from nuking a battalion of T-64s to nuking Birmongham (wasn't it Birmingham, England that was nuked in Hackett's "WWIII"), but the battlefield doctrine was separated, on paper.

-dale

**Officer of Engineers** · 18 Feb 05, 00:39

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

And your point is? I would consider myself to be quite well educated for my age, and while I haven't learned everything there is to know, to be fair, neither have you.

Was a tongue in cheek comment.

While I don't know everything. I do know having served through the Cold War and Yugoslavia during its worst. And I am a PLA watcher for over 20 years.

**lwarmonger** · 18 Feb 05, 00:53

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Was a tongue in cheek comment.

While I don't know everything. I do know having served through the Cold War and Yugoslavia during its worst. And I am a PLA watcher for over 20 years.

Ok, sorry. I felt that you were implying that my opinion wasn't valid because I lack experience.

**scotsboyuk** · 18 Feb 05, 01:41

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

If a world war to happen again, I don't think it is guaranteed to go nuclear. A lot can still be done by conventional forces, and as long as no nuclear capable nations are in danger of being conquered, there is no reason to commit national suicide over a conventional defeat. If a nation is soundly defeated conventionally, then the victor can force them to the negotiating table in order to gain concessions in the secondary theaters of war. This can be done without conquering the homeland of a nuclear capable state.

A valid point that I, for the most part, agree with. However, this scenario assumes that the leadership of the nation being attacked are not paranoid meglomaniacs who are quite happy to use whatever means at their disposal in order to cause damage to the enemy. I think we all know which small Stalinist nation I am speaking of ...

Any invasion of North Korea, or reversal of fortune in a North Korean invasion of the South would almost certainly mean a nuclear strike from Pyongyang. They care very little for their own people, why should they care for South Koreans, Americans, Japanese, Europeans, etc?

**lwarmonger** · 18 Feb 05, 04:17

Originally Posted by scotsboyuk

Any invasion of North Korea, or reversal of fortune in a North Korean invasion of the South would almost certainly mean a nuclear strike from Pyongyang. They care very little for their own people, why should they care for South Koreans, Americans, Japanese, Europeans, etc?

True enough. I was referring largely to a war between great powers when I made that comment, and the basic assumption was that the leadership of both sides is relatively sane (WWI), not paranoid and delusional (WWII). North Korea would be completely obliterated were they to try for a nuclear solution, but they either may not realize that, or they may not care.

**lwarmonger** · 18 Feb 05, 04:22

Originally Posted by dalem

But we never gave up the idea of First Strike. It was necessary to write in nukes when we believed the conventional balance of power had tipped to the USSR. As we began to beef up our convetional capabilities we still maintained the ability and doctrine for nukes.

Doctrinally, the use of battlefield or tactical nukes against advancing Sov forces in Europe is completely separate from the city-destroying strategic nukes that were part of the MAD policy. Now CLEARLY the realities of escalation theoretically demonstrated a frightfully short path from nuking a battalion of T-64s to nuking Birmongham (wasn't it Birmingham, England that was nuked in Hackett's "WWIII"), but the battlefield doctrine was separated, on paper.

But the use of nukes is a political decision. And personally I think that most presidents realized how thin that line between tactical and strategic use is. Tactical nukes were also to be employed against air bases, transportation hubs, supply depots, and other rear area targets (in addition to armored columns), many of which are located in or around populated areas. Would there be a distinction between tactical nukes used on a city/town and strategic nuclear use? The only real difference for the side who's cities are going up in flames is the method of delivery and the yield. While America proper would not be hit in a tactical nuclear exchange, Europe (both WP and NATO) most certainly would be.

And yes it was Birmingham that was obliterated in Hackett's hypothetical scenario.

**scotsboyuk** · 18 Feb 05, 04:27

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

... and the basic assumption was that the leadership of both sides is relatively sane (WWI) ...

I'm not sure if you are saying that the leadership on both sides were sane, if you are I must disagree. the leaders of the armies in WWI were close to being labelled insane. What else could account for the fact that they thought it was a good idea to send hundreds of thousands of men with no armour into machinegun fire? Not only that, but they kept doing it!

The fortunate thing Britain was that our leaders were more insane that the enemy's, that usually how we win wars, by refusing to look facts in the face and thus not realising that we don't stand much of a chance, so we carry on anyway and somehow muddle through in the end.

[quote[
not paranoid and delusional (WWII). North Korea would be completely obliterated were they to try for a nuclear solution, but they either may not realize that, or they may not care.[/QUOTE]

North Korea's leaders only care about keeping themselves in power and they will do anything to safeguard that power.

**lwarmonger** · 18 Feb 05, 04:39

Originally Posted by scotsboyuk

I'm not sure if you are saying that the leadership on both sides were sane, if you are I must disagree. the leaders of the armies in WWI were close to being labelled insane. What else could account for the fact that they thought it was a good idea to send hundreds of thousands of men with no armour into machinegun fire? Not only that, but they kept doing it!

They lacked better ideas. And they did try different things, from massive artillery bombardments, to landing in less defended peripheries, to stormtrooper tactics. They were encountered by a situation that they didn't know how to resolve, and so they resorted to what they knew. This made them human, and not particularly imaginative, not insane. Hitler was insane. Stalin was insane. Most of the political leadership and generals of WWI were simply mediocre.

**scotsboyuk** · 18 Feb 05, 04:56

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

They lacked better ideas. And they did try different things, from massive artillery bombardments, to landing in less defended peripheries, to stormtrooper tactics. They were encountered by a situation that they didn't know how to resolve, and so they resorted to what they knew. This made them human, and not particularly imaginative, not insane. Hitler was insane. Stalin was insane. Most of the political leadership and generals of WWI were simply mediocre.

I was attempting to be humorous, dry British wit doesn't often travel well.

**lwarmonger** · 18 Feb 05, 05:10

Originally Posted by scotsboyuk

I was attempting to be humorous, dry British wit doesn't often travel well.

Indeed, it is really something that one must experience face to face in order for it to be effective.

**~~essay~~** · 18 Feb 05, 15:18

Originally Posted by dalem

The first legitimate hypothetical was proposed by lwarmnger back on page 1. It had some serious flaws in its basic assumptions and so those of us who study this stuff for a living and for a hobby (in my case) spent a lot of time picking at those flaws, yes.

In fact, one of the things that OoE has pointed out continuously is that these kind of "global war" scenarios have a tremendous potential to go nuclear. Even Clancy and Bond, two of my favorite technothriller authors, have to construct fairly elaborate boundary conditions for their fantasy wars to remain conventional, and at least 2 of the stories I can think of have nukes being launched, one detonating. So I don't think it's fair to characterize us as being ignorant of that potential, if indeed that was your intent.

If you read through the replies to lwarmonger you'll find that the most likely ending to his "China invades Russia to get Siberia" scenario is that Russia nukes the Chinese forces in Russia. If China were to then launch its few missiles against Russian cities, Russia would launch against China, and in THAT exchange, Russia wins.

So I don't think anyone is ignoring nuclear weapons.

-dale

I totally agree with your message except for the last paragraph.I ,M THE SINCERE reader of Tom clancy ,i especially like "the sum of fears",and" bear and dragon"I don,t think the large number of nuclear weapons is the main factor of
winning a nuclear war ,and it,s useless to hold so many old fashioned nuclear warheads.If you wanna get a upper hand in the nuclear war either between china and russia or between china and usa,it,s all up to the accuracy and high advanceded technology they have.And it,s absolutely disastrous on both side.
I think 40-60 high advanced nuclear weapon is just enough to win a nuclear war.

**Officer of Engineers** · 18 Feb 05, 15:29

Originally Posted by essay

I think 40-60 high advanced nuclear weapon is just enough to win a nuclear war.

You won't win a nuclear war, period. And with that small number, you're better off with the big clunkers (2-4 megatons) aiming for maximum city kill rather than the small more accurate counter-force warheads (~120 kilotons).

**~~essay~~** · 18 Feb 05, 15:49

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Was a tongue in cheek comment.

While I don't know everything. I do know having served through the Cold War and Yugoslavia during its worst. And I am a PLA watcher for over 20 years.

I,m essay.I ,m very happy to see you here,General.
Why you pay great attention on the development of chinese military power.I
know that your play a important role in china defence.com.I admire your wide knowledge on world affairs and your deep insight on political issues.As one member of indian high ranking officers,i think there have numerous excellent generals,just like you, in indian army.I noticed one article in wasington post,the main theme is that japan government vows united with usa to protect tawain from probable chinese attack ,when taiwan derail far away from tolerance of mainland.Do you think china has capability to win the war .
Please tell me some your insights about it.

**Blademaster** · 18 Feb 05, 16:26

Originally Posted by essay

I,m essay.I ,m very happy to see you here,General.
Why you pay great attention on the development of chinese military power.I
know that your play a important role in china defence.com.I admire your wide knowledge on world affairs and your deep insight on political issues.As one member of indian high ranking officers,i think there have numerous excellent generals,just like you, in indian army.I noticed one article in wasington post,the main theme is that japan government vows united with usa to protect tawain from probable chinese attack ,when taiwan derail far away from tolerance of mainland.Do you think china has capability to win the war .
Please tell me some your insights about it.

A word of advice. If you want to stay on the good side of OOE, don't ever call him general. Call his proper ranking which is Lt. Colonel. It is an insult to address a soldier by the wrong ranking. It sounds condescending and insulting.

Thread: World War Three

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Interview with PLAAF LGen Liu Yazhou

‘US had designs on Iran before Iraq invasion’

Is the world getting better?

A View from the Eye of the Storm

Why we are losing the war on terror

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions