Comradeship // Freechat

You have to consider the population density in China. One nuke aimed at an 'important target' could pretty easily kill a few million Chinese as collateral.

This would obviously give China all rights to launch a counterattack.

Unfortunately one Chinese nuke cannot do the same to Americans because Americans just don't live densely enough, which means for a sufficient response China probably needs to launch 5+ nukes per one American nuke.

Of course, the Americans will just launch four or five nukes in response, which will kill ~20-30 million more Chinese. At which point, everyone will be nuking each other.

TLDR There is no such thing as limited nuclear war because any limited strike on China will probably kill enough people to justify a massive counterattack, at which point full nuclear war will have begun.

I made a previous writeup on China's current position in a nuclear exchange with the US: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/5407827/4903187

The american urge to unleash nuclear armageddon

History is fucking rhyming rn, Ike literally had this exact same thought. Please let us go back to the pentomic structure.

The US is doing everything in its power to undermine MAD and nuclear deterrence in general. This doesn't surprise me given how many more nuclear weapons the US has to China that they think they can and should use some in a conventional war. The logic being they afford to, it kills enemies that would weaken their conventional forces, and enemy use of the same would undermine their limited stockpile while US use wouldn't matter to their deterrent. Still deeply alarming.

This is the scariest shit ever to be honest, because the most likely scenario is that any nuclear exchange is likely to escalate to a full blown nuclear war. The fact that he imbeciles running Burgerland think they can have a limited nuclear war means they have completely lost their minds.

You don't need to use tactical nuclear weapons to respond.

You simply strike chemical facilities, nuclear facilities and critical industry full of toxic materials. Why drop a big-bomb when you can poison the enemy's land for generations? I genuinely think with how rural and sprawled America is; China's response to tactical nukes would simply be striking nuclear facilities with non-nuclear ICBMs or depending on the severity/number of tactical strikes it could just straight up escalate.

The US has this psychotic idea since it got nukes. You stumbled over the most recent incarnation of it. A more retro version was the nuclear beheading strike: Using a small part of the nuclear arsenal to take out the leadership of the target nation to force a surrender before a full scale nuclear exchange. That was the plan against the USSR and currently against Russia(which is one of the reasons why Russia wants any sort of NATO influence gone from Ukraine).

The US always has been batshit insane.

This is not something related to Trump, as the article title suggests. There has been a change in the nuclear doctrine of the US, moving from the "Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD) to this new doctrine that assumes that tactical nuclear weaponry can be used in a much smaller scope and against strategic targets to avoid escalation into full blown nuclear warfare.

Of course this new doctrine is naive. It assumes all parties in a conflict will remain rational and only use nukes in a particular context. However, it's very likely that any escalation of nuclear warfare will move to the scenario described in the MAD doctrine.

The YouTube channel "PeopleMakeGames" did an episode on War Games and talked to some military lobbiest, and there was this one talked about the use of "strategic nukes" with way lower power that the ones used on Japan. Pretty crazy this people still salivating themselves on the idea of nuking something