Deterrence (split from War Games: Russia Takes Ukraine, China Takes Taiwan. US Response?)

[Steve81]

On 12/5/2021 at 12:40 AM, iNow said:

Intelligence suggests Russia is planning to invade Ukraine in January apparently with the intent to take it over. Likewise, China has been stepping up plans to seize Taiwan. Have been talking about it for years, but seem to sense more opportunity in todays global political climate.

Should US respond if/when either of those two things happen? If so, how and for how long? Does your answer change if both events happen at the same time?

Game it out…

FWIW…

US capacity to project power against such opponents on their home turf is rather limited. Moreover, only a madman would suggest a direct conflict between nuclear armed superpowers. Even at the height of the Cuban missile crisis, with all the tension involved, this much was realized.

 

This explains our strategy in Ukraine, and suggests what we should do proactively in Taiwan: make them a nuclear armed (relative for their size) superpower. Can they handle that responsibility? One can never be sure. However, clearly it would be trivial for them to build nuclear weapons from a technical standpoint; they simply choose not to. That suggests the kind of people that can be trusted.

 

It wouldn’t really require that many weapons either. A sufficient number of warheads with the ability (range, non-interceptability) to reach the major population centers of China would be adequate deterrence.

Edited August 22, 2023 by Steve81

[TheVat]

Much as I respect the genie/bottle argument  I still believe that, since nuclear war could end our species and bring a kingdom of cockroaches, the global goal should remain nuclear disarmament.  When nations came to an accord that nerve gas and biological agents should not be used, treaties were made.  There are powerful economic incentives for major powers to not engage in massive wars with each other.  I believe we can eventually get everyone to the table to agree that a nuclear sword of Damocles over the head of every person on the planet is not a viable instrument of foreign policy and that mutual economic destruction (and don't forget cyber war) is adequate to the task of deterring a conventional WW3.  There is also the massive expense of maintaining nuclear arsenals, and thus massive economic benefit of elimination of them.  Adding MORE nukes, and more nations to the nuclear club, strikes me as a terrible idea.

I would think mass shootings have taught us, on a smaller scale, what happens when a crazy person gets their hands on a mass killing device.  We are still here because we've been extremely lucky.

And luck has a way of running out.  My generation grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over our heads.  I think some of us would like to see future generations face at least one less catastrophic scenario.  

[Steve81]

4 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Much as I respect the genie/bottle argument  I still believe that, since nuclear war could end our species and bring a kingdom of cockroaches, the global goal should remain nuclear disarmament.  When nations came to an accord that nerve gas and biological agents should not be used, treaties were made.  There are powerful economic incentives for major powers to not engage in massive wars with each other.  I believe we can eventually get everyone to the table to agree that a nuclear sword of Damocles over the head of every person on the planet is not a viable instrument of foreign policy and that mutual economic destruction (and don't forget cyber war) is adequate to the task of deterring a conventional WW3.  There is also the massive expense of maintaining nuclear arsenals, and thus massive economic benefit of elimination of them.  Adding MORE nukes, and more nations to the nuclear club, strikes me as a terrible idea.

I would think mass shootings have taught us, on a smaller scale, what happens when a crazy person gets their hands on a mass killing device.  We are still here because we've been extremely lucky.

And luck has a way of running out.  My generation grew up with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over our heads.  I think some of us would like to see future generations face at least one less catastrophic scenario.  

I think the biggest argument in favor of your approach is playing out today. 
 

Crazy people don’t typically become heads of state; however, some have observed that Putin has seemingly declined over the years, which may make him less rational. Of course, he could also be playing to the “madman theory.”

[iNow]

15 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

Crazy people don’t typically become heads of state;

This needs rebutting in its own thread 

[Steve81]

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

This needs rebutting in its own thread 

Certainly where leadership is determined by birth it’s possible (North Korea as an example). In a society where leadership is chosen by the people in some manner, it’s less likely.

Edited August 22, 2023 by Steve81

[iNow]

6 hours ago, Steve81 said:

what we should do proactively in Taiwan: make them a nuclear armed (relative for their size) superpower

Unless, of course, pursuing that path causes escalation with existing nuclear powers like China and NK who may actively seek to prevent that outcome from being reached. 

[Steve81]

Just now, iNow said:

Unless, of course, pursuing that path causes escalation with existing nuclear powers like China and NK who may actively seek to prevent that outcome from being reached. 

It would have to be done in secret to avoid another Cuban missile crisis. Basically a glorified magic trick: poof Taiwan has nukes.

[iNow]

Ahh