Hacker News Reader

Comment by philipkglass | Hacker News Reader

Whether or not China has technology to directly threaten US aircraft carriers or air defenses is pretty inconsequential IMO. Both sides have had thermonuclear weapons and ICBMs for decades. Are US aircraft carriers immune to Chinese anti-ship weapons? Then the US gets the opportunity to spark thermonuclear war if they press that advantage against Chinese forces. Are US aircraft carriers vulnerable to Chinese anti-ship weapons? Then it's the Chinese who can start WW III by sinking them.

The movie Threads is still terrifyingly relevant:

https://archive.org/details/threads_201712

I suppose that with improved military forces China can intervene in weaker states' affairs like other P5 members do. There's always room for another nation to participate in the Syrian civil war.

View on HN

Your thinking is not supported by any historical evidence. The historical evidence demonstrates that countries with comparable conventional military capabilities will absorb fantastic losses to projected (expeditionary) forces and will negotiate peace before using nuclear weapons. For this reason, conventional military advantage is far more important than the balance of nuclear power.

The corollary to this reality, is that pronounced conventional military imbalances increase the probably of nuclear war as either (a) the only available response to perceived aggression by a superior conventional force; or (b) the perceived correct strategic preemptive option in anticipation of (a).

Its been awhile since I was mired in cold war nuclear strategy papers, but I seem to recall conventional military parity as a highly stabilizing factor in global competition and conflict.

I would add that Chinese conventional superiority is as much a threat to India and Asian-pacific countries as to the United States.

Many times on HN I've expressed concern over the new multi-polar world we find ourselves entering. US hegemony had advantages we may wish persisted.

Er, since when has there been a full scale conventional conflict between two nuclear-armed states?

Maybe it's a reference to recent China-India border skirmish?

Full scale isn't part of my comment... your assumption. Anyway, here are historical precedents that illustrate my point. For each conflict ask yourself how it may have been different if the disparity in conventional capabilities had been great. In some cases I don't recall dates, but do recall severity of conflict:

US v. China - by proxy (Korean War) US v. Russia - by proxy (Vietnam War) US v. Russia - by proxy (Afghanistan Conflict) India v. Pakistan India v. China US v. Russia - by proxy (1973 Yom Kippur War Brinksmanship)

You said that "countries with comparable conventional military capabilities will absorb fantastic losses to projected (expeditionary) forces and will negotiate peace before using nuclear weapons"

You said "expeditionary", not "proxy", which is very different.

The Korean war ended in 1953 and the Chinese government did not get nuclear weapons until 1965 and ICBM capability later.

The actual shooting wars between India and Pakistan mostly pre-date both countries achieving nuclear weapons, indicating that MAD generally works.

> The historical evidence demonstrates that countries with comparable conventional military capabilities will absorb fantastic losses to projected (expeditionary) forces and will negotiate peace before using nuclear weapons.

While I agree with the main point, I don't know about the evidence. Two nuclear-armed countries have never directly engaged in conflict, that I can think of. The Cold War was 'cold' precisely for that reason, afaik: Neither side wanted to risk a conflict that could possibly escalate to nuclear war.

I don't view proxy wars any different from direct conflict for several reasons. First, its hardly a secret where support for proxy sources originates. Second, in many of these cases nuclear weapons were seriously considered or even threatened. Third, in many of these cases casualties were heavy for home country forces of one side.

Hmmm ... AFAIK Gen. McArthur did advocate for using nuclear weapons on China during the Korean War (note that China did not have nuclear weapons at that point). And Nixon tried to give the impression he was crazy and might use them in order to pressure the other side to end the Vietnam War; he even flew bombers toward (the USSR, I think); but that gambit failed.

On the other hand, it's easy to imagine that the US and USSR soldiers directly fighting and killing each other could escalate more easily than the US fighting Vietnamese troops or the USSR fighting Afghans.

What historical evidence can you cite? While I generally agree with the idea, I haven't actually seen an extended war between two nuclear powers happen.

The strategic nuclear weapons only apply in extreme situations:

The great bulk of international relations happen without conflict, and they strongly depend on the perceived military power of nations. The United States' overwhelming conventional military power has been a guarantor of peace in the western Pacific for decades. If countries there no longer believe the U.S. can or will protect them, then they may arm themselves, which tends to lead to conflict, or they may side with China.

Regarding U.S.-China conflict, unless survival of either country is at stake then there's reason to believe (and hope) that conflicts won't escalate to strategic nuclear weapons and destroying the world. For example, if mainland China attacks Taiwan, would either side use nuclear weapons? If not, then conventional forces come into play.

I don't mean to downplay the risk. Conflicts escalate very easily and unpredictably; that's why the professionals in diplomacy and military affairs are very careful to avoid it, and are careful to choose options that don't escalate it. It's always the amateurs who want to escalate with an angry response, and as a result get masses of people killed and incur extreme costs - because they were angry.

By that logic, China never would've dared to send a million soldiers to drive UN forces from North Korea during the Korean war.

Nor would Turkey have dared to shoot down one of Russia's warplanes based in Syria for violating its airspace.

> By that logic, China never would've dared to send a million soldiers to drive UN forces from North Korea during the Korean war.

That happened before China had nuclear weapons.

Not only did it happen before nuclear weapons, but China has never been expansionist. The soldiers it sent into Korea were to help the north koreans. For a thousand years or more China has been content to stay within it's borders.

I recently finished Bertil Lintners China's India War which is a counterpoint to Neville Maxwell's India's China's war. It seems the Chinese way is not expansionist by definition but instead declaring countries, land, sea as part of their historical empire and justify a war as a means for re-aquiring them. It doesn't really matter whether it was justified or not because they do everything to integrate the region after the forceful takeover.

> Not only did it happen before nuclear weapons

Both Generals LeMay ( USAF SAC ) and MacArthur advocated widespread nuclear response to the Chinese intervention. They were overruled by President Truman.

> For a thousand years or more China has been content to stay within it's borders

Are the Paracel Islands, Spratly Islands and Formosa within China's borders? To all of which China lays claim.

> China has never been expansionist

Why they've attacked Vietham then?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com