Hacker News Reader

Comment by netflixandkill | Hacker News Reader

The scenario in which both China and the US are trying to minimize escalation to avoid all out nuclear war while still countering some regional moves or proxy wars.

US wargaming had repeatedly found that escalation to nuclear exchanges is all but a given if serious attempts are made by either side to destroy naval and air base capability, and it's safe to assume their PLA counterparts reached similar conclusions.

As an example, in a Chinese move against Taiwan or Japan, anything that crossed into attack range would get destroyed, but there would be no counter-attacks against Chinese facilities and bases. Does that play out in reality? Let's hope we don't find out.

View on HN

>but there would be no counterattack against Chinese facilities and bases.

I think this is the key asymmetry in a US-China war, and whether US aircraft carriers can be sunk or not is irrelevant. At the end of the day, a carrier is a floating air base, and both China and the US need aircraft to provide targeting data for their munitions. In a sense Chinese airstrips are even more vulnerable to missile strikes as they can't move or hide, yet they can't be attacked because that could invite nuclear escalation. If sinking a US aircraft carrier posed the same risk of nuclear escalation would we even be worrying about their vulnerability to missile strikes?

This seems more like a strategic problem than a tactical problem regarding carrier defense. If China is more committed and willing to escalate than the US, then sooner or later there'll be a line where China's willing to cross but the US won't.

In these escalation scenarios either both sides commit to non-escalation or it doesn't matter. I don't know if current US policy had a nuclear retaliation for a strike against a carrier group, but it is such a high probability that any adversary likely considers is as true.

China or whomever attacking a carrier to destroy it with anything other than 1945 style surface warfare tactics leads to nuclear war, even if it's not the final decision point. The response to such an attack leads to nuclear war in enough projections.

I doubt it. Losing a military asset means the US will start throwing civilian assets into the pot and gambling with MAD? The civilian population will revolt when they realize that the Navy wants to double down with NY and SF because they're throwing a tantrum over losing Nimitz.

In the same way, the US should keep strikes on Chinese military facilities on the table. But escalation is much likelier because those facilities are located in civilian areas and near nuclear missile sites. That's a perfect analogue of the strategic asymmetry. China and it's civilian population actually lives in the area. The US is just visiting with military assets, and losing a civilian is a tragedy but losing a member of the military is the job they signed up for.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com