Europe being Finlandized via Germany and France?

[notyoueither]

I just did. The US could possibly get off with zero hits at home vs China, and if provoked might try it.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
After a prolonged period of tension the PRC invades Taiwan.

There were two American carrier groups in the area. They no longer exist as the Chinese saw them as threats even though the American carriers had yet to be committed.

Was the attack on the carriers nuclear or conventional? I don't believe that a successful conventional attack on a significant proportion of our navy is realistic.

You think thoughts of missiles flying would not cross the mind of the resident ofr the White House? Do you think that the lack of ability of the Chinese to hit back would not facor in? In fact, China could indeed be hit bad enough to maybe not retaliate, especially if their two SSBNs were already being tracked. They die first, just after the carriers go down.

So we would retaliate with a full nuclear attack on population centers even though 100 million Americans would die? Or would we retaliate because we think we could prevent those Americans from dying? It is not clear which of these you are asserting.

The point is it is conceivable to 'win' an enchange with China.

100 million Americans dead is a win for team USA?

And you call me crazy. It's more obvious than ever you're stuck in a Cold War mindset.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Was the attack on the carriers nuclear or conventional? I don't believe that a successful conventional attack on a significant proportion of our navy is realistic.

And you're young and chauvanistic.

You have time to learn some humility, and maybe read some history before the lesson gets ground into your dead skull.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And you're young and chauvanistic.

You have time to learn some humility, and maybe read some history before the lesson gets ground into your dead skull.

Do I really have to go and dig up the numbers that show our navy would kick the **** out of the Chinese? This is a stupid tangent.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

You think thoughts of missiles flying would not cross the mind of the resident ofr the White House? Do you think that the lack of ability of the Chinese to hit back would not facor in? In fact, China could indeed be hit bad enough to maybe not retaliate, especially if their two SSBNs were already being tracked. They die first, just after the carriers go down.

So we would retaliate with a full nuclear attack on population centers even though 100 million Americans would die? Or would we retaliate because we think we could prevent those Americans from dying? It is not clear which of these you are asserting.

The point is it is conceivable to 'win' an enchange with China.

100 million Americans dead is a win for team USA?

And you call me crazy. It's more obvious than ever you're stuck in a Cold War mindset.

You're the one arguing that MAD being overcome is essential to a nuclear strike (it's not, the world was close more than once with no hope of zero response).

Considering that China isn't capable of MAD, and if the Russians sat aside, or joined in, the Chinese could be taken out, possibly without ability to retaliate, I would assume the idea would give you a hard-on.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Do I really have to go and dig up the numbers that show our navy would kick the **** out of the Chinese? This is a stupid tangent.

Your Navy, or the parts of it around Taiwan, would be easily swamped by the Peoples Airforce along with AS missiles. Don't be so dense, and French.

[Kuciwalker]

You're the one arguing that MAD being overcome is essential to a nuclear strike.

I'm not.

Considering that China isn't capable of MAD

Again: what is your criterion for destruction? 10% dead? 50% dead? 90%? 99%? 99.9%?

and if the Russians sat aside, or joined in, the Chinese could be taken out, possibly without ability to retaliate, I would assume the idea would give you a hard-on.

Again: in this scenario are you asserting that we might be able to prevent their nukes from hitting us? If so its doubly inadmissible, because I disagree that we could reasonably take out their nuclear arsenal (which includes a fair number of ICBM's) and my requirements stated that 100 million Americans must die.

[notyoueither]

And your scenario is not arguable. It's numbers out of your ass.

What is arguable, is can the USN track two or three SSBNs and sink them after the Chinese fire the first conventional shots? Can stealth bombers hit CinC centres before the Chinese know they are in a nuclear exchange? Can ICBMs then eliminate not only Chinas population centres but hit their hardened silos before any launch is possible?

With China it is conceivable to hit and not be hit. Zero American casulaties other than the people in the USN who get sunk around Taiwan.

This scenario is impossible with Russia. Hit them and you will be hit back. The world may as well come to an end. That is MAD.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Your Navy, or the parts of it around Taiwan, would be easily swamped by the Peoples Airforce along with AS missiles. Don't be so dense, and French.

Assuming we had two carrier groups around Taiwan and the attacks were non-nuclear, we would kick the **** out of them or go down swinging. According to the ROC the PRC would lose nearly 2/3's of it's naval and air forces in an invasion of Taiwan (though it would be ultimately successful) opposed only by the ROC military. Add two US carriers to the mix and it looks a lot worse.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And your scenario is not arguable. It's numbers out of your ass.

Actually the numbers come from the number of ICBM's China has, around 130. I'll be happy to revise the number dead down to, say, 30 million.

What is arguable, is can the USN track two or three SSBNs and sink them after the Chinese fire the first conventional shots? Can stealth bombers hit CinC centres before the Chinese know they are in a nuclear exchange? Can ICBMs then eliminate not only Chinas population centres but hit their hardened silos before any launch is possible?

You are then the one arguing that a cripping first strike is possible. That's a huge assertion.

This scenario is impossible with Russia. Hit them and you will be hit back. The world may as well come to an end. That is MAD.

With France and the UK, too. They've got much better nuclear subs than China.

[notyoueither]

You sink. Blub, blub, blub.

Hundreds of aircraft, and countless AS missiles say you sink when you go into range of land based assets. Blub, blub, blub.

The pronouncements of the ROC are interesting, if not necessarily to be taken as gospel. I'm sure the Poles were really optimistic, on Sept 5th, til about 5 in the afternoon.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You sink. Blub, blub, blub.

Hundreds of aircraft, and countless AS missiles say you sink when you go into range oif land based assets. Blub, blub, blub.

Agreed. As I said, we'd go down swinging.

And why would we launch a nuclear response to a conventional attack? Your scenario only makes sense in the case that it was a nuclear attack.

The pronouncements of the ROC are interesting, if not necessarily to be taken as gospel.

I'd assume them to be pessimistic estimates given that the ROC military's budgetary interest lies in playing up the threat.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Agreed. As I said, we'd go down swinging.

And why would we launch a nuclear response to a conventional attack? Your scenario only makes sense in the case that it was a nuclear attack.

Why threaten to start WWIII over missiles in Cuba when American missiles were in Turkey?

You assume a lot. Maybe you get a calm hand at the button with calm advisors.

Maybe you get Reagan with Haig. Boom!

[Saras]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Why antagonise the country that can match the US for destructive power when they are so close to crossing the aisle and joining Europe, but also still very nervous?

Actually, I don't think Russia wants to "join" Europe. It is "joining" Asia much more.

More on this (i don't agree with everything, but the guy got the basic idea right, and he seems smart (at least he's made a lot of money investing in Russia)).

http://nikitskyfund.com/files/tnb/T&B_Russias_New_Asian_Century.pdf

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Why?

Let's see. Which of these developments lead you to think Russia is "about to cross the aisle and join Europe"? Murdering political dissidents, threatening neighbors, human rights violations, etc.?