If one side’s C3I (command, control, communications, and intelligence) starts to collapse, if satellites go dark, or if leadership thinks the next strike will target the homeland... yes, nukes become a very real world option. It’s not about revenge. It’s about denying the enemy escalation dominance.
This should only be a concern once they effectively display their ability to diminish our naval capabilities. Even a diminished USN would be a sturdy barrier for any potential Chinese invasion force. If they had those means, then yes, if they can frame the USA as an existential threat to China's sovereignty. If we are looking at it purely from a tactical point of view, it is much easier for the USA to prepare precise and calculated landings at certain points on China's coast line in a potential conflict stemming from a Taiwanese invasion. So to them it might be of less concern to hone an invading force for mainland USA, until the bulk of US naval projection is destroyed in the Pacific. Personally I don't believe the Chinese will go for the Philippines or the Spratly's until USN has been majorly weakened. The direction and kind of naval warfare would vary tremendously if it was limited to the Taiwanese strait/East China sea compared to being extended to the South China Sea and southern adversaries. So IMHO China will blockade Taiwan for about half a year, doing whatever they can in that time to dissuade the USA to help defend Taiwan militarily. If they can't keep the US out of it, I think that strikes will be extremely limited coming from the Chinese regarding US bases in Japan, Philippines, etc. The Chinese will do everything in their power to keep the Indo-pacific from uniting against them. A key actor to keep an eye on and potential security agreements will be Singapore how I see it.
Well for starters, we aren't claiming that Cuba is a part of our country (I know I know, Incoming whataboutism about Trump talking about Panama) Everyone I knew didn't have an issue with Putins toy submarine getting repairs in Cuba, and were actually happy to see the international rule navigation being respected by a country that so often disregards any international maritime zones. I don't think the vast majority of Americans see the Chinese as 'the enemy'. We see similarities in China's behavior and how Russia behaved in regards to Ukraine, and I'd say the vast majority of Americans won't say they think Taiwan should be a part of China. They also aren't hawking to get over there and fight on Taiwan's behalf. It's less of a red scare society we live in now and more of a 'yeah Taiwan pretty much foisted its artificial industry on USA companies early on right after the ceasefire was signed with the CCP, and now we are stuck defending them until we detach them from our chip process.' Even if people don't know that for a fact, they usually share that general sentiment with most foreign policy topics. Begrudging acceptance of the shit sandwich that our predecessors have cooked up, or in some cases willingness to spite it all and P E A C E O U T and go roast burgers over all the countries burning below us lol. A slightly exaggerated way of putting it but fitting nonetheless
Going from losing a carrier group from a conventional attack to a nuclear exchange is not a likely scenario.
Exactly. And history certainly is not on the side of a nuclear exchange in the above scenario.
Historical precedent does not account for 21st century escalation ladders when strategic ambiguity, instant minute delivery systems, AI assisted targeting, start mixing with real-time information warfare.
History might not favor escalation, but the speed of modern warfare does not favor pause or rational reflection either. Which is the point.
History also thought World War I would be over by Christmas. It’s cute how much faith we put in precedent while rewriting the script.
The only way to fight a war with China is to ensure it never starts. Being strong militarily and building Asian partnerships.
Cold War era nuclear deterrence relied on time. Time to think, time to verify, time to breathe. Missile subs had to surface to communicate. Satellite intel took days to process. Leaders had hours, sometimes days, to respond.
The assumption that leaders will always act rationally under these conditions is fantasy. No human can be fully rational while racing a 10 minute countdown, drowning in conflicting data, unsure if this is the real thing or just a false alarm and more.
Well the speed of escalation today applies to any flair up. So in that respect and jousting match in the SCS with the PLN would be dicey.Historical precedent does not account for 21st century escalation ladders when strategic ambiguity, instant minute delivery systems, AI assisted targeting, start mixing with real-time information warfare.
If one side’s C3I (command, control, communications, and intelligence) starts to collapse, if satellites go dark, or if leadership thinks the next strike will target the homeland... yes, nukes become a very real world option. It’s about denying the enemy escalation dominance or US loses big in Taiwan.
Yes very much with you here.
I agree. Nowhere near it. But when it does come time and I believe it will given current direction once things turn hot regardless of why only a matter time before nuclear comes into play. Particularly if it's a naval battle for dominance in Pacific.
That wasn't what I said. You changed the parameters.
You’re describing war as if it’s turn based... It’s not.
The moment one side loses critical ISR, satellite coverage, or command confidence, the decision makers aren’t asking “should we retaliate?” they’re asking “has the retaliation already started?" BY THE TIME our fleet is wiped out those IRS & C3I will have been targeted by then.
But neither are movements done in a berserker fashion. If an American fleet is sunk, the American reaction is not going to be knee-jerk. And certainly a nuclear response isn't going to be decided by a battlefield commander.
Respectfully your incorrectly reframing the situation as if Cold War era escalation flowcharts still apply in a world shaped by instant ISR loss, cyber disruption, and hypersonic first strike capabilities. That model you keep trying to drag out is outdated. Horribly.
I agree, with one caveat. If the war began conventionally with the US actively defending Taiwan, and China destroyed a carrier, that's grounds for a strategic response. Would the US actually do it? Maybe not, but they would be more likely to use nukes on China if they bloodied our nose than if it was just Taiwan getting hit.
The idea that presidents, admirals, or generals will calmly “review options” in a live scenario where command links are severed or early warning data is partial is a lethal fantasy.
I agree in the final result but the destruction all around would be horrendous.
