Wargaming US & China Hypothetical Future Conflict to See if it Goes Nuclear

[NuclearID]

So is it your thought that any conflict with China will turn nuclear?

The likelihood is high. Modern warfare today is like a speedrun with the board already on fire. Reaction times are razor thin, and uncertainty dominates especially for decision makers.

That’s how you end up with blind escalation. No time to think, no room for off ramps.

It won’t go nuclear because someone wants it to only just because no one can stop it in time...

 

[Peter Griffin]

The likelihood is high. Modern warfare today is like a speedrun with the board already on fire. Reaction times are razor thin, and uncertainty dominates especially for decision makers.

That’s how you end up with blind escalation. No time to think, no room for off ramps.

It won’t go nuclear because someone wants it to only just because no one can stop it in time...

Modern warfare is always changing, and when more countries become emboldened to use conventional means to achieve their goals and counter nuclear use, super weapons are only as good as long as your adversaries have no means to counter it/your nation have the means and the will to execute that order. Honestly, I think both the Chinese and the USA have their benefits and disadvantages to both in any potential conflict. I don't think either side would be rushing to end the conflict in a blitzkrieg manner unless they were already at a sure disadvantage. As long as both sides see the situation as tenable, nuclear use will be pushed down the road. I still agree with you that a peer to peer conflict of that size could only be solved through resounding strategic victory, diplomatic concessions on the side of Taiwan and USA, or tit for tat nuclear use.

 

[Publius]

Your idea of win for nuclear war is very different to mine. I don’t base it on structural changes like city count. My idea of the Winner is surviving population count. That is the country that recovers and grows the fastest. Even if the population needs to relocate.

In genetics an event like this is called an evolutionary bottle neck. They suspect approximately 70000 or years ago a super volcano on top of an ice age and the human population dropped to possibly below 10000 world wide maybe less.

What would follow would be punctuated equilibrium where surviving humans would change and become even more different in their isolation.

So man made weapon of nature it’s happened before and will happen again.


I have come to believe that a lot of humans neurotic obsession, at least with some, over cataclysmic events and now nuclear Armageddon is something like a subconscious evolutionary countdown clock.

 

[Torch]

That wasn't what I said. You changed the parameters.

Let's say China uses conventional forces and wipes out the American fleet around Taiwan. Do you think the US would nuke China in response? Why?

Reverse it. The US obliterates China's naval assets around Taiwan. Does China respond by nuking the American fleet?

No and No.

 

[Torch]

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.

Plus, China cannot compete with the US in a nuclear war. Only a fraction of their actively deployed nuclear weapons are on ICBMs that can hit the US. The rest are gravity bombs which they can't deliver to us. They do have their SSBN, but it's too noisy to even get close to the US. Would the US get hit? Yes. Would we be annihilated like a full exchange with Russia? Not a chance. But we could completely wipe out China and still have enough nukes left over to take on Russia. China would lose big time, and they know that.

People here are using “Carrier fleet” (Carrier Battle Group) interchangeably with A “Carrier”

Taking out a carrier or Taking out a carrier, a cruiser, four or more destroyers, two or more (very fuzzy) Submarines, several support vessels, and attached mission Ships and/or Boats is a huge difference. If it was even possible to conventionally destroy all of the in the same battle, it would be a massive difference in responses.

The most likely scenarios are one or two of the Carriers are damaged and withdrawn, probably to Japan initially. Perhaps one sinks route. That along with multiple warships damaged is the far more likely senerio.

To get them ALL in one battle and “destroy” them would require nuclear weapons or steerable after reentry ballistic penetrators ie Rods of God.

This is current completely beyond China’s (or Russia) lift capabilities. It is beyond the present logistics abilities of the USA (it would as of right now in a crash program require dozens of Apollo rocket lifts. Unlikely to the extreme)

So are we talking about damaging a carrier, mauling a battle group or sinking everything? Sinking everything would lead to an extreme conventional response (again probably not possible).

If no nuclear weapons are used, and a single carrier is lost, it is doubtful the US would use non conventional arms in response.

China would have to savage Japan and hit Hawaii (along with all the bases and targets including Guam) before the us would consider “first use” special weapons. I still don’t think it would happen then. Technically the US has never employed “First use” WMD’s.

The Japanese made widespread use of poison gas in China along with targeted Biological attacks including multiple biological attacks against the US that failed largely due to proximity and our secret weapon, penicillin.

Others have posted numerous examples of Atomic or Nuclear armed nations LOSING battles and wars without breaking “first use”

 

[Torch]

In reality, you do not get to pause after an American fleet gets wiped and calmly decide what to do over tea...

Yes you do. Well probably coffee but..

 

[Torch]

That’s how you end up with blind escalation. No time to think, no room for off ramps.

It won’t go nuclear because someone wants it to only just because no one can stop it in time...

That’s just not how it works.

(excluding North Korea)

 

[NuclearID]

Yes you do. Well probably coffee but..

That’s just not how it works.

(excluding North Korea)

Surface level certainty... as if the nuclear escalation process is a polite, linear checklist where cooler heads always prevail.

It completely underestimates the sheer tempo of modern warfare and overestimates how much time leaders actually have to make decisions when comms are jammed, satellites are blinded, or command structures are degraded.

Where as I am pointing out the very real world chaotic acceleration in modern warfare once certain thresholds are crossed... where decisions don’t get made in war rooms, they get made in split second assumptions, often by lower tier commanders or automated systems feeding flawed intel to leaders under duress.

It’s cute how much faith we put in precedent while rewriting the script.

 

[NuclearID]

We’ve really got to move past Cold War era assumptions. That kind of thinking while it made sense in a different time is exactly what will lead us into a nuclear scenario today.

I genuinely hope decision makers at the top are operating with more updated frameworks than what is being discussed here by some… because if they aren’t, we are all in serious trouble if/when the time comes we or China stumble into a hot war with each other.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

Fair to consider Russia as a equally capable peer to the US in terms of waging nuclear war?

Russia has spent a lot of time making sure their rocket tech is up to par. It has been bogged down by corruption, economics, etc. But they are absolutely capable of doing what they need to do. In part because the US has not invested in defending against an incoming strike, settling on the theory that wiping out the attacking country is deterrence enough.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

as if the nuclear escalation process is a polite, linear checklist where cooler heads always prevail.

No one is suggesting that cooler heads will prevail. Only that a hothead won't decide in 18 seconds to go from conventional to nuclear.

It completely underestimates the sheer tempo of modern warfare and overestimates how much time leaders actually have to make decisions when comms are jammed, satellites are blinded, or command structures are degraded.

This moves on from simply a carrier fleet being destroyed. Going back to the original question: yes, there is time between the Fifth Fleet being obliterated in the China Sea and the missile flying.

 

[NuclearID]

No one is suggesting that cooler heads will prevail. Only that a hothead won't decide in 18 seconds to go from conventional to nuclear.


This moves on from simply a carrier fleet being destroyed. Going back to the original question: yes, there is time between the Fifth Fleet being obliterated in the China Sea and the missile flying.

Missing the larger point here? This was never about hotheads deciding in 18 seconds to go nuclear. It’s about how modern warfare and specifically the tempo of high level conflict erodes the space for rational decision making once a major threshold is crossed.

No one’s saying missiles fly the second a carrier group is hit, I certainly have not.

The point is that when an event like that happens especially something as massive as what has been implied here... the escalation curve tightens dramatically. Comms degrade. Systems fail. Political pressure spikes. And leaders ability to process, coordinate, or de escalate shrinks fast.

This isn’t a Cold War escalation ladder anymore. We’re operating in an environment where the space between “incident” and “irreversible action” is blurred, and assuming otherwise is exactly the kind of mindset that leads to unintentional escalation.

So yes, there may technically be time between a fleet going down and missiles flying. But it’s a heck of a lot less time than many people assume and that's the danger I was highlighting.

 

[Publius]

We’ve really got to move past Cold War era assumptions. That kind of thinking while it made sense in a different time is exactly what will lead us into a nuclear scenario today.

I genuinely hope decision makers at the top are operating with more updated frameworks than what is being discussed here by some… because if they aren’t, we are all in serious trouble if/when the time comes we or China stumble into a hot war with each other.

It seems you’re arguing this position based on the presumption that Chinese or Russian leaders are employing a rapidly escalating (checklist or ladder) flow chart.
And consequently because of the speed of communications and intel.
Thereby by default relinquishing control of nukes to something akin to an AI algorithm. Break glass and issue the launch orders if such and such occurs.

I just do not see the classic alpha male leaders that rise to the leadership of large nations relinquishing that kind of control.

Now could the rapidity and amount of data flow create a mistake in a choice of response, yes. That has always been a risk in nuclear escalation as we know.

Your saying that some preordained or automatic escalation model is valid.
But your not explaining why
Maybe you should call it the social media firestorm escalation ladder. I’m not calling it this to ridicule your proposition.
I chose if because it is an easily recognizable rapidly escalating storm we all recognize, that is all.
The speed and largely out of control escalation process your proposing seems to behave very much like a viral social media uproar.

For me what I believe you are missing is the component of a military or cabinet leader or the leader themselves remain in the decision matrix to basically calling an “audible” and pause or slow down the rapidity that the situation is transpiring.

Also, the other input you’re not factoring is this. Military planners have been practicing nuclear launch simulations for 70 years. Always incorporating new technologies new geopolitical factors into this practice. This has not stopped or been frozen in time with Cold War parameters. To assume that these simulations have not kept pace with modern technologies and current day geopolitics. It’s very realistic I think.

Again the amount of data and information flow might very well cause a leader to make the wrong call. It again this has always been a risk.

The situation you seem to be describing is more akin to some AI algorithmic decision making model that will dictate civilian and military decision making choices.

Nuclear war is still a war of
first strike,
counter strike,
and then any subsequent second strike responses.


The reality of survivability has less to do with who strikes first. Rather who has the technological means to deliver the most warheads against an enemy with the most accuracy.

As far as the nuclear triad
US likely leads the race on submarine delivery systems
Bombers as well
Land based ballistic launch, I’m not sure anyone can say with certainty

 

[NuclearID]

It seems you’re arguing this position based on the presumption that Chinese or Russian leaders are employing a rapidly escalating (checklist or ladder) flow chart.
And consequently because of the speed of communications and intel.
Thereby by default relinquishing control of nukes to something akin to an AI algorithm. Break glass and issue the launch orders if such and such occurs.

I just do not see the classic alpha male leaders that rise to the leadership of large nations relinquishing that kind of control.

Now could the rapidity and amount of data flow create a mistake in a choice of response, yes. That has always been a risk in nuclear escalation as we know.

Your saying that some preordained or automatic escalation model is valid.
But your not explaining why
Maybe you should call it the social media firestorm escalation ladder. I’m not calling it this to ridicule your proposition.
I chose if because it is an easily recognizable rapidly escalating storm we all recognize, that is all.
The speed and largely out of control escalation process your proposing seems to behave very much like a viral social media uproar.

For me what I believe you are missing is the component of a military or cabinet leader or the leader themselves remain in the decision matrix to basically calling an “audible” and pause or slow down the rapidity that the situation is transpiring.

Also, the other input you’re not factoring is this. Military planners have been practicing nuclear launch simulations for 70 years. Always incorporating new technologies new geopolitical factors into this practice. This has not stopped or been frozen in time with Cold War parameters. To assume that these simulations have not kept pace with modern technologies and current day geopolitics. It’s very realistic I think.

Again the amount of data and information flow might very well cause a leader to make the wrong call. It again this has always been a risk.

The situation you seem to be describing is more akin to some AI algorithmic decision making model that will dictate civilian and military decision making choices.

Nuclear war is still a war of
first strike,
counter strike,
and then any subsequent second strike responses.


The reality of survivability has less to do with who strikes first. Rather who has the technological means to deliver the most warheads against an enemy with the most accuracy.

As far as the nuclear triad
US likely leads the race on submarine delivery systems
Bombers as well
Land based ballistic launch, I’m not sure anyone can say with certainty

I think you may be reading more into my position than intended?

I’m not arguing that escalation will be dictated by an AI, nor am I suggesting that leadership hands over launch authority to machines.

What I am pointing out is the structural and environmental pressure that modern conflict creates specifically the way data flow, fractured comms, and tempo can compress decision making timelines and reduce off ramp options.

It’s not about removing the human element. It’s about understanding that the environment in which humans make these decisions has changed. Leaders might still be in the room, but the speed and chaos of modern warfare can force their hand faster than traditional models account for.

You mentioned social media firestorms that’s actually a good analogy. Not because it’s mob rule, but because it shows how rapidly events spiral when the environment accelerates beyond institutional control. That’s the concern here.

 

[NuclearID]

It seems you’re arguing this position based on the presumption that Chinese or Russian leaders are employing a rapidly escalating (checklist or ladder) flow chart.
And consequently because of the speed of communications and intel.
Thereby by default relinquishing control of nukes to something akin to an AI algorithm. Break glass and issue the launch orders if such and such occurs.

I just do not see the classic alpha male leaders that rise to the leadership of large nations relinquishing that kind of control.

Now could the rapidity and amount of data flow create a mistake in a choice of response, yes. That has always been a risk in nuclear escalation as we know.

Your saying that some preordained or automatic escalation model is valid.
But your not explaining why
Maybe you should call it the social media firestorm escalation ladder. I’m not calling it this to ridicule your proposition.
I chose if because it is an easily recognizable rapidly escalating storm we all recognize, that is all.
The speed and largely out of control escalation process your proposing seems to behave very much like a viral social media uproar.

For me what I believe you are missing is the component of a military or cabinet leader or the leader themselves remain in the decision matrix to basically calling an “audible” and pause or slow down the rapidity that the situation is transpiring.

Also, the other input you’re not factoring is this. Military planners have been practicing nuclear launch simulations for 70 years. Always incorporating new technologies new geopolitical factors into this practice. This has not stopped or been frozen in time with Cold War parameters. To assume that these simulations have not kept pace with modern technologies and current day geopolitics. It’s very realistic I think.

Again the amount of data and information flow might very well cause a leader to make the wrong call. It again this has always been a risk.

The situation you seem to be describing is more akin to some AI algorithmic decision making model that will dictate civilian and military decision making choices.

Nuclear war is still a war of
first strike,
counter strike,
and then any subsequent second strike responses.


The reality of survivability has less to do with who strikes first. Rather who has the technological means to deliver the most warheads against an enemy with the most accuracy.

As far as the nuclear triad
US likely leads the race on submarine delivery systems
Bombers as well
Land based ballistic launch, I’m not sure anyone can say with certainty

As for survivability, first/second strike logic, and strategic delivery systems agree, those are still the pillars.

But escalation doesn’t wait for clean sequencing. It responds to perception, chaos, and degraded clarity.

And if we assume that 70 years of planning will hold perfectly under next gen war conditions, we may be putting too much faith in doctrine and not enough in the reality of modern entropy.

 

[Torch]

Missing the larger point here? This was never about hotheads deciding in 18 seconds to go nuclear.

You have lots of time, in this scenario not 18 seconds. It is a punitive strike, not 3-5 minute sub launch on Washington. (We REALLY need to move the capital. The ocean didn’t even protect it 200 years ago against the last superpower we fought)

 

[NuclearID]

Why it feel like you are treating this like a turn based strategy game, where everyone gets time to read the rules and respond proportionally.

Are you purposely reducing the very real risk of tempo and uncertainty down to “well this scenario wouldn’t be an 18 second launch,” which is… not the point at all.

I am talking about how fast escalation feels under duress, not the literal flight time of missiles or the length of the checklist.

And “we have lots of time” line? That’s exactly the kind of misplaced confidence that leads to strategic missteps in the modern world.

 

[Publius]

And if we assume that 70 years of planning will hold perfectly under next gen war conditions, we may be putting too much faith in doctrine and not enough in the reality of modern entropy.

That is not what I said. I said all along the technological curve the last 70 yr military planners and others have been incorporating this new tech into the decision making ladder as they have become operational.

While I agree it could escalate rapidly as you’re indicating. This new tech has made information gathering and distribution exponentially faster.
That in itself actually makes for an improvement in decision making.

In late sixties my brother was a staff sergeant in Guam on one of the early mercury orbits he got to make contact with the orbiter as it passed over head. Because we didn’t have instantaneous coms on the other side of the globe.

So the reality is the hyper-connectivity can create a better understanding for Washington for what’s going on.

Yes there is potential for mistakes. But their is just as much opportunity that a leader doesn’t make a bad decision specifically because they don’t know in almost real time what Chinas ballistic forces are doing.

I’m fairly certain that pentagon war planners are specifically not tracking the movements and actions of our adversaries through Cold War escalation doctrine.

To imply they might be is not realistic.
New toys new games to play

 

[Torch]

And “we have lots of time” line? That’s exactly the kind of misplaced confidence that leads to strategic missteps in the modern world.

Not really. It’s the cold dispassionate thinking that will be found in military leaders in regard to WMD’s. They are not sitting there with a big red button, with their panties in a twist, freaking out at 11 when our duty requires us to be at a 4.

There are many people here no doubt that were part of Nuclear Surety Programs. It doesn’t happen at all the way you are insisting. You are wrong and completely in error.

<edited to reduce harshness>

 

[NuclearID]

That is not what I said. I said all along the technological curve the last 70 yr military planners and others have been incorporating this new tech into the decision making ladder as they have become operational.

While I agree it could escalate rapidly as you’re indicating. This new tech has made information gathering and distribution exponentially faster.
That in itself actually makes for an improvement in decision making.

In late sixties my brother was a staff sergeant in Guam on one of the early mercury orbits he got to make contact with the orbiter as it passed over head. Because we didn’t have instantaneous coms on the other side of the globe.

So the reality is the hyper-connectivity can create a better understanding for Washington for what’s going on.

Yes there is potential for mistakes. But their is just as much opportunity that a leader doesn’t make a bad decision specifically because they don’t know in almost real time what Chinas ballistic forces are doing.

I’m fairly certain that pentagon war planners are specifically not tracking the movements and actions of our adversaries through Cold War escalation doctrine.

To imply they might be is not realistic.
New toys new games to play

Too optimistic. Again wishful thinking.

While new technology has certainly accelerated data gathering and distribution, faster information does NOT always equate to better decisions especially under pressure.

In fact, the speed of information flow can overwhelm systems, introduce noise, and lead to snap judgments based on incomplete or misinterpreted data.

History is full of examples where more data didn’t help it just made things move faster in the wrong direction.