If it actually came down to it, would USA/Russian/China nuke major cities, or is that bluff? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 05, 2024, 09:21:25 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  If it actually came down to it, would USA/Russian/China nuke major cities, or is that bluff? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Well?
#1
USA would nuke major cities of the other two , not just military targets
 
#2
Russia would nuke major cities of the other two , not just military targets
 
#3
China would nuke major cities of the other two , not just military targets
 
#4
None would nuke major cities that devastate much more than military targets
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 34

Calculate results by number of options selected
Author Topic: If it actually came down to it, would USA/Russian/China nuke major cities, or is that bluff?  (Read 1579 times)
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,095
United States


« on: March 22, 2024, 10:27:34 AM »

For deterrence sake, we know why we have the current assumptions and public language.

But if it really came down to major war between any of these 3… would any actually nuke major cities? Or if there’s a military target in/near a major city, would they really use the biggest nukes instead of smaller ones? Would the U.S. nuke Beijing and Moscow with their biggest nukes, just because we are at war? Would Russia or China nuke NYC and Chicago and Los Angeles and Philadelphia with their biggest nukes just because?

Or do we think some of it is bluffing, so it never gets to that point so we never find out? But that they would actually show restraint and not civilization-destroying measures?
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,095
United States


« Reply #1 on: March 23, 2024, 01:08:48 PM »

I question your premise.  When has any nuclear power demonstrated, even rhetorically, a willingness to use nukes against civilians?

The goal of any first strike would be to take out your rival's (1) command and control centers (i.e., so Washington gets hit but not Orlando) and (2) reduce the capability of your rival to retaliate, which means hitting military targets like airfields, missile silos, and navy ports.  Below this first tier are secondary targets like power plants, communications hubs, and other major civilian infrastructure.  Taking out these facilities degrades your rival's military indirectly by disrupting their supply chains, communications, mobilization, etc.

A lot of civilians would certainly be killed in these attacks but that wouldn't be their purpose.  There is no strategic advantage gained from leveling Midtown Manhattan, and brazenly attacking civilians needlessly risks escalating the conflict beyond control.  Attacking cities only makes sense as an end-game maneuver to diminish your rival's long-term ability to rebuild and recover after their military has been destroyed, but at that point your armies have already moved in and taken control for themselves.
This is literally what I'm asking. There just seems to be an assumption amongst the population that an major war between these nuclear powers would be extinction.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.025 seconds with 14 queries.