Americans afraid of China

[Likkmee]

 

[Dayton3]

There are four basic types of the deterrence:
Type I - against direct nuclear attack against our nuclear forces;
Type II - against extremely provocative actions but not attack against the US nuclear forces;
Type III - ability to fight a limited nuclear war;
Type IV - ability to prevent a suicidal attack.

Each of them needs specific tools, weapons and algorithms.

You ignore Type V which was the original purpose (for the U.S.) for nuclear weapons.

the ability to deter a massive conventional attack (by the Soviet and/or Chinese).

 

[Batcat]

It's not a really big problem to seems weak. Even being weak is normal. What is a problem - is being weak and provocative simultaneously.

This world is a lot like a bad neighborhood in Chicago. You don’t want to appear weak with thugs like Putin, Xi Jinping and Rocket Man running loose.

 

[Batcat]

I have no idea why we would be afraid of men with peckers the size of a Vienna Sausage

Imagine all the guns and enormous pick up trucks we could sell the Chinese men if we have the chance.

 

[Mushroom]

Did you read the Russian respond on "Red Storm Rising"? - "The Nuclear Tankmen"?

I have even read "The Texas-Israeli War: 1999".

Nuclear powered Centurions with laser cannons, fun stuff.

And yes, missile silos, got that. Source? What time period? What was the threat? I notices you avoided all of that, strange. Then again, seeing as it is you not strange at all.

 

[Silver Cat]

You ignore Type V which was the original purpose (for the U.S.) for nuclear weapons.

the ability to deter a massive conventional attack (by the Soviet and/or Chinese).

It's Type II - "prevention of extremely provocative actions, which are not attack against American SAC". A conventional attack against our allies is a particular case of "extremely provocative action".

 

[Silver Cat]

I have even read "The Texas-Israeli War: 1999".

Nuclear powered Centurions with laser cannons, fun stuff.

And yes, missile silos, got that. Source? What time period? What was the threat? I notices you avoided all of that, strange. Then again, seeing as it is you not strange at all.

Ok. Let's play a game.
It's year 2025 and China do something extremely provocative, for example, nuking Japans military targets, but they don't attack Americans and do not make preparations to attack the USA. If the USA attack - China will lost 10% of the population. If China attacks - by their retaliation strike they will kill 100% of Americans (I know it's impossible, but it's a game). No one can allow suicide of its own nation. However provocative (exept direct attack against the USA) China is, if they can kill 100% of Americans - the USA won't nuke their cities. So, we came to the understanding the terms "Acceptable Level of Losses" and "The Credible First Strike Capability".

The Credible First Strike capability is the basic condition for Deterrence Type II - to prevent Chinese attack against Japan, the USA must make China believe, that the USA will be able to attack China in the way, that will provide survive of the USA and the Acceptable Level of Losses. The only practical way of it is a combination of:
- preemptive counter-force strike;
- effective ABD;
- Civil Defense, alleviation of the consequences, recuperating.

China may believe that the USA will defend Japan by the cost of ten million lives, but they definitely won't believe that the USA will even try to defend Japan by the cost of two hundred million lives.

 

[Silver Cat]

In other words:
--------
“I think we can agree that the United States, our allies, our partners—we have not faced this type of threat in over 30 years,” he said. “And not just a threat, though. Like I mentioned before, this is the first time ever that we have a three-party nuclear peer dynamic. And we have no history of this. This is epic. And I don’t think we’ve fully dealt with all the ramifications that this is going to have as we march into the future, but we absolutely need to.”

For decades now, Stoss added, the U.S. has been engaged in conflicts in which it could mostly control the level of violence. Now, however, that’s changed.

“Today, both Russia and China have the capability to unilaterally escalate at any level of violence, across any domain, into any geographic location, … and to do so at a time of their choosing,”
-------

STRATCOM General on Facing Nuclear China and Russia: ‘We Have No History of This’ | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Maj. Gen. Ferdinand B. Stoss said the U.S. faces an unprecedented threat environment with two nuclear peers in China and Russia.

www.airforcemag.com

 

[Dayton3]

You do know that if the Chinese nuked Japanese military targets it would kill at least tens of thousands of American citizens.

The U.S. would never let that go unavenged no matter the dangers to the rest of the U.S.

 

[Silver Cat]

You do know that if the Chinese nuked Japanese military targets it would kill at least tens of thousands of American citizens.

The U.S. would never let that go unavenged no matter the dangers to the rest of the U.S.

Nice words, but it's only words. What can you do, to make Chinese decision makers believe it?

 

[flewism]

The only way the US could defeat China is with nuclear war. China would kick our ass in an all-out conventional war. If war did breakout It would take months to produce the products China currently supplies us for our war effort. The US population is full of people that would not support a war effort of that magnitude , and a large segment of the population would undermine it. Twenty first American citizens are easily purchased and the world knows it.

 

[Vrenn]

The only way the US could defeat China is with nuclear war. China would kick our ass in an all-out conventional war. If war did breakout It would take months to produce the products China currently supplies us for our war effort. The US population is full of people that would not support a war effort of that magnitude , and a large segment of the population would undermine it. Twenty first American citizens are easily purchased and the world knows it.

The objective of a war is not to kill the other side. It's to remove the other side's resolve to fight. It 's a forgone conclusion that the entire coast of China would be essentially destroyed very quickly. The US would not have to invade. Not set one foot onto Chinese Territory. I am not saying it can be done without American Lives losts but anytime a war is fought, there is a price to pay by both sides. And it won't be just American lives. It will also be Korean, Japanese, Phillipino, Taiwanese and a few others that would die.

If the Chinese were to attack, the US can do a Military Embargo and get quite a bit of desired results. If that blockade went on for a few months, China would be begging for a resolve. Part of the blockade would be the dissolution of the Chinese Navy and Air Force which can be done. China talks big but they know better.

 

[Mushroom]

It's year 2025 and China do something extremely provocative, for example, nuking Japans military targets

Well, l I pretty much stopped reading right then and there. Literally because anything you said after that was pointless.

In the "Security Treaty between the United States and Japan", the US agreed to provide security and retaliation for Japan against any nuclear attacks. Known as the "Nuclear Umbrella", in essence if you nuke Japan, you nuke the US. And it does not matter what the target is, the US is going to respond with about 3 times as many nukes in return.

And once again, either China caves in, or WWIII has just started, and welcome back to the stone age.

SO literally anything you said after your first line was meaningless. It does not matter if China drops a single nuke on Japan, or 20. Does not matter what the target is. If they do that, the US responds with nukes of their own.

Period.

 

[Mushroom]

Nice words, but it's only words. What can you do, to make Chinese decision makers believe it?

Article V of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan.

MOFA: Japan-U.S. Security Treaty

If you think anybody other than a moron is not aware of that, then you must be one of the few morons that is not aware of this.

 

[Silver Cat]

Article V of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan.

MOFA: Japan-U.S. Security Treaty

If you think anybody other than a moron is not aware of that, then you must be one of the few morons that is not aware of this.

Ok. Let's read Article V:
----------
Each Party recognizes that an armed attack against either Party in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
--------

Can you see here the obligation to commit murder-suicide in the case of Chinese aggression? Yes, an aggression against Japan is an aggression against the USA. But it doesn't mean, that the USA will nuke Chinese cities. May be, they'll decide that the best (or even "only possible") way to secure Japan and the USA is to sign a peace treaty with China and then withdraw American forces from Japan and South Korea?

Anyway, it is just declaration, nothing more. Words are cheap. What _actions_ should be done to convince China (and Japan) of the American decisiveness to defending Japan?

 

[Mushroom]

Can you see here the obligation to commit murder-suicide in the case of Chinese aggression?

China attacks Japan with a nuke, and you then bring up the US "murdering" China?

As I have said many times, you simply do not live in the real world.

 

[Silver Cat]

China attacks Japan with a nuke, and you then bring up the US "murdering" China?

As I have said many times, you simply do not live in the real world.

Actually, the keyword is "suicide". But yes, counter-force strike is more moral, too.
If you had a choice what would you choose (after the Chinese attack of Japan military objects)?

1) immediately attack Chinese cities, kill 500 million of their civilians, then allow their missiles to kill 300 millions of Americans, and then allow the Russians to capture remains of China, Japan and the USA.
2) attack their military (including nuclear) sites, kill, say, 2 millions, don't allow China to kill anybody else, force them to surrender.
3) withdraw survived US forces from Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, sign a new peace treaty with China.

IMHO, first option is immoral and practically incredible (at least Chinese and Japan analysis won't believe it). To keep possibility of the second option in 2025 - we need much more financial and intellectual investments right now.

 

[Mushroom]

3) withdraw survived US forces from Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, sign a new peace treaty with China.

IMHO, first option is immoral and practically incredible (at least Chinese and Japan analysis won't believe it). To keep possibility of the second option in 2025 - we need much more financial and intellectual investments right now.

And once again, you build up this great fantasy in your mind that has nothing to do with reality, and the US bows down to China, simply because you want it to. You really do not live in the real world.

 

[Silver Cat]

And once again, you build up this great fantasy in your mind that has nothing to do with reality, and the US bows down to China, simply because you want it to. You really do not live in the real world.

My own fantasies don't matter. What is really important (in the issue of deterrence, which is entirely psychological phenomenon) is the understanding of the situation by Chinese, Russian and, may be, Japanese decision makers. And they don't believe that any American administration can make steps leading to death of 80% of American population and, then, losing the war. They didn't start nuclear war in Korea, they didn't start nuclear war in Vietnam, they didn't start nuclear war in Afghanistan.

Right now the USA can fight and even win a nuclear war against China (though losses will be terrible but acceptable).
But in the nearest future this possibility will be ended, and in the any future high-stake conflict with China the choice will be simple - murder-suicide or retreat. We know it, China knows it, our potential enemies and allies know it, too. And that means, that in 2025 (or even earlier) Japan or Australia would prefer to declare neutrality and have the US forces interned.

 

[Mushroom]

What is really important (in the issue of deterrence, which is entirely psychological phenomenon) is the understanding of the situation by Chinese

Letting an ally get nuked, then doing nothing is not "deterrence". In fact, it is the exact opposite of deterrence and is known as "capitulation".

You really do not understand how deterrence, MAD, or any of this at all works.