Would the US's Conventional Superiority provoke a Russian Nuke Response

[publicprotector]

Given Americans conventional (alleged) military superiority actually make the US more vunerable to nuke attack from Russia or possibly even China. As russia does not project its muscle or have the capacity in the way the US with its carrier battle groups would it not be alot easier and alot less effort just to nuke such groups and the country as well.

If this was so what could be done to negate this problem as Russia has a very large nuke capability is there anything that could be done. I think the belief that the russkies would not launch is just wishful thinking. Russia unlike most other nations and certainly of America has invested much on civil defense and although would no doubt suffer from a nuke exchange it would certainly come out the winner if you could call it that.

On the other hand America's military might rests on the power projection of 14 or so carrier battle groups, once they have gone their gone. There is no replacement and it would be years to replace them if ever. But the imbalance exists and whilst Russian nuke forces are improving America's are not. Could the time come here the Russians would see it as an advantage to launch a 1st strike.

 

[Gunny]

Given Americans conventional (alleged) military superiority actually make the US more vunerable to nuke attack from Russia or possibly even China. As russia does not project its muscle or have the capacity in the way the US with its carrier battle groups would it not be alot easier and alot less effort just to nuke such groups and the country as well.

If this was so what could be done to negate this problem as Russia has a very large nuke capability is there anything that could be done. I think the belief that the russkies would not launch is just wishful thinking. Russia unlike most other nations and certainly of America has invested much on civil defense and although would no doubt suffer from a nuke exchange it would certainly come out the winner if you could call it that.

On the other hand America's military might rests on the power projection of 14 or so carrier battle groups, once they have gone their gone. There is no replacement and it would be years to replace them if ever. But the imbalance exists and whilst Russian nuke forces are improving America's are not. Could the time come here the Russians would see it as an advantage to launch a 1st strike.

Conventional superiority will make any nation subject to attack by the inferior that possesses WMDs. They are an equalizer.

 

[Old Rocks]

Neither Russia, China, the US, or Europe would have anything worth fighting for after a full nuclear exchange. I cannot see any of these nations launching a nuclear attack. Russia, given the history of Russia, has every reason to invest in a very strong civil defense. The Viking, Khans, French, German, ect. have invaded some part of Russia.

A small, belligerant nation with an unbalanced leadership might either launch a strike against a stratigec target, or, more likely, give someone like Al Queda, a tactical nuke. More dangerously, they might not directly attack us at all, but put a nuke in orbit designed to create a very strong EMP. That would be more damaging than an attack on a military installation.

 

[Lycurgus]

These scenarios and others are played out, explored and hopefully learned from all the time. To give a good opinion there are simply too many variables, that is why we spend so much playing these things out over and over and over. The "geeks" so to speak play a real role in our military preparedness. They work on these issues constantly.

I think Russia and China have very particular trip points and so long as they are not crossed, then this type of threat from them would be slight. So a conventional war could take place and not trip a nuclear exchange.

We have more to fear from a person, group or nation who has nothing to lose, but can obtain the means to deliver a hard punch.