China - Geostrategic & Geopolitical.

[Vivendi]

One thing that I am puzzling over, is that in many discussions regarding various conflict/war scenarios involving China and the US, nuclear weapons often are not mentioned. I find this a bit strange, since it's not clear to me how a full-scale war can be executed and at the same time both sides are expected to completely avoid at all times any actions that will lead to the use of nuclear weapons. It is often said that "no plan survives contact with the enemy", there is also the issue of "fog of war", and to make matters even more complicated, future wars between peers will involve cyber attacks and AI, and this may lead to the need for very rapid responses, and limit situational awareness and access to reliable intelligence, at multiple levels.

The US of course has a very solid and credible deterrence with their nuclear triad. China is in the process of rapidly expanding their own nuclear capabilities (see e.g., Pentagon warns of China’s progress toward nuclear triad (defensenews.com) ).

Frank Kendall has expressed concerns about the current development:

“No one could rationally desire or plan to initiate a nuclear war, and I’m convinced China does not,” Kendall told listeners in a speech at the Air Force Association’s Air, Space and Cyber conference. “But as a 20-year veteran of the Cold War who saw the world come far too close to nuclear exchanges between the Soviet Union and the United States, I am deeply concerned about the implications of China’s change in policy for nuclear stability and the potential for a catastrophic mistake.”

Air Force secretary: China could make 'catastrophic mistake' with its nukes (taskandpurpose.com)

On the other hand; perhaps the current rapid expansion of China's nuclear capabilities can also reduce the risk of a direct war between the US and China, since the consequences of an escalation to nuclear will be catastrophic to both parties? (assuming rational actors).

 

[John Fedup]

One thing that I am puzzling over, is that in many discussions regarding various conflict/war scenarios involving China and the US, nuclear weapons often are not mentioned. I find this a bit strange, since it's not clear to me how a full-scale war can be executed and at the same time both sides are expected to completely avoid at all times any actions that will lead to the use of nuclear weapons. It is often said that "no plan survives contact with the enemy", there is also the issue of "fog of war", and to make matters even more complicated, future wars between peers will involve cyber attacks and AI, and this may lead to the need for very rapid responses, and limit situational awareness and access to reliable intelligence, at multiple levels.

The US of course has a very solid and credible deterrence with their nuclear triad. China is in the process of rapidly expanding their own nuclear capabilities (see e.g., Pentagon warns of China’s progress toward nuclear triad (defensenews.com) ).

Frank Kendall has expressed concerns about the current development:

Air Force secretary: China could make 'catastrophic mistake' with its nukes (taskandpurpose.com)

On the other hand; perhaps the current rapid expansion of China's nuclear capabilities can also reduce the risk of a direct war between the US and China, since the consequences of an escalation to nuclear will be catastrophic to both parties? (assuming rational actors).

Nuclear by mistake is the most likely consequence but losing badly might be a possible incentive to use nukes. The other possibility is in space to generate an EMP for satellite disruption.

 

[weaponwh]

honestly if US didn't goto war with USSR, its unlikely goto war with china, given china economy is tie to world and US. some tension will always exist. its more about competition in technology and influence. full scale hot war when both have nuke is unthinkable.

 

[John Fedup]

honestly if US didn't goto war with USSR, its unlikely goto war with china, given china economy is tie to world and US. some tension will always exist. its more about competition in technology and influence. full scale hot war when both have nuke is unthinkable.

The US has a significant nuclear advantage over China at present which might last for 5 plus years. Probably doesn’t matter because you never know how Putin could take advantage and that applies to both China and the US.

 

[ngatimozart]

honestly if US didn't goto war with USSR, its unlikely goto war with china, given china economy is tie to world and US. some tension will always exist. its more about competition in technology and influence. full scale hot war when both have nuke is unthinkable.

That's bad and loose logic.

The only reason that the USA and USSR didn't enter into direct conflict was because they both knew and fully understood the full consequences of such a conflict. They knew that there would be no winners, militarily or politically because both nations would be barren radioactive lands glowing in the dark, for centuries. That was the doctrine of MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction, so they negotiated various treaties and protocols to ensure that they didn't reach that point. The CPSU were very pragmatic about it.

The CCP isn't and it either doesn't understand and / or accept the gravity of the situation, and / or refuses to accept the facts of the matter and believes that such concerns don't apply to them. Either way, if this is the case then they have made a serious political and military miscalculation because they haven't grasped the fundamental Realpolitik of the situation. They refuse to consider a Hotline between Beijing and Washington and they refuse to negotiate any nuclear weapons agreements. They don't have anywhere the nuclear weapons capability of either the US or Russia and either nation could turn the PRC into a radioactive wasteland glowing in the dark if it wanted to many times over. The PRC could do it to either nation once, but not to both.

 

[Todjaeger]

honestly if US didn't goto war with USSR, its unlikely goto war with china, given china economy is tie to world and US. some tension will always exist. its more about competition in technology and influence. full scale hot war when both have nuke is unthinkable.

Sadly, you are quite mistaken. The idea that the US and PRC could end up in a hot, shooting war up to and potentially including the use of nuclear and other WMD's is entirely thinkable, and likely even more horrific than most people actually realize.

It is also quite likely that such a conflict would result in, at best, one nation losing, and another losing to an even greater degree, while the rest of the world ends up suffering secondary or tertiary effects of such a conflict.

As @ngatimozart mentioned, during the Cold War neither the US/NATO or the USSR/Warsaw Pact really directly engaged each other in a hot conflict because both sides recognized both MAD and the likelihood that a hot conflict would have a death spiral ended by MAD.

At present, I have grave doubts that the political and military leadership of the PRC has made any similar such realization. If one bothers to look at some of the weapons systems that the PRC has developed or claimed to have developed, one can see a certain lacking in awareness. ASBM's come immediately to mind as an example. Even a tiny miscalculation in their deployment (never mind taking an actual war shot at their presumptive intended targets of a USN CSG) could lead to the launch of nuclear weapons.

 

[Feanor]

Well there are a couple of other important distinctions. The USSR wasn't alone, it had a web of allies and client states. The USSR also had no Taiwan to aspire to reclaim. Realistically the USSR had no reason to go to war. China does.

 

[John Fedup]

WRT to China fully understanding the consequences of a nuclear war, one shouldn’t forget it was Mao who suggested China’s large population would allow China to come out on top. Xi may believe that as well…probably easier for him and his followers retaining control with 500 million fewer citizens.

 

[ngatimozart]

Well there are a couple of other important distinctions. The USSR wasn't alone, it had a web of allies and client states. The USSR also had no Taiwan to aspire to reclaim. Realistically the USSR had no reason to go to war. China does.

What would be the CCP / PRC reason for going to war? Taiwan isn't theirs to claim and the population of Taiwan certainly don't want to be absorbed into the PRC and controlled by the CCP.

Stalin was many things; a tyrant, mass murderer, a Georgian who was probably one of the most fervent Russian nationalists in Russian history, but a fool he wasn't. He had the Warsaw Pact countries, especially Poland and East Germany, as a buffer zone against invasion from the west. Don't forget that in the space of 130 years Napoleon and Hitler both invaded Russia and both got close to Moscow. Napoleon to Boroindino and Hitler to within sight of the Kremlin. Stalin hadn't forgotten the shock of 22/7/1941 and the mental breakdown that it inflicted upon him for three days. He wasn't going to be put in that position again.

Today Putin doesn't have that buffer and he knows it. That's why he's playing games in the Ukraine, Georgia, and with Belarus.

 

[swerve]

Napoleon actually got into Moscow, not just close to it. He & his army took control of it on 14 September 1812 & dithered for a month until leaving on October 19th.

That dithering cost a lot of French lives.

And a lot of (perhaps most) Chinese think Taiwan is theirs. They don't believe in self-determination or the like. They believe in Chinese exceptionalism, & something akin to the old US idea of 'manifest destiny', which they think give them the right to reclaim everything that was ever controlled by China, however loosely. Some of them extend this to former tributary states, such as Ryukyu & Korea, & they've put that into practice in Tibet: for many years it was a self-governing state defended by its own army, but which had a Chinese government representative who was more than an ambassador, but less than a governor - but Mao claimed that made it Chinese territory, & the current leadership agrees..

 

[Feanor]

What would be the CCP / PRC reason for going to war? Taiwan isn't theirs to claim and the population of Taiwan certainly don't want to be absorbed into the PRC and controlled by the CCP.

As swerve already pointed out how an outsider feels about PRC's relationship with Taiwan can differ wildly from the way their own population or leadership feels. As is they definitely claim Taiwan whether it's their's or not, and I suspect they won't ask the opinion of the population.

Stalin was many things; a tyrant, mass murderer, a Georgian who was probably one of the most fervent Russian nationalists in Russian history, but a fool he wasn't. He had the Warsaw Pact countries, especially Poland and East Germany, as a buffer zone against invasion from the west. Don't forget that in the space of 130 years Napoleon and Hitler both invaded Russia and both got close to Moscow. Napoleon to Boroindino and Hitler to within sight of the Kremlin. Stalin hadn't forgotten the shock of 22/7/1941 and the mental breakdown that it inflicted upon him for three days. He wasn't going to be put in that position again.

This is kind of my point. Short of all out nuclear war, the USSR was reasonably safe from foreign invasion and didn't have any strong reason to go to war. I suspect this had as much to do with the stability of the Cold War as MAD.

Today Putin doesn't have that buffer and he knows it. That's why he's playing games in the Ukraine, Georgia, and with Belarus.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. France didn't need Algeria as a buffer but they were very unwilling to let go, and many Frenchmen saw Algeria not as a colony but as an overseas extension of France itself. There are similar but even stronger historic ties between Russia and Ukraine and Belarus, not to mention that you don't have the clean break of a body of water to demarcate territory. This has much to do with the current situation. Putin of course wants a buffer, or I should say Russia's elites do. But you'll notice there are no similar games played vis-a-vis Finland. The relationship is not the same. Georgia is separate can of worms that will take us far off course from the current conversation.

The same I suspect can be said of China's relationship to Taiwan.

To put it simply, I think China is more likely to start an aggressive war against Taiwan because they more or less have to, to reclaim it. I see no evidence of them giving up on the idea, and it's not one of those eventual goals that isn't meant to be aggressively pursued. Quite the opposite, militarily and politically China seems to be taking steps in preparation for such a war. It doesn't guarantee that it will happen, but I'm not sold that MAD would prevent it, and I'm not sold China wouldn't use tactical nukes to fend off the USN long enough to take control of the island, and then try to present the situation as a fait accompli, a new normal to be negotiated around. If anything MAD may work in China's favor, if they manage to keep the USN off their back long enough to take Taiwan.

 

[weaponwh]

At present, I have grave doubts that the political and military leadership of the PRC has made any similar such realization. If one bothers to look at some of the weapons systems that the PRC has developed or claimed to have developed, one can see a certain lacking in awareness. ASBM's come immediately to mind as an example. Even a tiny miscalculation in their deployment (never mind taking an actual war shot at their presumptive intended targets of a USN CSG) could lead to the launch of nuclear weapons.

not sure about that, consider china is still doing its minimum deterrent, and has far fewer nuclear war head compare to US. There is always their doctrine of Non-first use as well. furthermore, i would think US would know the trajectory of ASBM targeting its ship vs US mainland, which likely a nuke. i doubt US command will launch nuke at the first sight of ASBM, give china can't destroy all US nuke with 1st strike. The only thing that could go nuke is tactical nuke from either side when war goes bad, and that can only happen during taiwan scenario, which china may/may not invade it in the next 5-10 years. They have alot to lose, might just option out total invasion and try to use their softpower along with coercion/intimidation. Currently 45% of taiwan trade is with china, this number will only raise in the future. Also relation might go back normal if KMT got in charge again.
given the severity of the consequence not just world economy, but nuke, both gonna given some serious thought. Xi is not Kim, and even kim is not sucide enough to lunch nuke, its there as deterrents. its not zero % chance, but its small chance.

 

[weaponwh]

That's bad and loose logic.

The only reason that the USA and USSR didn't enter into direct conflict was because they both knew and fully understood the full consequences of such a conflict. They knew that there would be no winners, militarily or politically because both nations would be barren radioactive lands glowing in the dark, for centuries. That was the doctrine of MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction, so they negotiated various treaties and protocols to ensure that they didn't reach that point. The CPSU were very pragmatic about it.

The CCP isn't and it either doesn't understand and / or accept the gravity of the situation, and / or refuses to accept the facts of the matter and believes that such concerns don't apply to them. Either way, if this is the case then they have made a serious political and military miscalculation because they haven't grasped the fundamental Realpolitik of the situation. They refuse to consider a Hotline between Beijing and Washington and they refuse to negotiate any nuclear weapons agreements. They don't have anywhere the nuclear weapons capability of either the US or Russia and either nation could turn the PRC into a radioactive wasteland glowing in the dark if it wanted to many times over. The PRC could do it to either nation once, but not to both.

i'm sure CCP understand the situation if going nuke, the reason they have minimum deterrent is precisely they think only ppl mad enough to use nuke. otherwise they would spend large sum to build up their stockpile over the decades.
USSR/USA negotiate the treaty because both had tens thousands warhead, i'm not sure what nuclear weapon agreement achieve for china/US, consider china have far few number of nukes. would that agreement entitle both have same number of nuke? that would be bad deal for US.

 

[Todjaeger]

not sure about that, consider china is still doing its minimum deterrent, and has far fewer nuclear war head compare to US. There is always their doctrine of Non-first use as well. furthermore, i would think US would know the trajectory of ASBM targeting its ship vs US mainland, which likely a nuke. i doubt US command will launch nuke at the first sight of ASBM, give china can't destroy all US nuke with 1st strike. The only thing that could go nuke is tactical nuke from either side when war goes bad, and that can only happen during taiwan scenario, which china may/may not invade it in the next 5-10 years. They have alot to lose, might just option out total invasion and try to use their softpower along with coercion/intimidation. Currently 45% of taiwan trade is with china, this number will only raise in the future. Also relation might go back normal if KMT got in charge again.
given the severity of the consequence not just world economy, but nuke, both gonna given some serious thought. Xi is not Kim, and even kim is not sucide enough to lunch nuke, its there as deterrents. its not zero % chance, but its small chance.

And the above includes a number of assumptions. Assumptions of significant magnitude for me to have a hard time taking your response seriously, and also calling into question whether further discussion with you is of any value.

A question for the forum membership at large. Does it sound reasonable to assume that the US would, on detecting a ballistic missile launch, wait until after the ballistic missile impacted and/or detonated, to see if any of the array of sensors which monitor for nuclear detonations detected a nuclear explosion before launching a nuclear counterstrike?

IMO it could most kindly be considered "wishful thinking" if one were chose to believe that US leaders (governmental, military and naval) have not considered the possibility that ballistic missiles launched at US forces from long range could be carrying nuclear warheads, and this would include ASBM's which are supposed to disable/destroy a USN CVN and potentially other vessels in the CSG. Less kindly, such thinking might be considered delusional since armed forces have to consider what a "worst case scenario" might be since there are times when armed forces do indeed have to respond to those worst cases.

 

[ngatimozart]

i'm sure CCP understand the situation if going nuke, the reason they have minimum deterrent is precisely they think only ppl mad enough to use nuke. otherwise they would spend large sum to build up their stockpile over the decades.
USSR/USA negotiate the treaty because both had tens thousands warhead, i'm not sure what nuclear weapon agreement achieve for china/US, consider china have far few number of nukes. would that agreement entitle both have same number of nuke? that would be bad deal for US.

Again your logic is somewhat lacking. The PRC is in the process of rapidly increasing its nuclear arsenal to possibly 1,000 warheads by the end of this decade. If the PRC was only fielding nuclear weapons as a deterrent, then its current arsenal is more than adequate because its probably as large as, if not larger than the French arsenal and definitely larger than the British arsenal.

China's nuclear arsenal to sharply increase, US predicts amid fresh concern over potential Taiwan takeover

"Over the next decade, the PRC aims to modernize, diversify, and expand its nuclear forces."

www.newshub.co.nz

I have some difficulty believing the PRC claim that they will not be the first to use nuclear weapons. They have already shown that they do not keep their word, nor keep international agreements that they have freely agreed to, signed, and ratified. That creates doubt in the validity of any other claims that they make.

 

[Ananda]

I'm not always agree with DW, but one thing I agree with one of their reporter, the compromised on Politics will be much harder then in Economics.

Perhaps this meeting can be more defined to how to make a good cold war, not turn in to hot ones.

 

[SolarWind]

I guess there may be room to work with China, especially with respect to Iran, given they lay off of Taiwan. They may still want their foreign investment more than a shooting war.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

I guess there may be room to work with China, especially with respect to Iran, given they lay off of Taiwan. They may still want their foreign investment more than a shooting war.

Taiwan is non-negotiable as far as Washington is concerned, at least with respect to the CCP using force to take it.

If Beijing is willing to sit down with the Taiwanese government and negotiate unification peacefully, the US will not oppose that. However, there is nothing that the CCP will realistically offer to get the US to say it will not assist Taiwan if the PLA attacks. It would signal the US was a useless ally, cause US foreign influence to take a nosedive and probably cause the collapse of NATO, because it would only help out where the aggressor was a minor power.

As for foreign investment, what point are you trying to make? That China could bribe the US with foreign investment? Given the size of the US economy that's not realistic. China does not have tens of trillions of dollars sloshing around with nowhere to go, and even if it did the US would not accept the sort of interest rates, technology access or sureties that China demands.

 

[SolarWind]

As for foreign investment, what point are you trying to make? That China could bribe the US with foreign investment? Given the size of the US economy that's not realistic. China does not have tens of trillions of dollars sloshing around with nowhere to go, and even if it did the US would not accept the sort of interest rates, technology access or sureties that China demands.

A sizeable investment into China's electronic chip manufacturing may be happening, but would definitely be held back if China's military engaged allied forces.

WSJ News Exclusive | U.S. Companies Aid China’s Bid for Chip Dominance Despite Security Concerns

U.S. companies and their China affiliates are ramping up investment in Chinese semiconductor companies, aiding Beijing’s bid for chip-sector dominance and complicating Washington’s efforts to preserve America’s lead.

www.wsj.com

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

A sizeable investment into China's electronic chip manufacturing may be happening, but would definitely be held back if China's military engaged allied forces.

That's private investment. If the CCP confiscates overseas investment during a war with the US, that's tough bananas for the companies that got involved. Washington is under no obligation to follow a foreign policy that benefits specific companies, nor is there any benefit to sacrificing Taiwan just to protect investment in China. Plus if American investments in China got confiscated, you can bet China wouldn't be allowed to cash in its US T-bonds.

Or to put it another way, if Washington's top concern was the security of overseas investments it would not be following its current foreign policy.