Consequences of a Naval Clash

[gazzzwp]

I was wondering what the consequences of a minor naval clash say between the US and China or between the US and Russia? With the US holding clear supremacy in terms of quality and quantity of Naval assets, and assuming that an initial clash therefore came out in favour of the USN, what would Russia or China's likely response be?

There is a fierce nationalistic sentiment rising in most countries at this time the likes of which have never really been seen before, and there is an overwhelming demand within nations, particularly those emerging powers to be taken seriously by those longer established.

So what I can predict is a 'fight back whatever the cost', and if a nation felt that it could not engage in combat on a technological level, would it resort to weapons of mass destruction; i.e launch a ground based nuclear weapon in the vicinity of a carrier group in a desperate attempt to gain parity?

The follow on consequences of this scenario are not difficult to predict.

 

[Todjaeger]

I was wondering what the consequences of a minor naval clash say between the US and China or between the US and Russia? With the US holding clear supremacy in terms of quality and quantity of Naval assets, and assuming that an initial clash therefore came out in favour of the USN, what would Russia or China's likely response be?

There is a fierce nationalistic sentiment rising in most countries at this time the likes of which have never really been seen before, and there is an overwhelming demand within nations, particularly those emerging powers to be taken seriously by those longer established.

So what I can predict is a 'fight back whatever the cost', and if a nation felt that it could not engage in combat on a technological level, would it resort to weapons of mass destruction; i.e launch a ground based nuclear weapon in the vicinity of a carrier group in a desperate attempt to gain parity?

The follow on consequences of this scenario are not difficult to predict.

A few things come immediately to mind from this post. The first is this sounds suspiciously like a vs. thread of US vs. Russia or US vs. China, and that is against the rules, largely because it does draw out the nationalistic responses as opposed to the realistic and considered responses.

Secondly, the OP has managed to go from a "minor naval clash" to nuclear warfare. Given that such a scenario was a potential risk during the height of the Cold War, and tensions are significantly different now from what they were then, perhaps the OP would be kind enough to clarify what they are calling a 'minor naval clash'.

Otherwise the OP probably needs to consider a few realities. The first being that if a nuclear device was used against deployed/engaged US forces and personnel by a state actor, the state launching such a strike would become the target of a US nuclear exchange. With second the being absent a bat-feces crazy leadership, no country wants to be on the receiving end of a US nuclear strike, regardless of how much nationalist fervor is present.

 

[gazzzwp]

A few things come immediately to mind from this post. The first is this sounds suspiciously like a vs. thread of US vs. Russia or US vs. China, and that is against the rules, largely because it does draw out the nationalistic responses as opposed to the realistic and considered responses.

Secondly, the OP has managed to go from a "minor naval clash" to nuclear warfare. Given that such a scenario was a potential risk during the height of the Cold War, and tensions are significantly different now from what they were then, perhaps the OP would be kind enough to clarify what they are calling a 'minor naval clash'.

Otherwise the OP probably needs to consider a few realities. The first being that if a nuclear device was used against deployed/engaged US forces and personnel by a state actor, the state launching such a strike would become the target of a US nuclear exchange. With second the being absent a bat-feces crazy leadership, no country wants to be on the receiving end of a US nuclear strike, regardless of how much nationalist fervor is present.

No nationalistic prejudice intended by the question. Just a debate on the possible outcomes of such a scenario which in my mind could be a very likely one. Again this is nothing to do with crazy leadership, but more to do with 'respond at all cost' to make one side take the other seriously.

A nuclear strike against a naval group as a last resort would not necessarily warrant a full out retaliation because the stakes then become considerably higher. What I'm getting at is can a limited conventional naval exchange actually occur between the super powers in these times given the current national rhetoric and assertiveness?

It's a good question, and best answered without emotion.

 

[oldcoldwarrior]

No nationalistic prejudice intended by the question. Just a debate on the possible outcomes of such a scenario which in my mind could be a very likely one. Again this is nothing to do with crazy leadership, but more to do with 'respond at all cost' to make one side take the other seriously.

A nuclear strike against a naval group as a last resort would not necessarily warrant a full out retaliation because the stakes then become considerably higher. What I'm getting at is can a limited conventional naval exchange actually occur between the super powers in these times given the current national rhetoric and assertiveness?

It's a good question, and best answered without emotion.

Surely this is really down to the cause of the potential hypothetical engagement? Chinese direct agression against an American ally would be extremely provocative and force a scenario to escalate quickly if neither is willing to give ground, and the stakes as we know can get very high very fast.

If it was a long running squabble over a remote rock in the SCS and an accidental shot resulted in a quick fight that could be quickly squashed, then a different scenario. Both sides may agree things were going too far, prudence may win out.

Neither side can be seen to loose face. Preserving that golden rule is one both would have to understand. If one side doesn't see that, escalation will always be inevitable, there are multiple historic scenarios to prove this case from Berlin to Cuba and dozens of minor events over the years.

What we dont want is to anyone with their finger on number of switches or buttons thinking they have to wait for the oethr side to blink first.

 

[Belesari]

I was wondering what the consequences of a minor naval clash say between the US and China or between the US and Russia? With the US holding clear supremacy in terms of quality and quantity of Naval assets, and assuming that an initial clash therefore came out in favour of the USN, what would Russia or China's likely response be?

There is a fierce nationalistic sentiment rising in most countries at this time the likes of which have never really been seen before, and there is an overwhelming demand within nations, particularly those emerging powers to be taken seriously by those longer established.

So what I can predict is a 'fight back whatever the cost', and if a nation felt that it could not engage in combat on a technological level, would it resort to weapons of mass destruction; i.e launch a ground based nuclear weapon in the vicinity of a carrier group in a desperate attempt to gain parity?

The follow on consequences of this scenario are not difficult to predict.

I believe a clash between china and vietnam or the phillippines is a far more likely senario. It does appear however that that would be likely to bring in the US and maybe also Japan and Australia.

Now all bets are off if the US fleet keeps falling.

 

[Todjaeger]

No nationalistic prejudice intended by the question. Just a debate on the possible outcomes of such a scenario which in my mind could be a very likely one. Again this is nothing to do with crazy leadership, but more to do with 'respond at all cost' to make one side take the other seriously.

A nuclear strike against a naval group as a last resort would not necessarily warrant a full out retaliation because the stakes then become considerably higher. What I'm getting at is can a limited conventional naval exchange actually occur between the super powers in these times given the current national rhetoric and assertiveness?

It's a good question, and best answered without emotion.

Reality check time. The scenario as constructed makes no logical sense. Again, absent bat-sh*t crazy leadership, a naval clash would not involve or result in the employment of nuclear weaponry, particularly against the US or US forces.

At this point, it really seems necessary for people to explain just what exactly they mean by a 'minor' naval clash. IMO most people would consider a 'minor' naval clash to range from naval vessels harassing vessels of another navy like some of the Iranian speedboats have sometimes done to US and allied naval vessels in the Persian Gulf, up to shots being fired between vessels using small arms and perhaps even ships cannon.

A 'major' naval clash would IMO be something more serious which results in a significant worsening of relations between nations, up to war. At the lower end of this would be something like the USS Stark incident, where an AShM was fired at a USN frigate by an Iraqi aircraft which caused serious damage to the US vessel and resulted in the death of over 30 crew. At the opposite end of the spectrum would be clashes which result in significant casualties and/or loss of a significant vessel, such events would usually be considered an act of war. An example of this (albeit the aftermath fell just short of the resumption of an active shooting war) would be the sinking of the ROKS Cheonan in March 2010.

The employment of nuclear weapons against the naval assets of another nation would absolutely be considered a warshot. Furthermore, when automatically assuming the dominance of a USN unit over that of a foreign navy, this is not discussing just individual ships, but flotillas, squadrons and fleets like a USN Carrier Battle Group (CBG) correct?

If that is true, then the use of a nuclear device against a CBG would almost certainly lead to the US responding with nuclear weaponry as well. Under the MAD doctrine the US would basically be forced to respond in kind. A failure to respond to such an attack with crippling if not annihilating force would only tempt and invite further nuclear attacks against US military and naval forces. The loss of a CBG would be significant, as a carrier itself has a crew of ~5,000 personnel and costs billions to construct, nevermind the cost of the embarked aircraft and munitions. Adding in the additional vessels which make up a CBG likely adds a further 1,200 - 1,800 personnel with a few billion more to construct the escorting cruisers, destroyers and frigates as well as any stores and replenishment vessels. In terms of power projection a CBG air group has more fighter/strike power than the entire air forces of most nations that are not amongst the Great Powers

So again, unless Russia or China was looking to get into a nuclear war with the US, the employment of a nuclear weapon against a US naval unit would not happen. Further, unless Russia or China was looking to get into a conventional war with the US, any direct clash with the USN would be minor and any damage inflicted on US vessels unlikely to require any important repairs.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Anyone using Nuclear weapons where the action is clear would most likely get a complete nuclear glassing. Say russia or china floated up to a US CBG and started nuking ships, the US would launch a full and comprehensive nuclear strike against all military installations, removing nuclear capability, naval capability, air capability and army capability. You just don't start nuking (major military assets of) the major world superpower and expect anything less. No one is going to use nukes in that fashion against the major powers.

A more realistic situation is a naval blockade, or a small conventional exchange or a major power stepping into a smaller regional conflict and taking some hits.

 

[MrConservative]

There is a fierce nationalistic sentiment rising in most countries at this time the likes of which have never really been seen before, and there is an overwhelming demand within nations, particularly those emerging powers to be taken seriously by those longer established.

Possibly it is a tad unsophisticated to extrapolate strong sentiments of national pride and the modernization of a nations Defence Force capability so as to be comensurate with a nations economic weight WITH a level of Jingoistic military mania that some counties conjured prior to both world wars.

Emerging powers are taken seriously - there are proactive measures for this to be so right across the trade, diplomacy, defence and political spectrum. Those activities and relationships frankly reduce the type of miscalculation scenario you outlined.

 

[Systems Adict]

As many of the more 'sensible-headed' have indicated, the chances of this scenario are few & far between.

Recent examples of 'conflict' on a naval front include the capturing of the RN's RHIB in the gulf & the North / South Korea ship sinking incident.

In these 'real-life' examples, what happened ??

The events took place & political / global discussions / sanctions and condemnation followed.

The media hyped the hole thing up & convinced us that we were going to war, yet here we are. The RN crew was returned & sanctions where placed against North Korea.

We, are no longer little countries on our own, we are the fodder for infinite examination & instantaneous comment by others, across the globe, due to satellite communication & the internet.

Subsequently, with global agreement from organisations like the UN & EU, unilateral action against another country is frowned upon, punishable by removal of voting rites, withdrawal of influential support from other member states & budgets being cut or frozen.

THESE actions limit the majority of the countries across the globe from acting, unless they have the support & agreement from these organisations to do so, meaning that things run slowly, & allow time for thought & examination, BEFORE actions that we might later regret, take place.



SA

 

[gazzzwp]

As many of the more 'sensible-headed' have indicated, the chances of this scenario are few & far between.

Recent examples of 'conflict' on a naval front include the capturing of the RN's RHIB in the gulf & the North / South Korea ship sinking incident.

In these 'real-life' examples, what happened ??

The events took place & political / global discussions / sanctions and condemnation followed.

The media hyped the hole thing up & convinced us that we were going to war, yet here we are. The RN crew was returned & sanctions where placed against North Korea.

We, are no longer little countries on our own, we are the fodder for infinite examination & instantaneous comment by others, across the globe, due to satellite communication & the internet.

Subsequently, with global agreement from organisations like the UN & EU, unilateral action against another country is frowned upon, punishable by removal of voting rites, withdrawal of influential support from other member states & budgets being cut or frozen.

THESE actions limit the majority of the countries across the globe from acting, unless they have the support & agreement from these organisations to do so, meaning that things run slowly, & allow time for thought & examination, BEFORE actions that we might later regret, take place.



SA

Thanks for the response. Some good food for thought in these last few posts. It makes me think that the purpose of a sophisticated navy then is not to cope with other emerging super powers but rather to cope with lesser equipped or what could possibly be termed 'rogue' nations. The engagement between the RN and the Argentines some 30 years ago being a good example. No prejudice intended as I'm sure the Argentines have moved on somewhat from those days.

 

[Belesari]

Thanks for the response. Some good food for thought in these last few posts. It makes me think that the purpose of a sophisticated navy then is not to cope with other emerging super powers but rather to cope with lesser equipped or what could possibly be termed 'rogue' nations. The engagement between the RN and the Argentines some 30 years ago being a good example. No prejudice intended as I'm sure the Argentines have moved on somewhat from those days.

No the purpose of todays rather large and sofisticated navies is to WIN in a naval conflict. You can use it against a smaller less equipmed military but that huge fleet just by virtue of its existence STOPS wars that would take place between to more equal opponents.

In the end a navies purpose is to defend and advance the interest of its people no matter the enemy.

 

[rip]

I was wondering what the consequences of a minor naval clash say between the US and China or between the US and Russia? With the US holding clear supremacy in terms of quality and quantity of Naval assets, and assuming that an initial clash therefore came out in favour of the USN, what would Russia or China's likely response be?

There is a fierce nationalistic sentiment rising in most countries at this time the likes of which have never really been seen before, and there is an overwhelming demand within nations, particularly those emerging powers to be taken seriously by those longer established.

So what I can predict is a 'fight back whatever the cost', and if a nation felt that it could not engage in combat on a technological level, would it resort to weapons of mass destruction; i.e launch a ground based nuclear weapon in the vicinity of a carrier group in a desperate attempt to gain parity?

The follow on consequences of this scenario are not difficult to predict.

Naval incidents have happened and will probably continue to happen but I cannot think of a case where one led to general war. Land indigents are very different for the reason that there is a far less chance of civilians being involved and second most naval incidents do not happen in places that are considered national territory. An incident as defined in this case as an event that results in damage or loss of life which was not planned or sanctioned by ether governing national authority.

As for Russia, though it is rebuilding its fleet, they are not the naval power that they used to be and there is a standing agreement between the US and Russia from the old cold war days to prevent such unintended incidents. An agreement that was a result of several incidents some reported in the press and some not.

China is a different problem all together. First there have been two major incidents between the US and China that have been reported. There could been more that were not reported. They may be not reported because both sides, in such things, do not want to lose control of the situation by going public, I do not know if there have been but my guess is that there have.

One is the famous collision of a Mig-21 and an US navy EP-3E close to Hainan Island.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident"]Hainan Island incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

The second, was the harassment of USNS Impeccable in the South China Sea. The Impeccable is not a naval ship but does belong to the US government. China has conducted provocative acts against other people operating in this area and it is expected that they will continue to do so.


Defense.gov News Article: Chinese Vessels Shadow, Harass Unarmed U.S. Survey Ship


In the first incident, the reckless Mig pilot lost his dame fool life and his aircraft. The US navy lost a great deal of secret information when the EP-3E (an ENINT platform) had to make an emergency landing in China.

Though it is unreasonable to expect that any one incident would start a war, a series of such incidents, if they happen, could lead to tensions that could lead to a foolish war but I hope that all involved are smarter than that.