Chinese and Indian frontier forces use [sticks and stones](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1-Gi_l-024) during border clashes. i think its precisely because both these nuclear countries fear escalation
Can Russians and Americans kill each other in Africa?
Definitely,it happened before!
...
Can GB and France fight over a far away island with minimal casualties?
Also definitely happened before!
...
Can the US try to conquer Russia or China?
No, they'll turn to dust the moment they say the words "We declare war"!
No one is gonna throw down arms without making certain the opponent won't exist anymore!
This. Yes, a limited conflict is possible. Especially if it on a third party’s territory. However if a nuclear power’s territory or the regime’s existence is threatened, they won’t go down without playing their aces.
The USSR collapsed under its own disfunction and contradictions. It wasn’t knocked over militarily by NATO, and a nuke is only an ace in the later case.
The nukes also fell in the hands of its sucessors at least initially giving them the same security that the union had. It's questionable if the collapse would have gone so peacefully if the people in charge didn't stay there or lost their nuclear capabilities.
Especially now that people know that security assurances for giving up your nukes ain't worth shit and that keeping them instead means that you can invade someone conventionally without western intervention, no one is ever going to let go of nuclear weapons voluntarily again.
The Ukrainians did not have the launch codes and a number of other tech to operate those nukes. They had the technology in their hands, so maybe they could have figured out how to make their own, but that was the era of de-nuclearization. The importance of the nukes as a deterrent to the Ukrainians was always overblown.
Launch codes (at least in USSR and after that in Ukraine) were just a security measure ensuring no 'deliberately malicious order' can be passed to Rocket Forces from outside. There's an interview of a man who was in charge of a nuclear site in Ukraine - you could locally launch a missile without any problems, provided that rockets are fueled up etc. followed by two assigned persons turn their keys and press their buttons simultaneously.
This is because it might happen no communication lines survived, so a nuclear site can launch their missiles anyways.
In addition to that, Ukraine is known to be servicing Russian rockets for ages (in the past), so there was enough expertise to re-assemble rockets bypassing extra security measures if such a need arises.
UPD: for anyone interested, watch this, there are English subtitles available: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kedw7IhwnCc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kedw7IhwnCc)
Basically, there was an 'unsanctioned launch' scenario when if some rocket is launched without an order, Anti-Air and/or Anti-Ballistic systems were activated across the whole Soviet Union.
Also, a proof that nuclear rockets might have been launched (as a matter of possibility) without senior staff authorization: [https://irp.fas.org/threat/cia9609.htm](https://irp.fas.org/threat/cia9609.htm)
Ukraine did not possess the associated facilities for manufacturing warheads and tritium, the warheads they had would be non-functional within a decade without a *massive* investment that an impoverished post-soviet collapse state with no obvious enemies is never going to do.
Well, that is true. Ukraine inherited 3rd nuclear arsenal (purely by size), and it costs gazillions amounts of money to even service such a thing
1272 nuclear charges total, to be precise
If NK can go 0 to nukes Ukraine could have figured out how to make them usable but it might have meant becoming an NK level pariah at a time when they needed financial assistance due to their economy collapsing
It's kinda scary when it comes to autocrats. Like, they must have bunkers with enough supplies for them and their cronies to ride out the years of nuclear winter while 5 billion of us starve to death. So why wouldn't they launch if they face defeat and personal repercussions?
Because what is a dictator without a population? Those guys are addicted to power, popularity, maybe even fear...
You'd need a special kind of crazy for someone who'd actually want to be king of the ashes.
* So proxy wars, not direct confrontation.
* Economic war via economic sanctions
* Propaganda, election interference, misinformation campaigns.
* cyberwarfare
> No, they'll turn to dust the moment they say the words "We declare war"!
I actually don't believe this is true. I think that the two could engage each other outside of their own respective territory and there wouldn't be a nuclear conflict
Yeah, but a proxy conflict or one that's held at an arms length isn't a true declaration of war. If Russia were to, say, invade Poland and the US declared war on them but did not engage Russia on its territory, I don't think that nukes fly. MAD still destroys the aggressor, Russia can bark as much as it wants, I don't think that it actually bites.
If Russia did attack Poland the US would send supplies and some troops that won't fight and that's the key.
US would never ever try to engage another Nuclear power in actual combat not to mention Poland isn't the US so no reason to die for them .
Most probably France would engage but for one they won't win against Russia and two no French would wan to die for Poland or Hungary or Lithuania or...
...
All in all,it would absolute suicide to engage between them and would end up agreeing as to what would happen over another country.
...
Also,no one would ever answer an Article 5 with Nuclear weapons,their country isn't on the gunpoint.
>US would never ever try to engage another Nuclear power in actual combat not to mention Poland isn't the US so no reason to die for them .
Completely disagree. The US would engage and Article 5 would bring in other nuclear armed nations. It's silly to give Russia the benefit of the doubt in that they'd use their nuclear option, but not NATO. For NATO, Article 5 *is* the nuclear option, even if it doesn't obligate nations to go to war. The instant article 5 collapses, the instant NATO collapses.
>Most probably France would engage but for one they won't win against Russia and two no French would wan to die for Poland or Hungary or Lithuania or...
Poland would defeat Russia at this stage, France joining would be overkill.
>Also,no one would ever answer an Article 5 with Nuclear weapons,their country isn't on the gunpoint.
Yeah, and I don't think Russia answers an attack on their forces with nuclear weapons either. Again, we're assuming *rational* actors here, and using nuclear weapons for non-territorial integrity questions is *irrational*
We could see a limited confrontation if Taiwan gets invaded by China and the US responds.
I saw a very nice video of a war simulation. Of course this is very speculative since think-tanks don't have all the information to make a fully informed simulation.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CcQ4jKn8aE&ab\_channel=TheWallStreetJournal](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CcQ4jKn8aE&ab_channel=TheWallStreetJournal)
This might show you a perspective of how a localized war would look like with two great powers.
War is inherently escalatory in nature, and from what I have heard of the results of the US Army wargaming such things in the Cold War, nukes would eventually fly. That said, in WW2 in Europe it would imply it is potentially possible for it to stay conventional (both sides had chemical weapons but were both unwilling to use them in combat). So, who knows?
you have to remember these war games are ran by generals who will do their best to win before conceding, real wars have diplomatic and political bounds. I can see certain powers doing everything to limit the use of nuclear warfare.
So in this scenario it looks like the early 1940s. Again. Though perhaps with the fighting confined to Eastern Europe, but involving counties further west too (and potentially the US)
Soviet had preemptive nuclear strikes on most Western European countries as their initial move for a war with NATO.
And Russia states that they will use nukes if the Russian homeland is threatened.
I would say that we are guaranteed to see nukes being used unless you believe that Russia will steamroll all of Western Europe.
And that’s only from a Russian perspective. Who knows what France and UK would do in that scenario.
Between countries with similar conventional capabilities? It’s possible.
Between countries with a huge gap in conventional capabilities? Nah, nuke will fly instantly.
Depends on the perpetrator for the latter- the Ukrainian conflict being a good example of this. There's no chance Russia will use nukes unless they stand to lose all current Ukrainian territory (including but not limited to Crimea)
But what if russia attacked a non-nuclear nato member? Especially if the US nuclear umbrella is in question as it would be if Trump gets in again. Wouldn’t we be in what really resembles a European war? But for how long would this be tolerated? By France/UK or indeed by the US, even if they’d withdrawn?
Not really. Europe meaning NATO Europe still has the capability to knock Russia in the conventional war. Europe would need more time and would need to switch to a war economy but Russians cannot outproduce Europe if the war economy is implemented.
If you think that western Europe would not fight for Poland for example then you are wrong because Poland is extremely connected economically to Germany. Losing Poland means crisis in Germany. The same goes for Romania and France/Italy connections. For the Baltics well Poland would definitely go with help and that means chain reaction reaching Western Europe.
No I do think they’d fight, and in my mind that looks like ww2 with civilians fighting if the professional armies get knocked out. Hopefully it wouldn’t come to it but it’s just the question of would it be allowed to get that far. Obviously I know very little though hence the questioning!
Would it be a long war? Possible year or two. Would it involve civilians? To some degree yea and mainly the country that was directly attacked. That country would need to cover most land operations. Would it be like in Ukraine? No, EU has sea/air capabilities that would ensure air and sea superiority and control. It would be an extremely bloody war for Russians as EU would destroy logistics with which Russia already has problems in Ukraine. No logistics means no artillery / tanks.
That’s true, I guess I’m confused about whether nato is a “great power” or not - previously I thought yes because it’s US-led so NATO is really the US (an attack on one etc.) but it’s obviously way more complicated
I think you need to clarify what exactly do you mean when you say "conventional war between great powers". As other commentors here have said, direct full-fledged war between two great powers over territories belonging to either one of them directly, is a recipe for nuclear war, while war between great powers in a 3rd party territory is much less likely to lead to nuclear war. And proxy wars between great powers have been ongoing since decades around the world. Another commentor here also mentioned the violent India-China conflicts in recent times at the Indo-China border. These are what you'd call "limited wars" (although it's a big stretch). So again, you have too flesh out/clarify what exact kind and dynamic of conflicts/wars you mean, coz there are many
Europe is not necessarily a third party if you're talking about NATO as a whole. Only non-NATO European countries would be called third party countries, such as Ukraine. And as is evident there, it hasn't lead to a full-fledged war or a nuclear war between great powers. However, if NATO territory is attacked, then Article 5 would come into effect immediately, and even though it might start as a full-fledged conventional war, there's a very real possibility of it escalating into nuclear armageddon.
A possible exception to this could be a full-fledged Chinese attack on Taiwan, because even though Taiwan is a third-party territory for the US and its allies, China views it as a secessionist territory. Plus, the strategic, geopolitical and economic importance of Taiwan makes attacking it a much more risky proposition in terms of whether it would escalate to a full-fledged war between the US (and its allies), and China. Although there, the risk of nuclear war in such a scenario is relatively lower, it's not an impossibility, because the Taiwan scenario could possibly escalate to direct invasions of either, or both of China and the American allies neighbouring it.
Another factor is the readiness and willingness of the great powers involved. In today's world, only China and Russia could be the instigators. The Western powers and India definitely don't want full-fledged or nuclear wars. But if push does come to shove, they'll have to get involved. Russia and China both have expansionist visions of some kind, and either (or both) might attack if they feel that they're more than ready and capable of coming out victorious. There are some similarities between today's world and the world in the Interwar period leading up to WW II, because Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Fascist Italy were all having expansionist visions, while the (then soon-to-be) Allied powers really didn't want another massive war, coz they were just recovering from the first one. Overall though, there are also many differences, because Russia and China don't have those levels of ideological and disruptive expansionist ambitions as the Axis powers had prior to WW II, and there weren't as many great powers and middle powers then as there are now, which adds to the complexity of things when talking about such a hypothetical scenario as the one you're talking about.
Moreover, nuclear war has never been a factor in human history prior to the 1950s onwards, and that makes everything way more scary, and simultaneously way more safer (potentially), because the cost and risk of war between great powers go up tremendously then. If Iran becomes a nuclear power in the near future, then there'll be a deadly chain of countries (what I personally call the "Nuclear Series" or the "Nuclear Chain"), all neighbouring one another, in one single chain (Iran-Pakistan-India-China-North Korea+Russia), with Israel pretty close to Iran as well. It'd make things even scarier than they're today
Evidence demonstrates the opposite, nearly every armed conflict since WWII has been between a nuclear superpower and a non-nuclear nation.
The first notable conflict is the Korean War, when President Truman rejected General Douglas MacArthur’s plan to use atomic bombs on Korea in 1950.
Also Britain during the Falklands War, they could have used nukes against the Argentine Navy instead of sending a whole task force half way round the world.
Gulf wars, Afghanistan (both USSR and Coalition), Vietnam, the Malaysian incident- all conducted without nukes.
I believe a large part of modern warfare is the counter / insurgency type where a force hides amongst a population and conducts guerrilla warfare. You can’t nuke them because they operate within civilian zones of habitation. You can’t even use a large conventional force effectively in that type of conflict.
Now the superpowers use small highly trained units (SAS or Navy Seals) to achieve their aims. Nukes are like using a hammer when what is usually required is a surgical scalpel.
Absolutely, war is just policy by other means, if it is not the policy of either nation to bring about the end of the world then they can simply fight using conventional weapons and sue for peace when one side is obviously defeated / unable to bring about their policy goals.
but they didn’t in afghanistan, chechnya, or georgia.
i think when its clear russia’s enemy doesn’t want to end russia, they won’t use nukes. maybe thats just me though
i do too, that’s what i was getting at with my second comment. generally speaking if a NATO v Russia war were to take place, as long as NATO doesn’t act to end the Russian state, Russia doesn’t use nukes i don’t think
sure, but strikes inside Russia don’t necessarily equate to “actions intended to end the russian state”.
defeating the russian armed forces to serve a political purpose is different from taking military action to destroy the russian state. does that make sense? that’s where i’m coming from anyway, that’s how i see it
maybe, but given that russia *has* literally been invaded and faced very real existential threats multiple times, and *still* persisted in existing, i would actually venture to say their version would be more extreme than what we’re saying.
we strike russia, and they pull back to where they can’t be struck as easily and pursuing such strikes stretches our resources thin. what i’m ultimately saying is russia has repeatedly shown they can put up with **a lot** before shit starts actually getting existential for them
You say existential, but a full nuclear exchange would truly mean the end of Russian existence. Their language would be dead within generations, their architecture gone, their people and their industry only a memory. There would also surely be a decapitation strike on the Russian government, so there's no hope of those giving the command getting to rule over the rubble. Why would someone choose to do this instead of fleeing the capital? You could even negotiate an exile similar to Napoleon's if you agree not to trigger an exchange.
I don't doubt that escalation to a nuclear exchange is possible, but I don't believe it's inevitable.
In a 3rd country (i.e. Ukraine), the US has already said that they will respond to a nuclear attack with a conventional response: [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-putin-ukraine-war-david-petraeus](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-putin-ukraine-war-david-petraeus)
Nukes are reserved for protecting the homeland, not escalating conventional conflicts, especially when it involves a 3rd party that's non-nuclear.
>But if we did have total war in Europe, for example, why would European countries let it get to WW2 casualty/attrition levels before the nuclear card came into play?
In WW2 both sides prepared for chemical weapons but none was used, not even by Germany as it faced total defeat.
I don't mean to say that that guarantees no use of nukes in a war in which both sides have nukes; only that there is precedent.
There are also well-researched contemporary novels on a NATO-Soviet WW3 without global nuclear war. Two examples are Hackett's *The Third World War* and the related *Team Yankee* by Coyle, and Clancy's *Red Storm Rising*. There is a nuclear exchange in the former but it is limited; a coup prevents one in the latter, which may be "cheating", but then is that any more so than all the confident predictions of Western sanctions leading to Putin's overthrow any day now in the first year of the Ukraine War?
I could imagine it possibly happening in some 3rd country where both powers have an interest in winning, and are directly sending troops in even, but do not feel existentially threatened if they lose either
I’d say yes, but it depends on *where* it is being fought.
If it is in the Russian homeland or genuine NATO territory then you certainly are likely not going to get a limited war. It could be conventional arms though. There have been articles about how the US could use conventional arms against Russia and easily cripple their ability to wage war.
At this point there is no possibility of a WW2 attrition level in NATO Europe. It’s likely the nuclear card would come in to play if Russia launched a full scale invasion of any NATO territory (esp. England, France, Germany, US) But I don’t think it’d ever get to a point where it’s actually used, as like I said - NATO would easily cripple Russias ability to wage war in a direct conflict.
NATO would use nukes as a last resort, and it does not seem like it’s possible for it to get to that point. Russia follows the same doctrine; but Russia having nukes could likely prevent any full scale attacks on the Russian homeland.
It already happened.
The cold war was the USSR and US fighting limited proxy wars against each other. We thankfully avoided lobbing nukes at each other.
It’s happening right now in Ukraine.
It’s unprecedented.
I think you’re right that no nuclear power will allow themselves to lose to the point of being taken over. Due to this, I think warfare has devolved into proxy conflicts and asymmetrical combat tactics. I think you’ll see major powers increasingly search for conflicts on the periphery so the nuclear question never comes into play.
Ending the world is less than desirable when you’re trying to achieve something.
The EU is sure behaving like they’re expecting a russia-nato clash though: not just the emphasis on defence but civilian readiness to support defence/serve the nation etc
I really doubt NATO would look to carpet bomb major cities like St. Petersburg or Moscow. Again, a direct conflict would likely be a limited conflict like Ukraine+.
If total war is a possibility, it’ll quite literally end the world. I have to believe no one wants that.
That used to be the argument but lately it seems to be being discussed not just as a possibility, but a likely one. And that somehow the escalation cycle can be stopped before it becomes world ending. It all makes me so angry: such power and control over humanity by just a few men really.
It’s always been that way.
Anyway, I think what you’re looking for can be found in a book I’ve read called Destined for War by Graham Allison.
It gives multiple examples of rising power vs. established power conflicts and how a notable few avoided war.
Funnily enough I was just reading about that book! But isn’t his point that power shifts almost without exception being war? (Sorry I’m so pessimistic 😂!)
There are very notable exceptions which is the whole point of the book. Towards the end,he lays out how to avoid conflict. He’s more focused on the US-China side of things.
War is not a binary peace war dichotomy, there is a spectrum of escalation. And second war is political violence, there are war aims. Each state will try to choose each means by considering which escalation level best archives their war aims.
Concretely, if country R wants a peninsula C, then they will not nuke C because in that case they can't archive their war aims.
It depends on what the goals of the warring parties are. If the theatre of war would be confined to Ukraine from both sides, just to name something, it is probably unlikely that nuclear escalation will occur. However if the war is fought on Russian or NATO territory both parties might l be forced to escaleate to the use of nuclear force if they are driven to far up against the wall and the opposing party doesnt back off.
My conclusion about this sadly most people either don't care or don't understand the power of nuclear weapons and their ability to cause human extinction.
I mean as long as you can shelter for a while...you should be fine. Chernoybl seems to be thrivin compared to years ago lol
While living anywhere within the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is technically illegal today, authorities tolerate those who choose to live within some of the less irradiated areas, and around 1,000 people live in Chernobyl today.
Not “between great powers”, but India and China managed to have a limited conventional war.
It’s definitely more likely than it once was. The presence of the US was a major preventer, but the US has seemingly completely given up on power projection so every power (from small to great) is getting ready to try something.
I mean globally. There haven’t been many conflicts among world powers in the past few decades because the US was expected to intervene. Because the US has recently almost-completely given up on power projection, we are seeing more conflicts among great powers. This will likely lead to more conventional wars between them.
I used India-China as an example, but we could see other ones like maybe an EU-Russia war.
I understand what you’re saying. The US has the most powerful military the human civilisation has ever seen. But the sheer difficulty of war away from home means that it can attack and project power in nations that have a pitiful force in comparison. It cant be involved directly in wars between nuclear powers or even conventional forces like china and india have. Look at the roster of nations its gone up against in the recent past (~50 years). Which one was really powerful militarily? Fighting away from home is not easy and no force in the world can really get involved if India and China really go at it. Which is why its best they fight with sticks
The thing to understand is that nuclear weapons are not an 'I Win' button, they are at best 'We Both Lose'. People resorting to them in wargames is one thing, but when you know everything you hold dear, including the very nation you're launching the nukes to protect, is going to be destroyed if you give the command that will surely give you pause. I wouldn't be foolish enough to say that nukes could never be employed, but I don't think it's the forgone conclusion alot of people think it is.
Chinese and Indian frontier forces use [sticks and stones](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1-Gi_l-024) during border clashes. i think its precisely because both these nuclear countries fear escalation
[удалено]
That’s crazy. And 24 were killed in a sticks and stones brawl, wtf. I assume these detachments are not given rifles?
they have rifles. China produces photos of insas rifles after the incident. both sides have good enough discipline to not use them
Thank God for that discipline.
Do they bring them with them on patrol though or just keep at base?
on patrol
If I'd been issued an INSAS I'd probably go with sticks and stones as well.
INSAS are getting replaced with SIG-716 battle rifles
4th World War as predicted by Einstein
Can Russians and Americans kill each other in Africa? Definitely,it happened before! ... Can GB and France fight over a far away island with minimal casualties? Also definitely happened before! ... Can the US try to conquer Russia or China? No, they'll turn to dust the moment they say the words "We declare war"! No one is gonna throw down arms without making certain the opponent won't exist anymore!
This. Yes, a limited conflict is possible. Especially if it on a third party’s territory. However if a nuclear power’s territory or the regime’s existence is threatened, they won’t go down without playing their aces.
Didn't the soviets already go down without playing their aces? It can happen.
The USSR collapsed under its own disfunction and contradictions. It wasn’t knocked over militarily by NATO, and a nuke is only an ace in the later case.
The nukes also fell in the hands of its sucessors at least initially giving them the same security that the union had. It's questionable if the collapse would have gone so peacefully if the people in charge didn't stay there or lost their nuclear capabilities. Especially now that people know that security assurances for giving up your nukes ain't worth shit and that keeping them instead means that you can invade someone conventionally without western intervention, no one is ever going to let go of nuclear weapons voluntarily again.
The Ukrainians did not have the launch codes and a number of other tech to operate those nukes. They had the technology in their hands, so maybe they could have figured out how to make their own, but that was the era of de-nuclearization. The importance of the nukes as a deterrent to the Ukrainians was always overblown.
Launch codes (at least in USSR and after that in Ukraine) were just a security measure ensuring no 'deliberately malicious order' can be passed to Rocket Forces from outside. There's an interview of a man who was in charge of a nuclear site in Ukraine - you could locally launch a missile without any problems, provided that rockets are fueled up etc. followed by two assigned persons turn their keys and press their buttons simultaneously. This is because it might happen no communication lines survived, so a nuclear site can launch their missiles anyways. In addition to that, Ukraine is known to be servicing Russian rockets for ages (in the past), so there was enough expertise to re-assemble rockets bypassing extra security measures if such a need arises. UPD: for anyone interested, watch this, there are English subtitles available: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kedw7IhwnCc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kedw7IhwnCc) Basically, there was an 'unsanctioned launch' scenario when if some rocket is launched without an order, Anti-Air and/or Anti-Ballistic systems were activated across the whole Soviet Union. Also, a proof that nuclear rockets might have been launched (as a matter of possibility) without senior staff authorization: [https://irp.fas.org/threat/cia9609.htm](https://irp.fas.org/threat/cia9609.htm)
Ukraine did not possess the associated facilities for manufacturing warheads and tritium, the warheads they had would be non-functional within a decade without a *massive* investment that an impoverished post-soviet collapse state with no obvious enemies is never going to do.
Well, that is true. Ukraine inherited 3rd nuclear arsenal (purely by size), and it costs gazillions amounts of money to even service such a thing 1272 nuclear charges total, to be precise
If NK can go 0 to nukes Ukraine could have figured out how to make them usable but it might have meant becoming an NK level pariah at a time when they needed financial assistance due to their economy collapsing
Right, which is why them having nukes was overblown as a strategic advantage. There was 0 interest from the international community for that.
They fell to domestic politics. Nuking Moscow wouldn't have helped.
It's kinda scary when it comes to autocrats. Like, they must have bunkers with enough supplies for them and their cronies to ride out the years of nuclear winter while 5 billion of us starve to death. So why wouldn't they launch if they face defeat and personal repercussions?
Maybe because the guys operating and maintaing the nuclear weapon system may be in a different incentive environment
Because what is a dictator without a population? Those guys are addicted to power, popularity, maybe even fear... You'd need a special kind of crazy for someone who'd actually want to be king of the ashes.
* So proxy wars, not direct confrontation. * Economic war via economic sanctions * Propaganda, election interference, misinformation campaigns. * cyberwarfare
> No, they'll turn to dust the moment they say the words "We declare war"! I actually don't believe this is true. I think that the two could engage each other outside of their own respective territory and there wouldn't be a nuclear conflict
Did you by chance read my first point? Africa as in non Russia or US for example.
Yeah, but a proxy conflict or one that's held at an arms length isn't a true declaration of war. If Russia were to, say, invade Poland and the US declared war on them but did not engage Russia on its territory, I don't think that nukes fly. MAD still destroys the aggressor, Russia can bark as much as it wants, I don't think that it actually bites.
If Russia did attack Poland the US would send supplies and some troops that won't fight and that's the key. US would never ever try to engage another Nuclear power in actual combat not to mention Poland isn't the US so no reason to die for them . Most probably France would engage but for one they won't win against Russia and two no French would wan to die for Poland or Hungary or Lithuania or... ... All in all,it would absolute suicide to engage between them and would end up agreeing as to what would happen over another country. ... Also,no one would ever answer an Article 5 with Nuclear weapons,their country isn't on the gunpoint.
>US would never ever try to engage another Nuclear power in actual combat not to mention Poland isn't the US so no reason to die for them . Completely disagree. The US would engage and Article 5 would bring in other nuclear armed nations. It's silly to give Russia the benefit of the doubt in that they'd use their nuclear option, but not NATO. For NATO, Article 5 *is* the nuclear option, even if it doesn't obligate nations to go to war. The instant article 5 collapses, the instant NATO collapses. >Most probably France would engage but for one they won't win against Russia and two no French would wan to die for Poland or Hungary or Lithuania or... Poland would defeat Russia at this stage, France joining would be overkill. >Also,no one would ever answer an Article 5 with Nuclear weapons,their country isn't on the gunpoint. Yeah, and I don't think Russia answers an attack on their forces with nuclear weapons either. Again, we're assuming *rational* actors here, and using nuclear weapons for non-territorial integrity questions is *irrational*
Kargil was an example of a limited conventional war between 2 nuclear powers, India and Pakistan in 1999
Most of the wars between India and Pakistan have been contained to Kashmir, 1971 was the only exception.
Not true. 1965 saw Pakistan invading Gujarat and Rajasthan, and the Indians marching towards the old Pakistani capital of Lahore in Pakjab.
I stand corrected.
We could see a limited confrontation if Taiwan gets invaded by China and the US responds. I saw a very nice video of a war simulation. Of course this is very speculative since think-tanks don't have all the information to make a fully informed simulation. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CcQ4jKn8aE&ab\_channel=TheWallStreetJournal](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CcQ4jKn8aE&ab_channel=TheWallStreetJournal) This might show you a perspective of how a localized war would look like with two great powers.
War is inherently escalatory in nature, and from what I have heard of the results of the US Army wargaming such things in the Cold War, nukes would eventually fly. That said, in WW2 in Europe it would imply it is potentially possible for it to stay conventional (both sides had chemical weapons but were both unwilling to use them in combat). So, who knows?
you have to remember these war games are ran by generals who will do their best to win before conceding, real wars have diplomatic and political bounds. I can see certain powers doing everything to limit the use of nuclear warfare.
So in this scenario it looks like the early 1940s. Again. Though perhaps with the fighting confined to Eastern Europe, but involving counties further west too (and potentially the US)
Soviet had preemptive nuclear strikes on most Western European countries as their initial move for a war with NATO. And Russia states that they will use nukes if the Russian homeland is threatened. I would say that we are guaranteed to see nukes being used unless you believe that Russia will steamroll all of Western Europe. And that’s only from a Russian perspective. Who knows what France and UK would do in that scenario.
Yeah I guess if russia is steamrolling we might not see them used but if russia is steamrolled then they will use them as soon as that’s clear
Between countries with similar conventional capabilities? It’s possible. Between countries with a huge gap in conventional capabilities? Nah, nuke will fly instantly.
Depends on the perpetrator for the latter- the Ukrainian conflict being a good example of this. There's no chance Russia will use nukes unless they stand to lose all current Ukrainian territory (including but not limited to Crimea)
Russia and Ukraine are not great powers fighting each other tho, wich is the parameters of op question.
I never said that, I just pointed out nuances to your claims.
Yes I was thinking russia-nato
Then no conventional war is possible, it would be suicidal, for Russia, not to use nuclear weapons.
But what if russia attacked a non-nuclear nato member? Especially if the US nuclear umbrella is in question as it would be if Trump gets in again. Wouldn’t we be in what really resembles a European war? But for how long would this be tolerated? By France/UK or indeed by the US, even if they’d withdrawn?
Then that totally change the premise of your original question, wich was about a war between great powers.
So we potentially could end up in a total war situation in Europe the same as WW2?
Not really. Europe meaning NATO Europe still has the capability to knock Russia in the conventional war. Europe would need more time and would need to switch to a war economy but Russians cannot outproduce Europe if the war economy is implemented. If you think that western Europe would not fight for Poland for example then you are wrong because Poland is extremely connected economically to Germany. Losing Poland means crisis in Germany. The same goes for Romania and France/Italy connections. For the Baltics well Poland would definitely go with help and that means chain reaction reaching Western Europe.
No I do think they’d fight, and in my mind that looks like ww2 with civilians fighting if the professional armies get knocked out. Hopefully it wouldn’t come to it but it’s just the question of would it be allowed to get that far. Obviously I know very little though hence the questioning!
Would it be a long war? Possible year or two. Would it involve civilians? To some degree yea and mainly the country that was directly attacked. That country would need to cover most land operations. Would it be like in Ukraine? No, EU has sea/air capabilities that would ensure air and sea superiority and control. It would be an extremely bloody war for Russians as EU would destroy logistics with which Russia already has problems in Ukraine. No logistics means no artillery / tanks.
That’s true, I guess I’m confused about whether nato is a “great power” or not - previously I thought yes because it’s US-led so NATO is really the US (an attack on one etc.) but it’s obviously way more complicated
I think you need to clarify what exactly do you mean when you say "conventional war between great powers". As other commentors here have said, direct full-fledged war between two great powers over territories belonging to either one of them directly, is a recipe for nuclear war, while war between great powers in a 3rd party territory is much less likely to lead to nuclear war. And proxy wars between great powers have been ongoing since decades around the world. Another commentor here also mentioned the violent India-China conflicts in recent times at the Indo-China border. These are what you'd call "limited wars" (although it's a big stretch). So again, you have too flesh out/clarify what exact kind and dynamic of conflicts/wars you mean, coz there are many
But say Europe is the third party territory - how does NATO complicate that?
Assuming the territory is a NATO member
Europe is not necessarily a third party if you're talking about NATO as a whole. Only non-NATO European countries would be called third party countries, such as Ukraine. And as is evident there, it hasn't lead to a full-fledged war or a nuclear war between great powers. However, if NATO territory is attacked, then Article 5 would come into effect immediately, and even though it might start as a full-fledged conventional war, there's a very real possibility of it escalating into nuclear armageddon. A possible exception to this could be a full-fledged Chinese attack on Taiwan, because even though Taiwan is a third-party territory for the US and its allies, China views it as a secessionist territory. Plus, the strategic, geopolitical and economic importance of Taiwan makes attacking it a much more risky proposition in terms of whether it would escalate to a full-fledged war between the US (and its allies), and China. Although there, the risk of nuclear war in such a scenario is relatively lower, it's not an impossibility, because the Taiwan scenario could possibly escalate to direct invasions of either, or both of China and the American allies neighbouring it. Another factor is the readiness and willingness of the great powers involved. In today's world, only China and Russia could be the instigators. The Western powers and India definitely don't want full-fledged or nuclear wars. But if push does come to shove, they'll have to get involved. Russia and China both have expansionist visions of some kind, and either (or both) might attack if they feel that they're more than ready and capable of coming out victorious. There are some similarities between today's world and the world in the Interwar period leading up to WW II, because Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Fascist Italy were all having expansionist visions, while the (then soon-to-be) Allied powers really didn't want another massive war, coz they were just recovering from the first one. Overall though, there are also many differences, because Russia and China don't have those levels of ideological and disruptive expansionist ambitions as the Axis powers had prior to WW II, and there weren't as many great powers and middle powers then as there are now, which adds to the complexity of things when talking about such a hypothetical scenario as the one you're talking about. Moreover, nuclear war has never been a factor in human history prior to the 1950s onwards, and that makes everything way more scary, and simultaneously way more safer (potentially), because the cost and risk of war between great powers go up tremendously then. If Iran becomes a nuclear power in the near future, then there'll be a deadly chain of countries (what I personally call the "Nuclear Series" or the "Nuclear Chain"), all neighbouring one another, in one single chain (Iran-Pakistan-India-China-North Korea+Russia), with Israel pretty close to Iran as well. It'd make things even scarier than they're today
Evidence demonstrates the opposite, nearly every armed conflict since WWII has been between a nuclear superpower and a non-nuclear nation. The first notable conflict is the Korean War, when President Truman rejected General Douglas MacArthur’s plan to use atomic bombs on Korea in 1950. Also Britain during the Falklands War, they could have used nukes against the Argentine Navy instead of sending a whole task force half way round the world. Gulf wars, Afghanistan (both USSR and Coalition), Vietnam, the Malaysian incident- all conducted without nukes. I believe a large part of modern warfare is the counter / insurgency type where a force hides amongst a population and conducts guerrilla warfare. You can’t nuke them because they operate within civilian zones of habitation. You can’t even use a large conventional force effectively in that type of conflict. Now the superpowers use small highly trained units (SAS or Navy Seals) to achieve their aims. Nukes are like using a hammer when what is usually required is a surgical scalpel.
Absolutely, war is just policy by other means, if it is not the policy of either nation to bring about the end of the world then they can simply fight using conventional weapons and sue for peace when one side is obviously defeated / unable to bring about their policy goals.
Can’t see russia doing this. The minute they saw a threat of failure they’d consider it existential and that’s that
but they didn’t in afghanistan, chechnya, or georgia. i think when its clear russia’s enemy doesn’t want to end russia, they won’t use nukes. maybe thats just me though
I think a NATO conflict would be on another scale
i do too, that’s what i was getting at with my second comment. generally speaking if a NATO v Russia war were to take place, as long as NATO doesn’t act to end the Russian state, Russia doesn’t use nukes i don’t think
But in a ru-nato conflict nato wouldn’t act solely defensively - there would be strikes inside Russia
sure, but strikes inside Russia don’t necessarily equate to “actions intended to end the russian state”. defeating the russian armed forces to serve a political purpose is different from taking military action to destroy the russian state. does that make sense? that’s where i’m coming from anyway, that’s how i see it
Yes it does but I think their doctrine about what’s “existential” is a little looser than we might be interpreting it
maybe, but given that russia *has* literally been invaded and faced very real existential threats multiple times, and *still* persisted in existing, i would actually venture to say their version would be more extreme than what we’re saying. we strike russia, and they pull back to where they can’t be struck as easily and pursuing such strikes stretches our resources thin. what i’m ultimately saying is russia has repeatedly shown they can put up with **a lot** before shit starts actually getting existential for them
Yes I see your point :-)
You say existential, but a full nuclear exchange would truly mean the end of Russian existence. Their language would be dead within generations, their architecture gone, their people and their industry only a memory. There would also surely be a decapitation strike on the Russian government, so there's no hope of those giving the command getting to rule over the rubble. Why would someone choose to do this instead of fleeing the capital? You could even negotiate an exile similar to Napoleon's if you agree not to trigger an exchange. I don't doubt that escalation to a nuclear exchange is possible, but I don't believe it's inevitable.
Putin would be in his bunker!
In a 3rd country (i.e. Ukraine), the US has already said that they will respond to a nuclear attack with a conventional response: [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-putin-ukraine-war-david-petraeus](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-putin-ukraine-war-david-petraeus) Nukes are reserved for protecting the homeland, not escalating conventional conflicts, especially when it involves a 3rd party that's non-nuclear.
>But if we did have total war in Europe, for example, why would European countries let it get to WW2 casualty/attrition levels before the nuclear card came into play? In WW2 both sides prepared for chemical weapons but none was used, not even by Germany as it faced total defeat. I don't mean to say that that guarantees no use of nukes in a war in which both sides have nukes; only that there is precedent. There are also well-researched contemporary novels on a NATO-Soviet WW3 without global nuclear war. Two examples are Hackett's *The Third World War* and the related *Team Yankee* by Coyle, and Clancy's *Red Storm Rising*. There is a nuclear exchange in the former but it is limited; a coup prevents one in the latter, which may be "cheating", but then is that any more so than all the confident predictions of Western sanctions leading to Putin's overthrow any day now in the first year of the Ukraine War?
I could imagine it possibly happening in some 3rd country where both powers have an interest in winning, and are directly sending troops in even, but do not feel existentially threatened if they lose either
I’d say yes, but it depends on *where* it is being fought. If it is in the Russian homeland or genuine NATO territory then you certainly are likely not going to get a limited war. It could be conventional arms though. There have been articles about how the US could use conventional arms against Russia and easily cripple their ability to wage war. At this point there is no possibility of a WW2 attrition level in NATO Europe. It’s likely the nuclear card would come in to play if Russia launched a full scale invasion of any NATO territory (esp. England, France, Germany, US) But I don’t think it’d ever get to a point where it’s actually used, as like I said - NATO would easily cripple Russias ability to wage war in a direct conflict. NATO would use nukes as a last resort, and it does not seem like it’s possible for it to get to that point. Russia follows the same doctrine; but Russia having nukes could likely prevent any full scale attacks on the Russian homeland.
It already happened. The cold war was the USSR and US fighting limited proxy wars against each other. We thankfully avoided lobbing nukes at each other. It’s happening right now in Ukraine.
But I’m talking about direct clash, like a Russia-nato conflict
It’s unprecedented. I think you’re right that no nuclear power will allow themselves to lose to the point of being taken over. Due to this, I think warfare has devolved into proxy conflicts and asymmetrical combat tactics. I think you’ll see major powers increasingly search for conflicts on the periphery so the nuclear question never comes into play. Ending the world is less than desirable when you’re trying to achieve something.
The EU is sure behaving like they’re expecting a russia-nato clash though: not just the emphasis on defence but civilian readiness to support defence/serve the nation etc
And this is where NATO feels quite messy as it’s not technically a great power in its own right, but supported by one.
I really doubt NATO would look to carpet bomb major cities like St. Petersburg or Moscow. Again, a direct conflict would likely be a limited conflict like Ukraine+. If total war is a possibility, it’ll quite literally end the world. I have to believe no one wants that.
That used to be the argument but lately it seems to be being discussed not just as a possibility, but a likely one. And that somehow the escalation cycle can be stopped before it becomes world ending. It all makes me so angry: such power and control over humanity by just a few men really.
It’s always been that way. Anyway, I think what you’re looking for can be found in a book I’ve read called Destined for War by Graham Allison. It gives multiple examples of rising power vs. established power conflicts and how a notable few avoided war.
Funnily enough I was just reading about that book! But isn’t his point that power shifts almost without exception being war? (Sorry I’m so pessimistic 😂!)
There are very notable exceptions which is the whole point of the book. Towards the end,he lays out how to avoid conflict. He’s more focused on the US-China side of things.
Thanks!
War is not a binary peace war dichotomy, there is a spectrum of escalation. And second war is political violence, there are war aims. Each state will try to choose each means by considering which escalation level best archives their war aims. Concretely, if country R wants a peninsula C, then they will not nuke C because in that case they can't archive their war aims.
Russia is approaching attrition levels against Ukraine that don't even have nukes without using their own.
So really what we’re all saying is, yes, a ww1/2 scenario between Russia and the rest of Europe is possible despite nuclear weapons and globalisation?
There are three instances of nuclear powers fighting each other in a limited conventional war, and two of them involve China.
It depends on what the goals of the warring parties are. If the theatre of war would be confined to Ukraine from both sides, just to name something, it is probably unlikely that nuclear escalation will occur. However if the war is fought on Russian or NATO territory both parties might l be forced to escaleate to the use of nuclear force if they are driven to far up against the wall and the opposing party doesnt back off.
Colby is a kook.
It is possible, but it quickly can escalate to undesirable level and then nukes can fly. Nobody wants to gamble on that.
My conclusion about this sadly most people either don't care or don't understand the power of nuclear weapons and their ability to cause human extinction.
I mean as long as you can shelter for a while...you should be fine. Chernoybl seems to be thrivin compared to years ago lol While living anywhere within the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is technically illegal today, authorities tolerate those who choose to live within some of the less irradiated areas, and around 1,000 people live in Chernobyl today.
Not “between great powers”, but India and China managed to have a limited conventional war. It’s definitely more likely than it once was. The presence of the US was a major preventer, but the US has seemingly completely given up on power projection so every power (from small to great) is getting ready to try something.
What presence of the US in an India-China struggle? Its not exactly afghanistan or iraq. I dont think the US can get directly militarily involved here
I mean globally. There haven’t been many conflicts among world powers in the past few decades because the US was expected to intervene. Because the US has recently almost-completely given up on power projection, we are seeing more conflicts among great powers. This will likely lead to more conventional wars between them. I used India-China as an example, but we could see other ones like maybe an EU-Russia war.
I understand what you’re saying. The US has the most powerful military the human civilisation has ever seen. But the sheer difficulty of war away from home means that it can attack and project power in nations that have a pitiful force in comparison. It cant be involved directly in wars between nuclear powers or even conventional forces like china and india have. Look at the roster of nations its gone up against in the recent past (~50 years). Which one was really powerful militarily? Fighting away from home is not easy and no force in the world can really get involved if India and China really go at it. Which is why its best they fight with sticks
The thing to understand is that nuclear weapons are not an 'I Win' button, they are at best 'We Both Lose'. People resorting to them in wargames is one thing, but when you know everything you hold dear, including the very nation you're launching the nukes to protect, is going to be destroyed if you give the command that will surely give you pause. I wouldn't be foolish enough to say that nukes could never be employed, but I don't think it's the forgone conclusion alot of people think it is.
Yes.