[JumpCrisscross]

> defend by nuclear war?

Beijing is not stupid and the Taiwan question is not existential to Xi or the CCP. There would be no reason for this conflict to escalate to either country's homeland, let alone into strategic nuclear war. (Tactical nukes hitting e.g. carrier groups may be on the table.)

The U.S. has plenty of West Pacific purely-military assets which would be in play for China should the Taiwan Strait require U.S. protection.

[time0ut]

A war where nuclear weapons are used on the battlefield would be a nuclear war by definition. It is also one of the more realistic scenarios leading to a broader nuclear war.

[Ancapistani]

> Tactical nukes hitting e.g. carrier groups may be on the table.

The US can - and should - respond to such an attack with overwhelming force.

Destroying a US carrier group means the death of tens of thousand of American troops and the destruction of tens of billions of dollars of materiel.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Destroying a US carrier group means the death of tens of thousand of American troops and the destruction of tens of billions of dollars of materiel

I agree. It wouldn't be a small escalation. But it still wouldn't merit a strategic nuclear counterstrike.

Point is, there is a lot of room for escalation before we go into strategic nuclear war. Or even physically damage on either side's mainland.

[Ancapistani]

> But it still wouldn't merit a strategic nuclear counterstrike.

I don't believe this is widely accepted.

Consider that the last time the US lost significant naval assets, we committed to a hugely costly war and effectively annihilated the attacker. It was the original impetus for developing nuclear weapons in the first place, and it remains the only time they've been used against an enemy.

> Point is, there is a lot of room for escalation before we go into strategic nuclear war.

My understanding of the military and political thinking around the use of nuclear weapons is that the use of tactical nuclear weapons inevitably leads to their strategic use.

Destroying a US carrier via conventional means would carry significant risk of nuclear retaliation. Doing it through nuclear means effectively guarantees it.

[time0ut]

China has a strong no first use policy, at least publicly. Luckily, it is unlikely they'd attack a carrier battle group with nuclear weapons.

They also have a strategy of assured retaliation and maintain a countervalue stance. Hopefully, we won't have to find out whether or not they will follow through with it...

[CRConrad]

> China has a strong no first use policy, at least publicly.

That statement isn't worth the electrons we're wasting on displaying it. Authoritarian regimes have no policies. Their "policy" every day is what the autocrat feels like when he wakes up, and if he's constipated during his morning dump the "policy" can change before breakfast.

[philliphaydon]

> China has a strong no first use policy, at least publicly. Luckily, it is unlikely they'd attack a carrier battle group with nuclear weapons.

Yeah we know that's false now, it's just something they claimed and will never uphold, after they threatened to obliterate Japan.

[time0ut]

I missed this news. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. This is terrifying and probably one of the most significant changes in (public) nuclear policy in years.

[ilstormcloud]

The last time around, Nuclear weapons were not available to complicate the equation. This time, the response will need to be painful enough to punish the aggressor but not too painful that you would risk a strike on major cities. It won't be pretty.

[neartheplain]

>But it still wouldn't merit a strategic nuclear counterstrike.

I'd hestitate to describe the US as a nation who could politically accept a one-sided nuclear strike.