Modern Warfare

QuoVadisNation

keeping your angel alive
Joined
Aug 11, 2004
Messages
2,315
Location
New Jersey
Without inciting present political tensions or anything, how exactly (or roughly) would our conception of total modern warfare be accomplished between two super powers? I can easily understand land warfare between say.. nations such as Poland and Germany or France and Great Britian but what about nations that are an ocean apart? It is possible for the United States (hypothetically) to launch a massive amphibious assault on China (hypothetically) without modern planes sinking them, and visa versa?
I am aware that total war usually implies no restrictions, and nuclear weapons are sadly an ends to the means, but does anyone have an idea of how war can be played out between modern super powers?


Note: please understand that this is not a quick response to paranoid theories that are thought up from mass media, this question just has been bothering me for a while now.
 
Nuclear powers typically do not enage in war, because of the mutually-assured destruction principle.

That, of course, doesn't mean that nuclear powers don't engage in security competition. They clearly do. But these take the forms of proxy wars, arms races, and simple competition for regional and global influence. Not direct wars.

There's one exception: nuclear powers may go to war if one believes that it can achive nuclear superiority over the other. This can be done in two ways: either a splendid first-strike, whereby one power destroys the nuclear capability of the other power before the second power can launch, or, more theoretically, where one power has a defense system of some sort in place.

Since no power on earth has such a defense system, any nuclear power war in today's world will begin with the initiating power attempting to destroy the other power's nuclear arsenal. This means nuclear and conventional launches against the other power's silos and other launchers, as well as submarine attacks against the other power's SSBNs.
 
So, I’m afraid to ask even, does that mean ‘modern’ total warfare is impossible? In the sense, I mean, like… ten thousand foreign (hypothetically) tanks approaching Las Vegas?
 
QuoVadisNation said:
So, I’m afraid to ask even, those that mean ‘modern’ total warfare is impossible? In the sense, I mean, like… ten thousand foreign (hypothetically) tanks approaching Las Vegas?

If another nation were to achieve a splendid first strike on the United States, it is possible that they would then attempt to conquer the United States by sending in land forces, especially if they launched the war in order to gain some sort of resource the United States had.

If a nation's attempt at taking out the American nuclear arsenal fails and a standard nuclear exchange occurs, it remains to be seen if either side will, after being nuked, retain sufficient power to be able to follow through with conventional forces.
 
Thanks a lot Nicator, I never truly was into the mechanics of modern warfare, just previous ones. Thanks for answering my question, all though now I wonder if I should be the least bit concerned?


Nah, that’s just what they want us to think. haha
 
in short form of SN's response- we dont know, because it has never happend.
 
So, I’m afraid to ask even, does that mean ‘modern’ total warfare is impossible? In the sense, I mean, like… ten thousand foreign (hypothetically) tanks approaching Las Vegas?
I would think it would be unlikely, at least at the start of the war between nuclear equipped powers seperated by oceans, the first few days (and probably weeks, or months...) of a war between nuclear power would likely be a large scale "counter-force" war, the objectives would be to wipe out enemy missile, air and naval forces, and space forces and disrupt and destroy enemy communications, and command and control.

Now a modern ground invasion of a nation seperated by oceans will not take as long as it did in lets say WWII because the only way to attempt such an invasion would be once air/naval supperiority had been established already. Thats not to say it would not happen though.
 
SeleucusNicator said:
Nuclear powers typically do not enage in war, because of the mutually-assured destruction principle.

Despite the qualification in paragraph after this, I do not think this is true - all or most of the world's nuclear powers has engaged in war in the last 30 years - all or most of them numerously.

But now I presume you mean that they do not engage other nuclear powers.

It may not be accurate to say that nuclear munitions define super-power status.

At the end, and to the question, I think, until some revolutionary technology came ;) such as energy 'shields' modern warfare will revolve around guerilla and covert type actions.

Increasingly, such as propaganda, even more than in the past, will become a deciding factor - as one force may attack another covertly, and even recruit, in a sense, by proxy - to turn your enemie's forces against them.

I think there can be seen some ocsilation of war 'theme' - for instance, the end of WW1 can be seen to have been brought about by a popular force, and the WW2 by technology controlled by a few. In some ways, referring to the Vietnam War as a for instance, since WW2, there continues to be some 'struggle' between the ultimate force as technology or popular.

The clincher in this conflict may well be information - especially through propaganda - because, while propaganda was used extensively during WW2 and later conflicts, it's use against the opponent was tentative at best.

Thus, my take: Guerilla and covert operations, and 'information war' - at least at the current social and technological states.
 
10Seven said:
But now I presume you mean that they do not engage other nuclear powers.

Certainly -- I apologize for not making this clearer.

It may not be accurate to say that nuclear munitions define super-power status.

I never argued that it did; however, all of the world's great powers have nuclear weapons, and all of them have enough of them to make a splendid first strike very difficult.

With something like Iran or North Korea, you probably could pull off a first strike rather easily. But these are not great powers.
 
Easy way to wage a modern land war across an ocean: send your force to an allied nation on the same landmass as your target.

In today's political climate, however, this isn't likely to ever happen. Despite all the bluster that nations have been tossing at each other lately, none of the major powers on Earth actually hate each other enough to do it; nobody on the North/South American landmass hates the U.S. enough to allow China to send troops through it, and nobody hates China enough to allow the U.S. to do the same.

Minor powers (such as, say.....Iraq....) are small enough that nobody is willing to ague when a major power DOES stomp on them; they just get out of the way.
 
First of all i would like to quash the theory that China could invade the US. They do not have the naval power, amphibious ships, or for that matter allies in North America and South America to conduct such an attack, also its nuclear forces are not up to snuff with that of Russia and the US. It posses only 20-30 ICBMs capable of taking out targets anywhere in the US except for the south east. In a war with china, it is realistic that we would have destroyed this capibility with either convential or nuclear weapons. In the Asiatic theater it is different, it has upwards of 400 nukes that can reach targets in its immediate area including US bases all over asia and possibly hawaii. However, the land invasion would be hard if not immpossible to contimplate, they posses such numbers that they can simply overwelm US forces.
 
At this point in time, no form of combat could take place in which would be beneficial to either side. There is a real opportunity for the United States to launch a first-strike upon Chinese nuclear forces, but an invasion without a follow-up strike upon major Chinese military targets, such as air forces and armies would preclude any futher conflict in so far as the subjugation of that country is concerned.
 
Top Bottom