A question about 3 sided cold war

[aktarian]

OK, assuming we have 3 sided cold war with nukes involved. It could be US/SU/China or whatever. Who are the players doesn't matter, we have tech we had in 1970s/80s so every SLBM anywhere is detected fairly soon. We also assume all sides have SSBMs capable of operating far from shore

Now here is the question. If one side detects SLBMs flying toward from somewhere far away from land how does it know who fired them? It could be either one of other two. So who do attack in retaliation? Or do you attack both since you are screwed by getting hit by one and you just can't afford to not nuke the attacker?

 

[asnys]

It depends a lot on three things: the personality of the defending country's leader, the targets of the attack, and the amount of weapons available to each side. However, we can make some general assertions.

Striking both is probably the worst possible idea. If you do that you'll be at war with both of them, which means you're probably going to lose.

My inclination is that the best move would actually be to ride out the strike rather than firing back immediately. There's no way that the perpetrator of an attack like that could conceal the fact for long-if nothing else, one of the two enemies has empty missile tubes on its' submarines, and somebody's gonna notice. Under this option the defender would still have their SSBNs and probably some of the bomber fleet, and, more importantly, they'd also likely have the support of the third side in retaliating against the aggressor. It might not be popular with a public crying for blood, but it strikes me as the best of a bad deal.

One final note is that the short time-to-target of SLBMs and the nature of X-Ray Pindownhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Ray_Pindown means that the defender may not have the time to make a decision before the bombs start dropping. In that case, definitely wait it out and figure out who you're really at war with.

 

[Darkest]

Throughout the following, Russia, China, and NATO are interchangable, or you could add other participants (Nazi Europe) for three-sided cold war gone hot strategies.

Russia nukes China. NATO knows that THEY didn't nuke China, so the perpetrator MUST have been Russia. In this case, NATO has a number of options.

1) Tell China they were attacked by Russia.
Pros: China could launch an immediate strike against Russia, leaving NATO alone. Two enemies are destroyed, NATO survives.
Cons: Russia could intercept the message, and become formal enemies with NATO, sending nuclear missiles towards them, or invading with conventional armies as a pre-emptive strike. If China is going to send nukes towards Russia, well, Russia doesn't want NATO to survive the conflict unscathed.
Pros: NATO knows Russia doesn't want to get a Chinese salvo and a NATO salvo of nukes. They might not attack, and just ride out the nuclear exchange from China.
Cons: Russia will have time to prepare for a nuclear attack from China.

2) Don't tell China that Russia was the perpetrator.
Pros: Russia might not attack NATO.
Cons: China will wait a while to try and confirm who attacked them, lest they prompt a second nuclear attack from a neutral power. In the meanwhile, Russia could invade with conventional forces, maybe even remove China's ability to send nukes.
Pros: Might force Russia to make more nuclear attacks to 'clean up' hostile areas, depleting Russia's nuclear resource.

3) Nuke Russia for attacking China.
Pros: Pre-emptive, Russia doesn't have as many nukes, and their launchers are aimed towards China.
Cons: Russia still might have gotten enough time to get into nuclear shelters, if they have any in this ATL.
Pros: China probably won't nuke NATO.
Cons: China retains their full nuclear arsenal, while NATO has nothing. During the exchange, China might very well nuke NATO, to bring all superpowers down.

4) Nuke China.
Pros: Russia will not attack NATO. Relations with Russia will hold.
Cons: China might launch missiles towards everyone, but two full nuclear strikes could destroy their launching ability.
Cons: The Cold War will probably continue, between only two powers.
Pros: The possibility of disarmament between the two surviving powers exists.
Cons: Revolution throughout NATO for joining their enemy to devestate an already devestated nation.

In most situations, in response to Superpower A nuking Superpower B, Superpower C stands to gain the most by staying out of the conflict. However, this means Superpower A would be smart to get rid of both Superpower B and C at the same time. However, if it does this, it splits its arsenal and is attacked by twice the amount of nukes.

The best strategy is for Superpower A to send a small amount of nuclear missiles towards Superpower B, convince Superpower B that Superpower C attacked them, and then send the rest of their arsenal equally between B and C. Superpower C will probably attack Superpower B once this deception is observed, which is why its imperative for Superpower A to send their nukes at the same time Superpower B does towards Superpower C, while AT THE SAME TIME, finishing the job by nuking Superpower C.

Complicated game, thermonuclear warfare. That's why I like to play DEFCON.

 

[aktarian]

Throughout the following, Russia, China, and NATO are interchangable, or you could add other participants (Nazi Europe) for three-sided cold war gone hot strategies.

Russia nukes China. NATO knows that THEY didn't nuke China, so the perpetrator MUST have been Russia. In this case, NATO has a number of options.

However, as you admit

The best strategy is for Superpower A to send a small amount of nuclear missiles towards Superpower B, convince Superpower B that Superpower C attacked them, and then send the rest of their arsenal equally between B and C.

NATO knows they didn't nuke china. But China doesn't know they are telling the truth. It would be a good strategy to attack and say you didn't do it. step one harms one side by your action, step two harms other side by other's means.

3) Nuke Russia for attacking China.
Pros: Pre-emptive, Russia doesn't have as many nukes, and their launchers are aimed towards China.
Cons: Russia still might have gotten enough time to get into nuclear shelters, if they have any in this ATL.
Pros: China probably won't nuke NATO.
Cons: China retains their full nuclear arsenal, while NATO has nothing. During the exchange, China might very well nuke NATO, to bring all superpowers down.

Of course it's just as possible that if Russia nukes China they will claim it was NATO and then act as a good friend to China and nuke NATO. China, feeling grateful helps and nukes NATO as well. Russia kills two birds with one (well, two) stone. they nuked China and got away with it then they nuked NATO and improved relations with chin as a result.

 

[Darkest]

But, unlike the Russians, NATO still has a full nuclear arsenal. They detect nuclear missiles coming their way, and deduce it can only be China. But, they know that Russia must have deluded the Chinese, and they don't want Russia to escape the nuclear devestation treatment, so they nuke Russia.

Like I said, global thermonuclear war is complicated.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Could there be a... four sided cold war? Five sided? More?

 

[ninebucks]

Destroy everybody. You can't be certain that they weren't involved and besides, you don't want some third party rushing into hyperpowerdom and claiming the ashes of your nation.

Of course, the nukes would never really go flying, the whole system is designed to avoid that.

 

[Darkest]

The United States of America
Nazi Europe
The Union of Socialist Soviet Republics
The People's Republic of China

No one else really had the option to become a superpower, unless you went back pretty far. Or, there could always be a nuclear cold war that operates on nationalist levels. Still, it seemed like powers would jockey for one alliance to combat another alliance.

Nuclear cold wars must operate by ideology. Superpowered USA isn't going to attack the superpowered British Commonwealth. They are going to work together. And what ideologies are available that would be hostile to all others.

Capitalist democracy, ultranationalist fascism, totalitarianist communism, maybe unionism, theocracy... that's all I can think of. It also seems that some fascist or communist governments might oppose other fascist or communist governments... like the Soviet Union against the PRC. Theocracies could oppose everyone, including other theocracies.

You might be able to get a five-sided war if you merely separated the world into theocracies. Protestantism, Catholicism, Islam, Juche?, Hinduism... really don't know if you could get more than that.