Maybe I need to make a timeline out of this. But nof, feel free to poke holes into my conclusions...
That would be... interesting.
Maybe I need to make a timeline out of this. But nof, feel free to poke holes into my conclusions...
Depends on how certain the Soviets are that they can manage a disabling first strike. Why risk letting China keep their nukes if you're reasonably certain you can knock them all out on the ground? Considering their conventional edge, trying to destroy China's nuclear weapons seems like a very sensible measure.Quite possibly, but the USSR has a most definite conventional advantage as well, which ought to make it less eager to make a first strike.
You're not taking the risk of a Soviet first strike into account; it is well within Soviet capacity to destroy China's nuclear forces on the ground. That will create a "use them or lose them" mentality for China regarding their nukes.Maybe, but a Chinese first strike only really makes sense as a threat to bargain a compromise peace when they are facing total conventional defeat. With such an unbalance, and limited Chinese delivery capability, a PRC first strike outside the "blackmail" option makes limited sense: the Chinese can inflict significant but ultimately limited damage to the enemy, take out Irkutsk, Vladivostok, the Transiberian Railway, and kill a sizable chunk of Soviet troops in the RFE, but Soviet retaliation would push China back into Dark Ages warlordism and annihilate the Maoist regime. The USSR can "win" a nuclear exchange.
The Trans-Siberian railroad is probably going to be a top target for any nuclear exchange, given that it's the backbone of Soviet supply lines in any conflict with China. Of course, the trans-siberian railroad is also where a large chunk of the population of siberia lives...Unless the Chinese nuke a military HQ in Vladivostok or Irkstsk (sp?) or the Soviets hit a command center in one of China's bigger northern cities, it might be escalate like that.
Depends on how certain the Soviets are that they can manage a disabling first strike. Why risk letting China keep their nukes if you're reasonably certain you can knock them all out on the ground? Considering their conventional edge, trying to destroy China's nuclear weapons seems like a very sensible measure.
The Trans-Siberian railroad is probably going to be a top target for any nuclear exchange, given that it's the backbone of Soviet supply lines in any conflict with China. Of course, the trans-siberian railroad is also where a large chunk of the population of siberia lives...
I would imagine the Vietnamese will lose at the least a significant chunk of their aid from the USSR for a time; the Soviets probably won't have the resources to spare on aiding foreign Communist movements while they're rebuilding the war damage.Assuming this happens prior to 1973, how does this effect American involvement in Vietnam?