What if there was a nuclear war between the US and China
US & China
In recent years, China has significantly expanded its nuclear arsenal, raising concerns amidst rising US-China tensions. The possibility of nuclear conflict between these two great powers is becoming more likely. How would such a war unfold, and could there be a victor?
To analyze a potential nuclear war between the US and China, we must first understand the context. Although the US and China have multiple areas of conflict, Taiwan remains the primary flashpoint. This island democracy, just off the mainland, has long resisted Chinese ambitions of reunification by force. The Taiwan Strait, a challenging barrier to invasion, offers only two short windows annually for favorable tides. Taiwan's geography further complicates invasion, with limited landing sites heavily booby-trapped to incinerate Chinese troops upon landing.
Taiwan has trained to quickly reinforce its coastal defenses and can anticipate an invasion months in advance due to China's force buildup. Anti-ship missiles from mobile launchers can target Chinese ships crossing the strait. If Chinese troops land, they would face combat in densely urbanized terrain with natural defensive chokepoints created by mountains.
While the US is not treaty-bound to defend Taiwan, it is likely to do so, given Taiwan's strategic importance in the first island chain containment strategy, a Cold War-era defense line against communist powers. Losing Taiwan would allow China greater access to the Pacific, jeopardizing US naval dominance and global trade. Additionally, Taiwan's microchip factories are crucial to the global economy; their loss would lead to severe shortages, giving China control over a significant portion of the world's supply and the ability to exert economic pressure globally.
Would a regional conflict over Taiwan lead to nuclear war between the US and China? It's more plausible than it seems. The US is expected to win in most scenarios, barring Japan and the Philippines denying US military use of their territories, which is highly unlikely given their interests in countering China. The US would aim to decisively defeat China, preventing future aggression and destroying the Chinese navy and air force.
However, if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) faces existential threats from a military defeat in Taiwan, it may consider nuclear options. A crushing defeat could spell the end for the CCP, motivating them to escalate to nuclear conflict.
China has enough long-range firepower to temporarily shut down American bases in Japan and Guam. However, its missile supply is finite, and repeated attacks would deplete its arsenal. The use of weapons of mass destruction, particularly enhanced radiation weapons or 'salted bombs,' could render key US bases like Guam unusable for extended periods, severely hampering US military response.
China, aware of the US's global responsibilities, might gamble on a proportional US response to a nuclear strike. However, the US would likely retaliate with overwhelming force to deter further nuclear use. This dynamic could lead to significant miscalculations, making nuclear doomsday more possible.
China's no-first-use policy might be disregarded in an existential crisis. With an estimated 500+ nuclear weapons and more under construction, China could be aiming to match the US's arsenal, which includes 3,700 active nuclear weapons. In a nuclear exchange, both nations would retain a strategic reserve for post-war deterrence, but the resulting fallout, climate disruption, and global supply chain collapse would have catastrophic consequences.
Corruption within China's military, particularly the People's Liberation Rocket Army Force (PLARF), further complicates its nuclear capabilities. Recent scandals have revealed issues with missile silos and construction quality, undermining China's deterrent.
US missile defenses, including Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs) and Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) systems, provide some protection but are limited. GBIs have had mixed success in tests, while Aegis BMD's effectiveness depends on the availability and positioning of US Navy vessels.
In a nuclear war, both nations would target each other's missile fields, nuclear depots, strategic bomber bases, command and control centers, and major logistics nodes. Civilian targets, including major cities and infrastructure, would also be struck. The resulting destruction and irradiation of food-producing regions would lead to devastating famines, killing hundreds of millions.
Despite the horrors of nuclear war, the US is in a relatively better position to emerge less damaged than China. However, the human and environmental toll would be unimaginable.
In conclusion, while nuclear war is unwinnable for anyone, understanding these dynamics is crucial. For further insights, consider exploring how one might survive a nuclear conflict.
About the Creator
Keep reading
More stories from Shinzou Wo sasageyo and writers in Earth and other communities.
What If a Massive Asteroid Was Headed Towards Earth
Day One: June 15, 2028 NASA has to face a harsh reality: it was wrong. In 2004, astronomers David Tholen, Fabrizio Bernardi, and Roy Tucker discovered an asteroid named Apophis at Kitt Peak National Observatory in Tucson, Arizona. Named after the Egyptian demon serpent that wreaks havoc, Apophis initially seemed to threaten Earth, with predictions setting its potential impact date for 2029. Over time, further observations led NASA’s Planetary Defense Office to confidently announce that Apophis would miss Earth, passing just 19,800 miles above – the closest approach in over 7,500 years.
By Shinzou Wo sasageyo2 years ago in Earth
US Balks as UK and France Pledge Troops to Postwar Ukraine
As the war in Ukraine grinds on with no clear end in sight, the debate over what comes after the fighting has taken a sharper turn. The United States has signalled reluctance about committing troops to Ukraine once the war ends, even as the United Kingdom and France openly pledge to consider deploying forces in a postwar security role. The divergence has exposed differing strategic priorities among Western allies and raised new questions about how Ukraine’s future security will be guaranteed. While all three nations remain united in their support for Kyiv during the war, the emerging split over postwar troop commitments highlights the complexity of planning for peace in a conflict that continues to reshape Europe’s security landscape. What the UK and France Are Proposing British and French leaders have increasingly spoken about the need for long-term security arrangements for Ukraine once active hostilities end. Their position reflects a growing concern that any ceasefire or peace agreement could be fragile, leaving Ukraine vulnerable to renewed aggression. The idea under discussion is not a combat deployment in an active war zone, but rather a stabilisation or reassurance force. Such troops could help train Ukrainian forces, protect critical infrastructure, and serve as a visible deterrent against future attacks. Supporters argue that a limited but credible international presence would help ensure that any peace settlement is respected. For London and Paris, this approach fits within a broader European push to take more responsibility for continental security. Both governments see Ukraine not only as a partner but as a frontline state whose stability directly affects Europe as a whole. Why Washington Is Hesitant The United States, while remaining Ukraine’s most significant military backer during the war, has taken a more cautious stance on postwar troop deployments. American officials have stressed that there are no plans to send US forces into Ukraine, even after a potential peace agreement. This hesitation is rooted in several factors. First, Washington remains wary of any move that could risk a direct confrontation with Russia. Even in a postwar scenario, the presence of US troops on Ukrainian soil could be portrayed by Moscow as a provocation, escalating tensions rather than reducing them. Second, domestic considerations play a major role. After years of overseas military engagements, there is limited appetite among the American public and political class for new long-term deployments abroad, particularly in a region where risks remain high and outcomes uncertain. Finally, US strategy has increasingly emphasised supporting allies through funding, training, and equipment rather than large-scale troop commitments. From Washington’s perspective, enabling Ukraine to defend itself may be preferable to stationing American forces on the ground. A Question of Deterrence At the heart of the debate lies a fundamental question: what will actually deter future aggression against Ukraine? The UK and France appear to believe that a physical presence, however limited, would send a powerful signal of commitment. Troops on the ground would demonstrate that Ukraine’s security is directly tied to that of major European powers, raising the cost of any future attack. The US, by contrast, seems to place greater faith in alternative mechanisms such as long-term military aid, security guarantees, and sanctions frameworks. American officials argue that deterrence does not necessarily require boots on the ground, especially if Ukraine emerges from the war better armed and more integrated with Western institutions. This difference reflects broader strategic cultures. European powers, facing the immediate proximity of the conflict, may feel a stronger need for visible reassurance measures, while the US assesses risks from a more global perspective. Implications for NATO Unity Although Ukraine is not a NATO member, the discussion has clear implications for the alliance. Any deployment of UK or French troops would be closely scrutinised for what it means for NATO’s role and credibility. NATO operates on consensus, and the absence of US support for a postwar troop presence could complicate coordination. Even if London and Paris act independently or as part of a smaller coalition, questions would remain about command structures, rules of engagement, and the political backing required for such a mission. At the same time, the situation underscores a broader shift within NATO, with European members increasingly expected to shoulder more responsibility. If the UK and France proceed with their plans, it could mark a significant step toward a more autonomous European security posture. Ukraine’s Perspective For Kyiv, the debate is both encouraging and frustrating. On one hand, the willingness of major European powers to consider troop deployments signals long-term commitment and recognition of Ukraine’s security concerns. On the other hand, uncertainty from the US—Ukraine’s most powerful ally—adds another layer of unpredictability. Ukrainian leaders have consistently argued that security guarantees must be concrete, not symbolic. From their perspective, any postwar arrangement must ensure that Russia cannot simply regroup and strike again. Whether this is achieved through foreign troops, binding treaties, or accelerated integration with Western institutions remains an open question. What is clear is that Ukraine wants assurances that go beyond promises and declarations. The Risk of Mixed Signals One potential danger of the current divergence is the message it sends to Moscow. Differing positions among Western allies could be interpreted as hesitation or lack of unity, potentially weakening deterrence rather than strengthening it. At the same time, open debate is not necessarily a sign of weakness. Allies often disagree on tactics while remaining aligned on broader goals. The challenge will be ensuring that these differences do not undermine the core objective of securing a stable and sovereign Ukraine. Diplomats on both sides of the Atlantic are likely to continue working behind the scenes to narrow the gap, even if public statements suggest a clear divide. Looking Ahead The question of postwar Ukraine remains largely theoretical while fighting continues. Yet the discussion itself reveals how seriously Western governments are taking the long-term consequences of the conflict. The UK and France’s willingness to pledge troops reflects a belief that peace must be actively protected. The US reluctance highlights concerns about escalation, sustainability, and domestic support. Reconciling these approaches will be one of the most important diplomatic challenges once the guns eventually fall silent. For now, the disagreement does not signal a breakdown in alliance unity, but it does expose the difficult choices ahead. As the war continues, planning for peace is proving almost as complex—and politically sensitive—as managing the conflict itself.
By Muhammad Hassan5 days ago in Earth
Comments