Comments by "Winston Smith" (@kryts27) on ""Unrestricted warfare" and the weaknesses of the Chinese military explained by a former PLA officer" video.

  1. The ex-PLA colonel's analysis of "limited" nuclear war makes little sense psychologically or strategically. When global nuclear war breaks out, there are no survivors in the end. Total extinction, period. The US Pentagon and White House administration (the US presidency does not need a vote from Congress to declare war) is not afraid of destroying and punishing the CCP and the hapless people of China in such a total war extremity, if their own cities got bombed by PLA nukes first by retaliating with much of their formidable nuclear arsenal. I think he misses the point of the First Cold War, acutely aware even at the time by militaries and politicians of both the United States and the Soviet Union, and how it kept the fragile peace for 40 years, I.e. Mutually Assured Destruction. Also that he makes light of such nuclear attack developments, and ignores Mutually Assured Destruction (from a seasoned and experienced PLA senior officer), kind of makes me gloomy about the future of our species.
    2
  2. The concept of "Unrestricted warfare" is highly dangerous because it posits near unthinkable actions as nuclear strikes, chemical weapons strikes and biological warfare (we got a low dose of biological warfare with the Covid pandemic), as being on the table of possibilities. Unrestricted Warfare runs all the way in the spectrum of warfare from low level cyberattacks and flying drones over enemy territory (we've recently seen that on a Kinmen Island) to all out nuclear weapons attacks. The political aim is to make the enemy fear retaliation and for a demoralising effect. The CCP, being the weaker but rising military power to the United States, will try low level (due to the low risk of escalation) attacks first because the target country will unlikely to respond over this, except sail warships more frequently through the Taiwan Straight. The mistake is that at the high end of Unrestricted Warfare, the enemy (which is likely to be a democracy), will not escalate the same attack, such as deploying a major nuclear strike of cities over 500,000 and military and industrial sites of value in China in relation of one or a few of it's cities being nuked (or possibly that of it's allies) because of the eggregious level of attack made. One nuclear attack by China on another country and the gloves are completely off by democratic nuclear powers; it was what kept the peace during the First Cold War. At this level of warfare intensity, no one worries that the punishing effects of radiation fallout on the world's ecosystems will likely to make the entire human race extinct in a few months. No one wins a nuclear war, but the United States, or any other attacked ally, will not simply take it to save humanity. The doctrinal lawlessness of Unrestricted Warfare paradigm may end the CCP in a nuclear conflagration, but it can and will do utmost harm and destruction to the rest of the world. Thus, it is a potentially a nihilistic instrument for total Ragnarok level destruction.
    1