• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

WI: Sino-Indian Limited Nuclear Exchange

Polyphemus

Some kind of robot
Pronouns
they/them
I feel that out of the usual nuclear exchange scenarios this is not one I've ever seen suggested. Granted, it is very unlikely but the possibility is always there when two nuclear powers engage in direct conflict, like China and India have done at several points. For argument's sake, we might use the 80s border skirmishes as a flashpoint that leads to nukes.

I do not profess to be an expert on Indian or Chinese politics or military ability, so I wanted to open the floor to thoughts on what areas might be bombed and what the likely outcome would be on a regional and global scale.
 
Last edited:
Only recently has India developed nuclear weapons which could hit China's main cities (Beijing, etc.). They did not have this in the 1980s. Countries only use nuclear weapons when they feel as if they have no other choice, and this is why Indo-Pak nuclear TLs work because India could very well march onto Islamabad and force Pakistan to launch their nukes, but neither India nor China could march on to each other's capitals. I suppose the most plausible scenario is that a particularly mentally instable man takes control of either India or China, goes to war with the other, and when things don't work out he just nukes the soldiers of the other country in the Himalayas.
 
I fundamentally believe that there is no such thing as a limited nuclear exchange.

Well if the scenario which I listed plays through (a few nuclear strikes on military targets in the Himalayas) then a nuclear exchange, however disastrous, could still be contained. Could make for an interesting TL.
 
Only recently has India developed nuclear weapons which could hit China's main cities (Beijing, etc.). They did not have this in the 1980s. Countries only use nuclear weapons when they feel as if they have no other choice, and this is why Indo-Pak nuclear TLs work because India could very well march onto Islamabad and force Pakistan to launch their nukes, but neither India nor China could march on to each other's capitals. I suppose the most plausible scenario is that a particularly mentally instable man takes control of either India or China, goes to war with the other, and when things don't work out he just nukes the soldiers of the other country in the Himalayas.

The Sino-Pakistani alliance is extremely well established, though; Pakistan is China's main bridge to the Islamic world, having played a key role in bridging the communication gap between the PRC and the West by facilitating U.S. President Richard Nixon's historic 1972 visit to China, with the relationship between Pakistan and China described by Pakistan's ambassador to China as "higher than the mountains, deeper than the oceans, stronger than steel, dearer than eyesight, sweeter than honey, and so on." Pakistan is China's biggest arms buyer, counting for nearly 47% of Chinese arms exports, with the Pakistan-China relationship considered in global diplomacy to be the closest equivalent to the Israel–United States relationship. When confronted by US officials about Beijing's uncompromising support for Pakistan, Chinese General Xiong Guangkai famously said, "Pakistan is China's Israel." Pakistanis hold the singular most positive opinions of China and Chinese influence in the world, and Chinese people hold the 3rd most positive opinions of Pakistan's influence in the world, behind only Indonesia and Pakistan itself.

So then, bearing all that context in mind, couldn't a limited Sino-Indian nuclear exchange easily be facilitated by all of those factors you cited- with an Indo-Pakistani conflict in the 80's resulting in the Indians marching on Islamabad, driving the Pakistani to launch their nukes out of desperation, which in turn angers the Indians into launching their own nukes at a few Pakistani cities in retaliation, as well as increasing the calls for the outright dissolution and re-annexation of Pakistan. Which would then be enough to force the hands of the Chinese, necessitating their firm intervention on the Pakistanis' behalf, by launching a few nukes of their own (with the Indians, at this stage, still not possessing nuclear weapon delivery systems capable of hitting China's main cities back- though if the Chinese had nuked Indian cities, the Indian leadership would certainly have attempted to retaliate, and probably managed to nuke a few targets in the Chengdu Military Region, but been hard-pressed to strike any deeper into China than that), forcing the Indians to back down and accept a negotiated armistice with Pakistan, as opposed to the Indians' ultimate ambition of Indian re-unification via the elimination of Pakistan. Sounds feasible?
 
Last edited:
The fundamental issue with a Sino-Indian Nuclear exchange is that both countries have openly-stated policies of No-First-Use.
 
The fundamental issue with a Sino-Indian Nuclear exchange is that both countries have openly-stated policies of No-First-Use.
Hence the most likely scenario being a Pakistan-Indian nuclear exchange where the Pakistanis fire first out of either spite or desperation, on the verge of total defeat; followed by the Indians retaliating against the Pakistanis (and their critical military supply lines from the Chinese, from whom they acquire most of their arms), then the Chinese retaliating against the Indians, forcing an uneasy truce and enabling Pakistan (or, in the words of the Chinese military top brass, "China's Israel") to continue existing (albeit greatly reduced in size and strength, and left wholly reliant upon China).
 
Last edited:
Hence the most likely scenario being a Pakistan-Indian nuclear exchange where the Pakistanis fire first out of either spite or desperation, on the verge of total defeat; followed by the Indians retaliating against the Pakistanis (and their critical military supply lines from the Chinese, from whom they acquire most of their arms), then the Chinese retaliating against the Indians, forcing an uneasy truce and enabling Pakistan (or, in the words of the Chinese military top brass, "China's Israel") to continue existing (albeit greatly reduced in size and strength, and left wholly reliant upon China).
Why would India escalate by nuking China?

A Pakistan that is devastated by an Indian nuclear strike is unlikely to be in a position to use any Chinese arms, and India will have likely suffered from the initial Pakistani Nuclear Strike to the point that they unwilling to bring an undamaged and considerably better equipped China (in terms of conventional and nuclear weapons) into the war. If India has any territorial gains from the initial conventional phase of the war, bringing in China makes keeping them in any post-war settlement completely untenable. India gains nothing from further escalation.
 
Why would India escalate by nuking China?

A Pakistan that is devastated by an Indian nuclear strike is unlikely to be in a position to use any Chinese arms, and India will have likely suffered from the initial Pakistani Nuclear Strike to the point that they unwilling to bring an undamaged and considerably better equipped China (in terms of conventional and nuclear weapons) into the war. If India has any territorial gains from the initial conventional phase of the war, bringing in China makes keeping them in any post-war settlement completely untenable. India gains nothing from further escalation.
I didn't say they would- I said that the Indians would target the Pakistanis' supply lines to the Chinese (i.e, along the border between Pakistani Kashmir and Xinjiang). Pakistan does purchase and use Chinese arms, more so than any other nation on the planet, with almost half of all Chinese military exports going to Pakistan; and realistically, those supply lines already would've been targeted and cut off via conventional weapons strikes long before any conflict went nuclear. Either way though, it's virtually guaranteed that the Chinese would take considerable casualties, given the level of military involvement and co-operation they've had with the Pakistanis for several decades now.

It's the Chinese who'd be most likely to bring themselves into the war, and nuke India first in this scenario, rather than the other way round. As for why the Chinese would do so? That's kind of like asking why the USA would escalate by nuking Turkey, in the event of a nuclear-armed Turkey (which have been under development for at least the last year now, under Erdogan's leadership) having nuked Israel in the near future, after Israel nuked them first, with a Turkish-backed Middle-Eastern coalition's forces already having invaded and occupied the overwhelming majority of Israeli territory, and openly proclaimed the imminent dissolution and partitioning of Israel. After all of that had already happened, how would they not go nuclear?
 
I didn't say they would- I said that the Indians would target the Pakistanis' supply lines to the Chinese (i.e, along the border between Pakistani Kashmir and Xinjiang). Pakistan does purchase and use Chinese arms, more so than any other nation on the planet, with almost half of all Chinese military exports going to Pakistan; and realistically, those supply lines already would've been targeted and cut off via conventional weapons strikes long before any conflict went nuclear. Either way though, it's virtually guaranteed that the Chinese would take considerable casualties, given the level of military involvement and co-operation they've had with the Pakistanis for several decades now.
There wouldn't have been all that much cooperation during the 1980s, and Pakistani use of Chinese Military equipment (and more importantly Chinese willingness to export it) has only really taken off since the 1990s. India only has a limited number Nuclear Weapons, and is likely to limit their use to Pakistani population centers, nuclear delivery systems and command and control, (i.e. targets that are strictly linked with Pakistan's ability to carry out a war and threaten India). They are not going to nuke empty mountain passes which have no clear targets in them, especially if there is the risk of Chinese intervention.

Pakistan is unlikely to make any serious use of weapons imported from China before the nuclear threshold has been crossed (given that in the 80s, they are predominantly using US weapons, and will not have training or experience using Chinese weapons) and by the time the weapons make their way from factories in China and down the Karakoram Highway, there may no longer be a viable to Pakistani State able to make use of them.


It's the Chinese who'd be most likely to bring themselves into the war, and nuke India first in this scenario, rather than the other way round. As for why the Chinese would do so? That's kind of like asking why the USA would escalate by nuking Turkey, in the event of a nuclear-armed Turkey (which have been under development for at least the last year now, under Erdogan's leadership) having nuked Israel in the near future, after Israel nuked them first, with a Turkish-backed Middle-Eastern coalition's forces already having invaded and occupied the overwhelming majority of Israeli territory, and openly proclaimed the imminent dissolution and partitioning of Israel. After all of that had already happened, how would they not go nuclear?
China's support for Pakistan was nowhere near as close as that between the US and Israel, especially in the 1980s. China may make the decision to brings themselves into the war, but India will not be willing, especially after being on the recieving end of Pakistani nuclear weapons, to escalate further to bring China into the war by targeting targets of no real strategic value, especially when they have achieved all of their goals at great cost. Attacking non-existent targets target on the Chinese-Pakistani border has no benefits to India, and only threatens the gains they make during the war.
 
Last edited:
Only recently has India developed nuclear weapons which could hit China's main cities (Beijing, etc.). They did not have this in the 1980s. Countries only use nuclear weapons when they feel as if they have no other choice, and this is why Indo-Pak nuclear TLs work because India could very well march onto Islamabad and force Pakistan to launch their nukes, but neither India nor China could march on to each other's capitals. I suppose the most plausible scenario is that a particularly mentally instable man takes control of either India or China, goes to war with the other, and when things don't work out he just nukes the soldiers of the other country in the Himalayas.
FWIW, India's heavily populated areas are much closer to China than China's heavily populated areas are to India. So, China can do much more damage to India through nuclear strikes than the reverse--unless of course India will develop REALLY long-range missiles, and lots of them!

The situation was reversed for the USSR and China, where most of the USSR's population was located in Europe and thus sufficiently far away from a Chinese nuclear strike whereas China's population was located closer to the USSR and was thus much more vulnerable to a Soviet nuclear strike.
 
The situation was reversed for the USSR and China, where most of the USSR's population was located in Europe and thus sufficiently far away from a Chinese nuclear strike whereas China's population was located closer to the USSR and was thus much more vulnerable to a Soviet nuclear strike.
China was initially relatively invulnerable to a Soviet Nuclear Strike, as the all but the soithern-most Chinese cities were within the minimum range of early Soviet ICBMs, which also had guidance systems which were literally hardwired for particular targets in the US or Western Europe.

Soviet Intermediate Nuclear Forces were had been allowed to atrophy until the introduction of the SS-20 in the late 1970s, and so could not make up for the shortcomings of the ICBMs in service.
 
Back
Top