is military conflict inevitable

[Dr Mindbender]

I'm sorry if this is a bit too 'what if' for the politics section but it strikes me that the next 30 years are going to come to a head yet no-one seems bothered about it. We all know that China is set to become the world's no.1 within our lifetime at least, and for some reason I cant see the USA take this lying down and if their track record is anything to go by they will stop at any means to prevent this. I'm genuinely worried that this could end up in military hostilities. I know people will draw cold war analogies but that didnt have so many political connations especially since China has embraced the free market.
Any opinions?

[Vendetta]

Maybe, but it might just turn into another Cold War-esque type thing.

[Dr Mindbender]

i'm not sure about that. The Chinese army outnumber the US army by about 3-1. They are well equipped for a conventional invasion. I think a long drawn out affair using sub-nuclear arms would be on the cards.

[Red October]

A conventional war with China would be disastrous for America, no matter who won. The Chinese regular army is already massive, and that's not counting the millions of reserves they could call up. Now that the Chinese military is modernizing, they are even more formidable than before.

[Goatse]

As large as the Chinese army is, I don't think they could get past the USN, meaning an invasion of the US mainland would be basically impossible. And if by some miraculous feat PLAN was able to defeat them, I'm pretty sure the US would use nuclear weapons when they were on the verge of defeat. Like a cornered animal, it would not go down without a fight.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 10:12 pm
As large as the Chinese army is, I don't think they could get past the USN, meaning an invasion of the US mainland would be basically impossible. And if by some miraculous feat PLAN was able to defeat them, I'm pretty sure the US would use nuclear weapons when they were on the verge of defeat. Like a cornered animal, it would not go down without a fight.
paratroopers?

If i was a chinese leader staging a us invasion id use a forward command base in friendly russia and plough my tanks and air force across the bering strait.
Ive heard in winter that actually freezes over and you could drive from russia to alaska without getting wet.

[Goatse]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 23, 2007 10:15 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 23, 2007 10:15 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 10:12 pm
As large as the Chinese army is, I don't think they could get past the USN, meaning an invasion of the US mainland would be basically impossible. And if by some miraculous feat PLAN was able to defeat them, I'm pretty sure the US would use nuclear weapons when they were on the verge of defeat. Like a cornered animal, it would not go down without a fight.
paratroopers?

If i was a chinese leader staging a us invasion id use a forward command base in friendly russia and plough my tanks and air force across the bering strait.
Ive heard in winter that actually freezes over and you could drive from russia to alaska without getting wet. [/b]
Deployment of paratroopers throughout history has often had disastrious consequences, but even if China managed to avoid USAF interceptors to gain a beachhead using paratroopers, how would they get supplies across? It would be a logistical nightmare... while the USN still existed as a major force, it woud be all but impossible.

As for crossing via Alaska, that strategy is very dependent on conditions... if the ice breaks up then you're faced with the same problem of getting supplies across. Their whole army would be stranded in Alaska, meaning China would be forced to sign a humiliating surrender.

[Wanted Man]

No.

What a stupid thread, what horrible militarist wanking and what horrible military knowledge. "[S]taging a [US] invasion", "forward command base in friendly Russia", "plough my tanks and air force across the [B]ering [S]trait."

Wow, you must be a master strategian! I'm looking into the possibility of building up a military force, I just need a competent commander. I trust you will do well.

[Goatse]

Originally posted by Van [email protected] 23, 2007 10:19 pm
No.

What a stupid thread, what horrible militarist wanking and what horrible military knowledge. "[S]taging a [US] invasion", "forward command base in friendly Russia", "plough my tanks and air force across the [B]ering [S]trait."

Wow, you must be a master strategian! I'm looking into the possibility of building up a military force, I just need a competent commander. I trust you will do well.
Rather than insulting him, how about you try refuting his arguments?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Goatse+November 23, 2007 10:17 pm--> (Goatse @ November 23, 2007 10:17 pm)
Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 23, 2007 10:15 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 23, 2007 10:15 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 10:12 pm
As large as the Chinese army is, I don't think they could get past the USN, meaning an invasion of the US mainland would be basically impossible. And if by some miraculous feat PLAN was able to defeat them, I'm pretty sure the US would use nuclear weapons when they were on the verge of defeat. Like a cornered animal, it would not go down without a fight.
paratroopers?

If i was a chinese leader staging a us invasion id use a forward command base in friendly russia and plough my tanks and air force across the bering strait.
Ive heard in winter that actually freezes over and you could drive from russia to alaska without getting wet. [/b]
Deployment of paratroopers throughout history has often had disastrious consequences, but even if China managed to avoid USAF interceptors to gain a beachhead using paratroopers, how would they get supplies across? It would be a logistical nightmare... while the USN still existed as a major force, it woud be all but impossible.

As for crossing via Alaska, that strategy is very dependent on conditions... if the ice breaks up then you're faced with the same problem of getting supplies across. Their whole army would be stranded in Alaska, meaning China would be forced to sign a humiliating surrender. [/b]
well the nearest points between russia and us alaska are only about 18 miles apart so it wouldnt be that hard to get an amphibious convoy across. Couple that with airborne cover it would be pretty formidable.



Van Binsbergen

No.

What a stupid thread, what horrible militarist wanking and what horrible military knowledge. "[S]taging a [US] invasion", "forward command base in friendly Russia", "plough my tanks and air force across the [B]ering [S]trait."

Wow, you must be a master strategian! I'm looking into the possibility of building up a military force, I just need a competent commander. I trust you will do well.
My bad. I'm playing far too much RTS. :unsure:


*waits for spartan to join in*

[Goatse]

well the nearest points between russia and us alaska are only about 18 miles apart so it wouldnt be that hard to get an amphibious convoy across. Couple that with airborne cover it would be pretty formidable.

Problem is, it's a tiny strait - the US would be able to stick a few ships in there and that'd be the end of China's little adventure.

[Dr Mindbender]

a few migs and sukhoi escourts armed with anti-shipping missiles would put an end to the USN's adventure.

[Red October]

No one on their right mind would want to send their army to fucking Alaska and then have to fight through all those mountains and forests. That's just a bad plan.

[Goatse]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 23, 2007 10:30 pm
a few migs and sukhoi escourts armed with anti-shipping missiles would put an end to the USN's adventure.
Umm, the USA also has an airforce. Along with like, 11 aircraft carriers.

I'm not saying China's military power is insignificant. Of course it has some considerable power - but no nation in the world could take on the US on their home soil! Not only would beating the USN be a close to impossible feat, consider how heavily armed the general population is. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

[Red October]

As Goatse has said, just the idea of getting huge amounts of troops onto the American mainland would be extremely hard. They would have to come out of Mexico or something, which is just as unlikely as getting an invasion flotilla across the ocean without getting royally fucked by the US Pacific Fleet.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Goatse+November 23, 2007 10:33 pm--> (Goatse @ November 23, 2007 10:33 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 23, 2007 10:30 pm
a few migs and sukhoi escourts armed with anti-shipping missiles would put an end to the USN's adventure.
Umm, the USA also has an airforce. Along with like, 11 aircraft carriers.

I'm not saying China's military power is insignificant. Of course it has some considerable power - but no nation in the world could take on the US on their home soil! Not only would beating the USN be a close to impossible feat, consider how heavily armed the general population is. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. [/b]
China's is growing though.. and as we we speak theyve almost caught up with the US. By the time the shit hits the fan they'll probably have surpassed them, especially if they've acquired greater wealth. They've started manufacturing homegrown models on a scale to rival western nations, like this one, the Chendu which features similar vector thrust engines that appear on the USAF's cutting edge fighter F-22.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-10

[Goatse]

Well that's fair enough, you didn't specify that. I still find it extremely hard to see China reaching a stage in the near future where they could beat the USN on the open seas.

That still doesn't address the problem of partisans within the US. Whether we like it or not, the USA is an extremely patriotic country. Along with the regular military, reservists and the National Guard, there would be huge numbers of citizens who would take up arms against a foreign invasion.

[Dr Mindbender]

its likely they would recieve solidarity reinforcements from North Korea and Cuba. Even with partisan civillians, i severly doubt they would come close to matching the chinese manpower.

[Red October]

China clearly has the manpower advantage, but there is still the huge problem of how they would get all those soldiers into the US. Large armies don't amount to anything if you can't move and supply them effectively.

[Goatse]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialis[email protected] 23, 2007 10:49 pm
its likely they would recieve solidarity reinforcements from North Korea and Cuba. Even with partisan civillians, i severly doubt they would come close to matching the chinese manpower.
North Korean and Chinese relations aren't exactly at an all time high... and how would Cuba get soldiers to the US mainland?

Regardless, the Chinese would still be facing a huge number of troops. Remember that the USA is not without allies themselves - they're a member of NATO. There would be NATO aircraft there within hours, and ground forces within weeks.

And of course remember that even if the US was going down, they would not hesitate to use their nuclear arms. There would be no winners.

[Cult of Reason]

Of course not. It would be Bad For Business™.


Seriously. Those in power have absolutely nothing to gain from such an event.

[Goatse]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 10:55 pm
Of course not. It would be Bad For Business™.


Seriously. Those in power have absolutely nothing to gain from such an event.
Of course - they economically rely on each other.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Haraldur+--> (Haraldur)
North Korean and Chinese relations aren't exactly at an all time high[/b]
Not at the moment but in a military trade off i somehow think that would quickly change.


Originally posted by Haraldur+--> (Haraldur)
... and how would Cuba get soldiers to the US mainland?[/b]
If the us is distracted by chinese and DPRK troops rolling through the streets of Seattle i think they could quite opportunely sneak them in via Florida.

[email protected]


Regardless, the Chinese would still be facing a huge number of troops. Remember that the USA is not without allies themself - they're a member of NATO. There would be NATO aircraft there within hours, and ground forces within weeks.
Meh, everyone's afraid of china, even the UK during the 80's. Why do you think Thatcher was so quick to hand over Hong Kong without fighting over it like she did over the Falklands (for the all the fucking economic value they had)

Haraldur

And of course remember that even if the US was going down, they would not hesitate to use their nuclear arms. There would be no winners.
What even on their own people? I doubt any us president would be that callous to sanction that.

[Fiskpure]

I don't see any actions being taken against the Chinese compared with the situation between the US led NATO and the lonely standing Russia. The Russians have been planning now to modernize the military, which would match the US military within the next few decades.

Also the 4 new "Borey" class submarines that were launched, strategic bombing run activity and the testing of new ICBMs is something that points more towards the Cold War.

The Russian regime has responded to the US missile shield in Poland directed towards "rogue nations" with placing their own missile shield in Belarus theory.

Even if the US does invade Iran, there will be major escalations between the military superpowers Russia-USA-China in hope of securing the last remaining areas of raw materials coming in the next few decades aswell.

If not some sort of a new energy source which is profitable is invented in the next centuary, USA won't be anything more then a wasteland as it was a couple of centuries ago (My point of view).

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 10:55 pm
Of course not. It would be Bad For Business™.


Seriously. Those in power have absolutely nothing to gain from such an event.
if america keeps playing nice with china they will lose their place as no.1. I think any US president will adopt a 'not on my watch' mentality. Thats why i think theyd be so quick to push the button (not necessarilly the nuke one, mind ;) )

[Lenin II]

The U.S. has neither the hard nor the soft power to do anything against China except spread bad press. The U.S. is completely dependent upon Chinese manufacturing and industry for most of its products--a military strike would be catastrophic. The American people have lost so much faith in their imperialist government that most of the population would leave overnight if another war is declared, since the ONLY option for them to counter China's enormous military is to institute a draft.

Bottom line: not going to happen anytime soon.

[Goatse]

Not at the moment but in a military trade off i somehow think that would quickly change.

That's fair enough but I doubt Korea would be able to lend a large number of troops - they might have their hands full with South Korea, who would undoubtedly join in on the US's side.


If the us is distracted by chinese and DPRK troops rolling through the streets of Seattle i think they could quite opportunely sneak them in via Florida.

That really does seem a bit simplistic. Cuba doesn't exactly have a huge navy. If they got caught by a single US ship they'd be fucked.


Meh, everyone's afraid of china, even the UK during the 80's. Why do you think Thatcher was so quick to hand over Hong Kong without fighting over it like she did over the Falklands (for the all the fucking economic value they had)

True, but the difference is that Hong Kong is right next to China, and thousands of miles away from the UK. It's the other way around here - China is an entire ocean away from the USA, whereas the USA is, well, right on their own doorstep.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 11:07 pm


True, but the difference is that Hong Kong is right next to China, and thousands of miles away from the UK
...exactly the same scenario with the falklands (with the exception that Argentina was obviously much weaker than China) yet she decided to attack anyway! :blink:

[Goatse]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 23, 2007 11:10 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 23, 2007 11:10 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 11:07 pm


True, but the difference is that Hong Kong is right next to China, and thousands of miles away from the UK
...exactly the same scenario with the falklands (with the exception that Argentina was obviously much weaker than China) yet she decided to attack anyway! :blink: [/b]
Umm, you just answered your own question.

[Cult of Reason]

First of all, could you fix your earlier post? I did NOT say those things.

Anyway: Presidents do not have such power. The Capitalists simply wouldn't allow it, and major war with China would probably be even more damaging than to lose the top spot. In addition, being a politician, s/he could easily shift the blame to a possibly more deserving President (Bush?).

[Dr Mindbender]

^^^
Goatse

no i was backing up my previous point about why she decided to fight and send hundreds of men to their deaths over a few hundred square miles of shitty rock and grass but not the vibrant economic powerhouse that was and is Hong Kong.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 11:16 pm
First of all, could you fix your earlier post? I did NOT say those things.

Anyway: Presidents do not have such power. The Capitalists simply wouldn't allow it, and major war with China would probably be even more damaging than to lose the top spot. In addition, being a politician, s/he could easily shift the blame to a possibly more deserving President (Bush?).
sorry i misunderstood your post. I thought you were talking in the context of using nuclear weapons post-chinese invasion as a defensive means.

[Goatse]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 23, 2007 11:16 pm
^^^
Goatse

no i was backing up my previous point about why she decided to fight and send hundreds of men to their deaths over a few hundred square miles of shitty rock and grass but not the vibrant economic powerhouse that was and is Hong Kong.
Because she knew it would be a war they could not win! They were too far away to take on an opponent like China. It would be the same case with a Chinese invasion of the USA.

[Dr Mindbender]

my point is though that an america playing catch up with an economically superior china would probably act less rationally in order to protect the status quo and it's hegemony. Under those circumstances, China would probably have no option other than to fight fire with fire.

[Goatse]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 23, 2007 11:26 pm
my point is though that an america playing catch up with an economically superior china would probably act less rationally in order to protect the status quo and it's hegemony. Under those circumstances, China would probably have no option other than to fight fire with fire.
Resulting in an impossible campaign, whose flaws I have already highlighted, but you've completely ignored.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Goatse+November 23, 2007 11:29 pm--> (Goatse @ November 23, 2007 11:29 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 23, 2007 11:26 pm
my point is though that an america playing catch up with an economically superior china would probably act less rationally in order to protect the status quo and it's hegemony. Under those circumstances, China would probably have no option other than to fight fire with fire.
Resulting in an impossible campaign, whose flaws I have already highlighted, but you've completely ignored. [/b]
who's to say those flaws won't dissipate under future (inevitable) economic development?

[Goatse]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+November 23, 2007 11:34 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ November 23, 2007 11:34 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 11:29 pm

Ulster [email protected] 23, 2007 11:26 pm
my point is though that an america playing catch up with an economically superior china would probably act less rationally in order to protect the status quo and it's hegemony. Under those circumstances, China would probably have no option other than to fight fire with fire.
Resulting in an impossible campaign, whose flaws I have already highlighted, but you've completely ignored.
who's to say those flaws won't dissipate under future (inevitable) economic development? [/b]
Then of course we are talking about a hypothetical situation where current facts don't apply, and it's completely pointless to debate.

[Dr Mindbender]

i dont think this is hypothetical at all, the US isnt going to give up its economic dominance without a fight, i dont think anyone here will dispute that. If they end up looking like the 'bad guys' in the process then the likliehood it that china will acquire more allies than enemies.

[Dros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 10:55 pm
Of course not. It would be Bad For Business™.


Seriously. Those in power have absolutely nothing to gain from such an event.
I disagree. While they currently rely on each other, they are also chief competitors. They both need oil and there is no shortage of countries that would invest in China. If China dropped the dollar, the U.S. would be up a creek.

I don't think that China would invade. The U.S. would definitely use nukes to keep China out of the U.S. But I do think that conflict is inevitable. Whether this will be played out economically or militarily and on what stage to what scope I don't know

[Goatse]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 23, 2007 11:46 pm
i dont think this is hypothetical at all, the US isnt going to give up its economic dominance without a fight, i dont think anyone here will dispute that. If they end up looking like the 'bad guys' in the process then the likliehood it that china will acquire more allies than enemies.
Don't be ridiculous, when was the last time a capitalist nation sided with another because they were seen as the "good guys"?

[spartan]

First off for all the manpower China can rely on it's weapons, even it's new weapons, are still not as good as what the US and NATO have and can call upon.

For instance the main Chinese assault rifle does not have a picatinney rail like the US and NATO AR's have which means that the Chinese AR either cant or it is more difficult and time consuming to attach an under barrel grenade launcher (Which is replacing hand grenades and the company level mortar in most NATO armies which also makes it cheaper and more economical as it effectively combines two weapon roles into one), various scope systems such as a telescopic scope and nightvision and also a tactical light and laser sights.

Also the new Chinese intermediate round, the 5.8x42mm, is claimed to be superior to both the NATO standard 5.56x45mm and Russian/Soviet 5.45x39mm round but this is untrue as recent tests have shown that the Chinese round does not have a tumbling effect on impact like the NATO and Soviet rounds meaning that the Chinese bullet cant produce big wounds and with it being a small caliber it's stopping power without the tumbling effect is very weak making this new round ineffective when compared to the NATO and Russian/Soviet rounds.

Chinese soldiers are also expressing concern that the new cartridge is'nt as good as there old trusty 7.62x39mm Soviet rounds which, though they produce more recoil in full auto and less accuracy at longer ranges, can stop a man with one shot and keep him down.

The Chinese have either no aircraft carriers at the moment (Though they have expressed an intrest in obtaining and building their very own aircraft carriers sometime in the future) or very little compared to the US and NATO combined.

Also even if the DPRK and Cuba helped out China the fact remains that these countries militaries are armed with ineffective Soviet cold war era equipment.

So if we are talking about conventional warfare here Cuba and the DPRK will be laughed off the battlefield (Well if any Cubans and Korean soldiers are left to be laughed off the battlefield).

All it would take to hold off the entire Cuban military is about one US and NATO corps with air and sea support and the Cubans would be utterly smashed and humiliated (And their country more than likely occupied).

Whilst the North Koreans will suffer the same fate at the hands of the US allies South Korea and Japan who, if they combine their forces with their modern equipment, will utterly destroy the DPRK military which is armed with cold war era Soviet equipment which is at the very best late 70's technology!

Also Taiwan, another US ally, has a modern army and air force who on their own could put up a good resistance to China which would give them just enough time for US and NATO forces to eventually arrive and destroy any Chinese hopes of winning a war in that theater (Japan, South Korea and Taiwan theater of war).

Also the belief that China could use Siberia as a stepping stone to invade Alaska is unpracticle as:

1) Russia, which Siberia is currently apart of, wont allow this kind of foreign military movement on their territory no matter how frosty the Russian-US relations get (And even if Russia agreed, Which is unlikely at best, does this then mean that Russia is now an ally of China who will be ready to help the Chinese militarily against the US and NATO? Because that is how the US and NATO will perceive it which will lead to a nuclear stand off between the west, Russia and China which is why this hypothetical situation of a war bewteen the US and China will never happen in the first place).

2) Russia wont take the risk of military action against either the US, NATO or China due to the fact that all powers involved are armed with nuclear weapons.

3) How will the Chinese get to Alaska if the Russians refuse the use of their strategic territory as an easy stepping stone?

Will the Chinese start a war against Russia for refusing?

Because if that happens then the US, NATO and Russia combined will destroy China and wip it off the map as they have superior nuclear technologies over China.

4) The winter conditions of Alaska and Siberia will be severe rendering any military operations by both sides almost impossible on a large scale meaning that the Chinese army will just be sitting there on forein soil not knowing what the hell they should do!

5) How will this massive Chinese invasion force be supplied?

The US and NATO member navies all combined will rule the waves thus meaning that this huge Chinese invasion force will probably run out of food and ammo after a week forcing them to make a demoralising (to Chinese civilians) and humiliating (to the Chinese military) surrender (They wont be able to supplied via the air as the terrible weather conditions will make flight impossible and the navies of the US and NATO forces with their aircraft carriers and superior aircraft will shoot the inferior Chinese aircraft out of the sky with relative ease).

For all the western claims of rising Chinese power the fact remains that they are still quite a bit behind the west when it comes to nuclear weapon technology, space technology and military technology.

********************

I thought that it would be intresting to add that on a recent US naval exercise in the Pacific a non nuclear Chinese submarine suddenly emerged from the sea right in the sight of the US navy ships.

Apparently the Chinese sub was undetected by the new US radar system as they were not on high alert and non nuclear subs are quiter and harder to detect than nuclear subs anyway.

Also Brazil has discovered oil near it's coast and it is thought by many experts that this new source of oil will propel Brazil into becoming a member of OPEC and a world superpower who wont have to rely on the US anymore.

And seeing how Brazil usually votes in left leaning government perhpas this will lead them to becoming friends with Venezuela and help them in forming a left wing Latin American bloc.

[LOTFW]

It was this thread that caused me to register.

I'm curious...whether China and the USA would ever engage in military action against one another, where do some people here get the idea it's "inevitable" because Chnia may "replace" the USA as something they call, "No. 1"?

What's that all about?

How does one measure who Number One is? Who would fight for such an objective?

As many pointed out, any land war would have to go through Alaska and Canada, and the Chinese, regardless of their number, would get their ass kicked in by our forces if they were to invade. (It would also galvanize the nation.)

Such an invasion by China would not serve its interest, nor the interests of Socialism, and China is hardly socialist. It's so completly capitalist it's disgusting. What does the Party do over these except try and justify their existance?

The USA would counter with nukes anyway, if China were to invade. China could build herself a navy, but the USN would cut it to ribbons. And we wouldn't need to use our bombers against their MIGs, we'd just use our submarines to deliver the missiles. Everyone knows this, right?

[Axel1917]

Doesn't China have a nuclear arsenal of some sort? Wouldn't MAD rule out any kind of military conflict?

I also think that China will suffer from a crisis of overproduction in the future, in addition to being hampered by reduced consumer spending in the US on Chinese imports (with the worsening economic situation and future recession.), and therefore, I think that the idea of China becoming #1 is not a total possibility. I think they were saying the same thing about Japan "becoming the new #1" in the 1980's.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

China and the U.S. are competitive world powers. Ultimately, conflict between the two will develop, whether or not it results in military conflict is another matter but the U.S. doesn't avoid that with any country of the world in that regard so I wouldn't doubt it. As capitalism progresses in China the conflict will become greater. However, in regard to military conflict- a nuclear attack is the first thing that comes to mind.

[TheDifferenceEngine]

I don't think they'll go for all out war, just a series of proxy conflicts in africa.

[Dr Mindbender]

First of all, it will probably lead to a series of cold war vietnam style - skirmishes involving conflicts against each other's allied satellite states. I could see China turning against places like Pakistan, Kahzakstan or S.Korea (all big US allies) or another Korean war could be on the cards. I wouldnt rule out a china v US war though, we all know how close it came to a superpower war during the cuba missile crisis.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Disputes between nations where nuclear weapons exist will be handled through economic wars.

[Lynx]

Proxy wars for resources and/or internal repression as economic conditions deteriorate. And of course, lots and lots of political and diplomatic posturing.