WI: The Sino-Soviet conflict escalates to a full war

[Circle of Willis]

In 1969, tensions between the Soviet Union and PRC were at an all-time high. Longstanding border issues from Xinjiang to Manchuria had been exacerbated by the ideological break between the two Communist powers, with Chairman Mao disavowing the Soviets after Khrushchev succeeded Stalin and began to back away from the harshest excesses of the latter's policies: basically, to keep a long story short, the ideological side of their split was defined by the Chinese condemning the Soviets as 'revisionists' for no longer being sufficiently psychotic & totalitarian to qualify as 'real' Communists, while the Soviets were moving from quiet to open contempt of the more radical Chinese and the excesses of Mao's Cultural Revolution following the Great Leap Forward's tumble off a cliff and especially Mao criticizing their invasion of Czechoslovakia (not because he liked the Czechoslovaks, Dubcek's 'socialism with a human face' was even worse 'revisionism' in his eyes, but because it signaled a Soviet willingness to go to war to maintain Communist orthodoxy as they envisioned it). Over a hundred men (total) died in various skirmishes between the two red giants across 1969, and both Mao and Brezhnev did actually plan for the possibility of open hostilities with one another, until Ho Chi Minh's death and funeral provided an opportunity for deescalation.

But what if any of the preceding border incidents had escalated to open warfare between China and the Soviet Union before even a limited attempt at deescalation & reconciliation could get off the ground? May be worth noting that the Soviets had many more nukes, but were genuinely concerned that China could still have enough men left over to pull off human wave attacks that threatened Vladivostok & the Trans-Siberian Railroad. Meanwhile China, besides not being as well-armed when it came to nukes, was still in the throes of the Cultural Revolution's climax - they just barely came down from having a bunch of mini-civil wars across their cities the year before and there are still rampaging hordes of crazed student-revolutionaries raping, lynching and eating (not even necessarily in that order!) basically anyone they didn't like in Guangxi, Guangdong and frankly probably a lot of other places still.

My own expectations are that the Soviets would ultimately win; Mao breaks his own record for Chinese deaths before getting vaporized himself; and above all Communism would lose. Obviously, North Vietnam's patrons going to war with one another the year after the Tet Offensive would give the US & South Vietnam probably their best singular opening to win the Vietnam War, ever. I imagine the Soviets having to glass China (because I don't see Mao, who's been at the peak of his murderous insanity for a while as of 1969, choosing to back down once war is declared) will also hurt Soviet efforts to meddle in the Third World, as nuking one's fellow (and critically, non-white & even more aggressively 'anti-imperialist'!) Communists will probably make the 'we're here to deliver you from the evil white colonialists of the West' angle a little more difficult to sell, to put it mildly.

 

[Zyobot]

Maybe it was a prolonged exchange in the General AH thread instead, but I feel like you already had a thread where you discussed precisely this? Otherwise, I don't have much to add here, though I'll certainly be watching and am curious to see where this goes.

 

[Circle of Willis]

Maybe it was a prolonged exchange in the General AH thread instead, but I feel like you already had a thread where you discussed precisely this? Otherwise, I don't have much to add here, though I'll certainly be watching and am curious to see where this goes.

Well I've certainly made China threads in the past (discussing PODs ranging from the Taiping Rebellion to the CCW), but I don't recall ever posting a Sino-Soviet War thread before, or trying to discuss the topic (both the war itself and the aftershocks) in any significant detail. At least, not on The Sietch.

 

[Zyobot]

Never mind, turns out the thread I was thinking of was @Cherico's, not yours. Sorry about that!

 

[Circle of Willis]

Never mind, turns out the thread I was thinking of was @Cherico's, not yours. Sorry about that!

Tfw I forgot there not only existed a similar thread to my own a year ago, but that I had even posted there myself

 

[WolfBear]

If the US and South Vietnam use this as an opportunity to win the Vietnam War, then great! Even more so if Communist rule in Cambodia is subsequently prevented. Laos as well, but Cambodia is much more crucial to prevent due to the extraordinarily extreme brutality of the Khmer Rouge.

I also wonder if Chinese are going to be seeking to emigrate in much larger numbers once China's borders will open up in the late 1970s or 1980s. In addition, I wonder if China will avoid having a one-child policy in this TL since China will badly need to repopulate itself here after its nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

 

[Circle of Willis]

If the US and South Vietnam use this as an opportunity to win the Vietnam War, then great! Even more so if Communist rule in Cambodia is subsequently prevented. Laos as well, but Cambodia is much more crucial to prevent due to the extraordinarily extreme brutality of the Khmer Rouge.

I also wonder if Chinese are going to be seeking to emigrate in much larger numbers once China's borders will open up in the late 1970s or 1980s. In addition, I wonder if China will avoid having a one-child policy in this TL since China will badly need to repopulate itself here after its nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

I don't doubt it, Laos & Cambodia only fell after South Vietnam did (so in a way you could say the domino theory was real, although its effect was far more limited than may have been initially thought). Historically the ARVN was sent into both Cambodia and Laos during Vietnamization (when the US was drawing down its forces) so if they manage to endure as an American proxy, I'd expect them to intervene in their neighbors as necessary to prevent Communist takeovers, while a North Vietnam shorn of its backers and quite possibly inundated with Chinese refugees will be in no position to try spreading Communism on its own.

Yeah, with the Soviets likely having to glass China and kill Mao before they can declare victory, I'd expect Chinese refugees to supplant the starving African kids in humanitarian ads of the time period and to flee wherever they can. Instead of 'sponsor little Bekele here so he doesn't starve in a northern Ethiopian refugee camp' they'll be playing 'please adopt little May-ling before the radiation gives her cancer and/or roving Red Guard remnants eat her'. Maybe Bob Geldof can pitch a concert in Taipei, as well. Hongcouver might become a thing well ahead of the '90s, while in the US I'd expect the Chinese to flood into Hawaii & the West Coast (taking the place of the Vietnamese boat people, and probably coming in larger numbers too while they're at it) if they can.

I would also expect the Soviet strikes to decapitate the CCP altogether so whoever takes over China in the end will most likely be someone without a Wiki article, that or the KMT will be able to make its grand return a few years before Chiang croaks. Either way, they definitely aren't likely to pursue the one-child policy in the slightest, as you say there's no reason to.

 

[WolfBear]

I don't doubt it, Laos & Cambodia only fell after South Vietnam did (so in a way you could say the domino theory was real, although its effect was far more limited than may have been initially thought). Historically the ARVN was sent into both Cambodia and Laos during Vietnamization (when the US was drawing down its forces) so if they manage to endure as an American proxy, I'd expect them to intervene in their neighbors as necessary to prevent Communist takeovers, while a North Vietnam shorn of its backers and quite possibly inundated with Chinese refugees will be in no position to try spreading Communism on its own.

Yeah, with the Soviets likely having to glass China and kill Mao before they can declare victory, I'd expect Chinese refugees to supplant the starving African kids in humanitarian ads of the time period and to flee wherever they can. Instead of 'sponsor little Bekele here so he doesn't starve in a northern Ethiopian refugee camp' they'll be playing 'please adopt little May-ling before the radiation gives her cancer and/or roving Red Guard remnants eat her'. Maybe Bob Geldof can pitch a concert in Taipei, as well. Hongcouver might become a thing well ahead of the '90s, while in the US I'd expect the Chinese to flood into Hawaii & the West Coast (taking the place of the Vietnamese boat people, and probably coming in larger numbers too while they're at it) if they can.

I would also expect the Soviet strikes to decapitate the CCP altogether so whoever takes over China in the end will most likely be someone without a Wiki article, that or the KMT will be able to make its grand return a few years before Chiang croaks. Either way, they definitely aren't likely to pursue the one-child policy in the slightest, as you say there's no reason to.

Agreed with all of this. Also, I'm not sure just how welcoming North Vietnam would be towards Chinese refugees since Chinese were historically a Vietnamese rival. Still, there might be some Communist solidarity at play here.

Agreed with all of this. And I would expect Chinese to gradually end up throughout the entire US (and Canada, and possibly Western Europe as well) rather than only on the West coast. Transportation was very easy in the 1970s US, after all.

I don't know if the CCP will be completely overthrown, but if so, then Yeah, the KMT could try reconquering China if the US will actually provide them with significant support, and assuming that the USSR itself will actually be OK with this. The USSR might prefer to put their own Communist clients in power in China instead, after all. Just like what they previously did in Mongolia. But Yeah, regardless of who is in power in China at that point in time, the one-child policy isn't happening since China needs all of the babies that it can in order to rebuild itself, also especially considering that a lot of Chinese people will likely want to emigrate from China and thus China will need even more people back at home to stay behind to help improve things back at home. Also, as a side note, if China is ruled by a Soviet Communist puppet, then China likely democratizes in 1989-1991 along with the rest of the Soviet bloc, unless of course this democratization wave is butterflied away in this TL. Mongolia democratized during this time period, after all. And after the end of Communism in China, North Korea is likely to become extraordinarily isolated since it won't have a reliable Chinese ally backing and protecting it in this TL like it has in real life. Though outright regime change in North Korea is probably still unlikely due to North Korea's nukes, unfortunately.

 

[WolfBear]

There is, of course, another intriguing possibility here during the Cold War: A continued partition of China, but at a different line: Specifically, the USSR could aim to install its own Communist puppet regime in China but at the same time if the US will support the KMT's attempt to reconquer China with actual US military forces, then the KMT could liberate a part of China from CCP rule while the rest of China will end up under Soviet Communist puppet rule. So, we'll see KMT-ruled Taiwan and the parts of mainland China that are under KMT rule united under one KMT government but the rest of China will become a Soviet puppet state, at least until the end of the Cold War. As for where exactly in China this dividing line is actually going to be, well, I'm not sure, unfortunately. Possibly somewhere in southern China would be my guess.

 

[Airedale260]

Part of it is going to depend exactly on how many nukes get dropped, because this has the potential for the Soviets to actually start tossing nuclear weapons in a Western direction as well, given that they’ll likely be extremely paranoid about the West moving to take advantage of this. So it may be the West isn’t really in any shape to respond, given that they might be dealing with various crises of their own.

What’s also noteworthy is that, while Biopreparat wasn’t in full swing until 1974, the Soviets did have a decent sized biological weapons program. So it’s entirely possible they use it out of sheer spite as well. China can at the very least fuck up the USSR by devastating their agricultural areas, or at least significant parts of same. The only thing going for them at this point is that the U.S. is tied up in Vietnam, but let’s face it: If the USSR is busy waging a war with China, it means the very real possibility of the USSR losing its grip on Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Romania at a minimum, and Yugoslavia isn’t going to give any fucks, either.

Plus, if the U.S. and its allies start making serious inroads (reunifying Vietnam and Korea under Saigon and Seoul), it might cause the Chinese to panic and fire off some nukes in our direction. So it would really depend on how events play out.

If, however, the West is largely ignored, then I’d expect at a minimum Korea and Vietnam are reunified, and the next step is actively moving to try and help the ROC re-establish itself as the legitimate government of China. Meanwhile, there’s probably a splinter faction of the CCP trying to assert itself as a group of moderates led by Deng Xiaoping, so it’s possible in the chaos that either a 3-way war breaks out or else Mao gets couped and he tries to make peace with the Soviets (the odds that Deng and Chiang ally in this situation are pretty much zero).

Meanwhile, the USSR has taken a severe beating at a minimum. Whether the Red Army is in as bad shape as they were during Afghanistan (and to be honest, their forces weren’t in great shape generally even at this time), then it’s likely things don’t go well for either the Soviets or the Chinese. Both sides will be very bloodied, very weakened, and the various catastrophes if one or both sides go nuclear means a lot of cities get wrecked, never mind the ecological devastation.

In the aftermath? If the USSR doesn’t splinter outright 20 years early, they’re going to have a hell of a time keeping themselves together, and Eastern Europe is likely to revolt. If that happens, the Soviets pull inward and get very, very twitchy, and they’ll eventually collapse, because they’ll also be likely having trouble feeding their people as well for various reasons. The “best” case is that they manage to find someone who can stabilize things (In OTL, Khrushchev was still alive in 1969, but he died in 1971 of a heart attack. Assuming he isn’t killed in a nuclear strike or die early due to stress or something else, anyone inclined towards reform is going to struggle -and in case anyone is wondering, Gorbachev is still a year out from being even a regional administrator.

So, you’re likely to see ads for “please adopt little Svetlana” alongside ads to adopt May-ling (h/t @Circle of Willis ), and the resulting humanitarian disaster is going to be rough but not insurmountable. However, the U.S. (and Western Europe) are going to be somewhat hesitant to do a Marshall Plan 2.0 without some serious concessions. Don’t know if the USSR will abandon Communism entirely, but at a bare minimum I expect demands for free and competitive elections throughout the Eastern Bloc (China, meanwhile, probably gets a pass if Chiang and the KMT make serious inroads). Tibet probably gets independence -Chiang might grumble but he’ll have bigger fish to fry and may very well not care.

Long term, the U.S. is focused on Europe and Asia; Nasser and the rest of the Arab regimes have basically seen their patron go up in flames, so the U.S. has a free hand there (and it might actually speed up normalization of relations if they ask the U.S. to help mediate the Arab-Israeli conflict, although the Palestinians are thrown overboard in the process. Not that anyone else really cares). So even if the Iranian Revolution kicks off…well, no one is going to give them the time of day. Castro is screwed, but probably barely hangs on; any other leftists in the Americas suddenly find out the hard way that they have to basically play ball with the Americans. India tries to stay neutral but might shift slowly towards a rapprochement with the U.S. Sub-Saharan Africa…well, the U.S. probably keeps some friends but overall it’s a basket case.

Meanwhile, various left-wing movements and politicians are in a weird position…there might still be movements like the Weather Underground, Red Army Faction, and the Red Brigades, but none of them are going to get any external support or have any refuge -the various movements of the 1970s are likely just seen as “a group of nihilistic assholes” who support an ideology that has gone up in flames -and if it drags on, it might shift from being a law enforcement problem to being seen as an actual insurrection given that World War III kicked off…and the gloves come off.

Of course, I wouldn’t expect things to be great once the 21st century rolls around…plenty of other problems to confront, after all, and the rough equilibrium of the Cold War is gone so…who knows. There might be a surge in Russian nationalism and you wind up with an unfriendly but non-Communist Russia (or it might implode further and Russia ceases to exist completely) and China…well, they might democratize once Chiang buys the farm so that’s a win, but I wouldn’t count Deng out, either. So it might be a weirdly expanded version of a stand-off between two Chinas on that front, so Asia gets somewhat weird. Meanwhile Mongolia either gets turned into a parking lot or weirdly manages to stay out of it (most likely Ulan Batar gets hosed but the rest of the country is OK, honestly).

All in all it’s a weird fucking timeline.

 

[History Learner]

The Chinese nuclear arsenal was limited to short to medium weapons, in the low dozens, at this time and had no realistic shot at damaging the Soviet core:

To cope with the external nuclear threat, a campaign was initiated in 1959 to disperse and harden military installations. This was clearly a passive defensive strategy undertaken to reduce the effects of a nuclear attack. China's lack of a nuclear capability dictated the necessity for such a campaign. In the early 1960's, this campaign was expanded to include heavy industries. The attainment of a nuclear capability in 1964 did not lessen the pace of dispersal and hardening, and the "war preparations" campaign of 1969 broadened the scope of such activities to include civil defense measures to protect the population.​

​

Likewise, external developments have generally had little effect on the development of the Chinese Communist missile program with the possible exception of the Sino-Soviet Border Dispute of 1969. Deteriorating border relations with the USSR as early as 1968 may have caused the Chinese to re-think their missile strategy for the deployment of an MRBM system. In August 1968, MRBM (CSS-1) troop training exercises were initiated at the Shuangchengtzu Missile Test Range(SCTMTR), and to date there have been 14 confirmed crew-training firings. Although there are only two detected SS missile sites, near Kunming City in Yunnan Province, South China, the Chinese could have deployed 15 or more missiles to other undetected areas, possibly most confronting the USSR.​

​

Other missile system developments may have been influenced by the border incidents of 1969 -- IRBM (CSS-2) firings from Wuchai (at least 14 to 16 CSS-2 firings; possibly two of these in 1971 associated with training) and the Chingyu missile from Chingyu in November 1970 and 1971. The CSS-2 has many advantages including a greater range (1,500 nm) over the CSS-1 and it is likely to be deployed in much greater number with deployment possibly having begun in late 1971.​

​

The Chingyu missile is believed to be a two-stage variant of the CSS-1 with a longer-range capability providing the Chinese with an improved strategic posture. This system with a range greater than 3,000 nm would reach targets in European Russia and give the Chinese a considerable degree of latitude in choosing deployment areas. The IOC for this system is not expected until 1974 or 1975.​

​

The only missile that could be a direct threat against the US is a 6,000 nm-range ICBM. The Chinese flight tested a vehicle with ICBM characteristics to a reduced range in September 1971. The earliest possible IOC for an ICBM based on this vehicle would be late 1974, but more likely a year or two later.​

Most I can see the Chinese doing is tactical usage of nuclear warheads and maybe picking off a city or two; nothing that will really compromise the Soviet Union as an entity on the whole. The main issue for this scenario is, however, the fact Nixon threatened nuclear intervention if the Soviets did attack. In such an event, everything becomes academic given the end result of a nuclear exchange between NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

 

[ATP]

China would cease to exist,KMT would take part of ot,commie warlords and soviet others.
Korea and maybe Vietnam would unite.No commie genocides in Cambodia and Ethiopia.
It seems,that you saved Africa,too.

Weakened soviets would fall earlier,we have free East Europe in 1980 or so.Which mean,that Poland could use old,but still capable polish politicians who survived in London.
Better Poland,too.

All in all - much better world.

 

[Circle of Willis]

The Chinese nuclear arsenal was limited to short to medium weapons, in the low dozens, at this time and had no realistic shot at damaging the Soviet core:

To cope with the external nuclear threat, a campaign was initiated in 1959 to disperse and harden military installations. This was clearly a passive defensive strategy undertaken to reduce the effects of a nuclear attack. China's lack of a nuclear capability dictated the necessity for such a campaign. In the early 1960's, this campaign was expanded to include heavy industries. The attainment of a nuclear capability in 1964 did not lessen the pace of dispersal and hardening, and the "war preparations" campaign of 1969 broadened the scope of such activities to include civil defense measures to protect the population.​

​

Likewise, external developments have generally had little effect on the development of the Chinese Communist missile program with the possible exception of the Sino-Soviet Border Dispute of 1969. Deteriorating border relations with the USSR as early as 1968 may have caused the Chinese to re-think their missile strategy for the deployment of an MRBM system. In August 1968, MRBM (CSS-1) troop training exercises were initiated at the Shuangchengtzu Missile Test Range(SCTMTR), and to date there have been 14 confirmed crew-training firings. Although there are only two detected SS missile sites, near Kunming City in Yunnan Province, South China, the Chinese could have deployed 15 or more missiles to other undetected areas, possibly most confronting the USSR.​

​

Other missile system developments may have been influenced by the border incidents of 1969 -- IRBM (CSS-2) firings from Wuchai (at least 14 to 16 CSS-2 firings; possibly two of these in 1971 associated with training) and the Chingyu missile from Chingyu in November 1970 and 1971. The CSS-2 has many advantages including a greater range (1,500 nm) over the CSS-1 and it is likely to be deployed in much greater number with deployment possibly having begun in late 1971.​

​

The Chingyu missile is believed to be a two-stage variant of the CSS-1 with a longer-range capability providing the Chinese with an improved strategic posture. This system with a range greater than 3,000 nm would reach targets in European Russia and give the Chinese a considerable degree of latitude in choosing deployment areas. The IOC for this system is not expected until 1974 or 1975.​

​

The only missile that could be a direct threat against the US is a 6,000 nm-range ICBM. The Chinese flight tested a vehicle with ICBM characteristics to a reduced range in September 1971. The earliest possible IOC for an ICBM based on this vehicle would be late 1974, but more likely a year or two later.​

Most I can see the Chinese doing is tactical usage of nuclear warheads and maybe picking off a city or two; nothing that will really compromise the Soviet Union as an entity on the whole. The main issue for this scenario is, however, the fact Nixon threatened nuclear intervention if the Soviets did attack. In such an event, everything becomes academic given the end result of a nuclear exchange between NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

Interesting. I could've sworn I'd read something about Nixon threatening the USSR during the Sino-Soviet crisis on AH.com ages ago, but always thought that was almost certainly a bluff in line with his & Kissinger's madman theory. It doesn't really make sense for Nixon to commit so hard to China's defense at that stage IMO, since Nixon didn't visit China until 1972 (after Vietnamization had been long already been set in motion and the US was in general trying to disentangle from Indochina) and in 1969 the newly-inaugurated president has barely had any time to implement his pro-China policy. In fact, a year later the Americans' proxy in Cambodia, Lon Nol, would overthrow the seemingly neutral but very Chinese-friendly Prince Sihanouk and allow the Cambodian Campaign to proceed.

If anything I would expect the real nuclear threat to come from the Soviets themselves, that they'd go nuts and start firing nukes off at the West to prevent the latter from capitalizing on the Communist bloc cannibalizing itself as @Airedale260 suggested. Although since the Chinese nuclear arsenal was so inferior to the Soviet one, it doesn't seem like the chance of the USSR getting hammered so badly that this looks like a good idea to Brezhnev is too high.

 

[raharris1973]

'twould be a terribly stupid idea for Nixon to carry out such a threat. At least as terrible as trying to discourage a Soviet nuclear attack on China was a good idea in the first place.

 

[Airedale260]

Interesting. I could've sworn I'd read something about Nixon threatening the USSR during the Sino-Soviet crisis on AH.com ages ago, but always thought that was almost certainly a bluff in line with his & Kissinger's madman theory. It doesn't really make sense for Nixon to commit so hard to China's defense at that stage IMO, since Nixon didn't visit China until 1972 (after Vietnamization had been long already been set in motion and the US was in general trying to disentangle from Indochina) and in 1969 the newly-inaugurated president has barely had any time to implement his pro-China policy. In fact, a year later the Americans' proxy in Cambodia, Lon Nol, would overthrow the seemingly neutral but very Chinese-friendly Prince Sihanouk and allow the Cambodian Campaign to proceed.

If anything I would expect the real nuclear threat to come from the Soviets themselves, that they'd go nuts and start firing nukes off at the West to prevent the latter from capitalizing on the Communist bloc cannibalizing itself as @Airedale260 suggested. Although since the Chinese nuclear arsenal was so inferior to the Soviet one, it doesn't seem like the chance of the USSR getting hammered so badly that this looks like a good idea to Brezhnev is too high.

It's also important to note that even a limited Chinese arsenal could seriously fuck up the USSR given that the most likely targets would be Ukraine and other agricultural regions. Sure Moscow would still be intact but if the USSR can't feed even its security forces, they're fucked.

'twould be a terribly stupid idea for Nixon to carry out such a threat. At least as terrible as trying to discourage a Soviet nuclear attack on China was a good idea in the first place.

Eh, not really when you consider it's as much to try and discourage them from nuking the West as well out of spite. Once things escalate to the point of two nations nuking each other, there is a very real risk of everyone else getting caught in the crossfire out of paranoia.

Nixon may have made some mistakes, but trying to keep World War III from breaking out wasn't one of them.

 

[WolfBear]

It's also important to note that even a limited Chinese arsenal could seriously fuck up the USSR given that the most likely targets would be Ukraine and other agricultural regions. Sure Moscow would still be intact but if the USSR can't feed even its security forces, they're fucked.



Eh, not really when you consider it's as much to try and discourage them from nuking the West as well out of spite. Once things escalate to the point of two nations nuking each other, there is a very real risk of everyone else getting caught in the crossfire out of paranoia.

Nixon may have made some mistakes, but trying to keep World War III from breaking out wasn't one of them.

China needs long-range nuclear delivery systems in order to be able to hit Ukraine, which is located thousands of miles from China.

 

[History Learner]

Interesting. I could've sworn I'd read something about Nixon threatening the USSR during the Sino-Soviet crisis on AH.com ages ago, but always thought that was almost certainly a bluff in line with his & Kissinger's madman theory. It doesn't really make sense for Nixon to commit so hard to China's defense at that stage IMO, since Nixon didn't visit China until 1972 (after Vietnamization had been long already been set in motion and the US was in general trying to disentangle from Indochina) and in 1969 the newly-inaugurated president has barely had any time to implement his pro-China policy. In fact, a year later the Americans' proxy in Cambodia, Lon Nol, would overthrow the seemingly neutral but very Chinese-friendly Prince Sihanouk and allow the Cambodian Campaign to proceed.

If anything I would expect the real nuclear threat to come from the Soviets themselves, that they'd go nuts and start firing nukes off at the West to prevent the latter from capitalizing on the Communist bloc cannibalizing itself as @Airedale260 suggested. Although since the Chinese nuclear arsenal was so inferior to the Soviet one, it doesn't seem like the chance of the USSR getting hammered so badly that this looks like a good idea to Brezhnev is too high.

We actually have the smoking gun evidence itself from Nixon:

Nixon offered the most direct evidence of the link between the JCS Readiness Test and Sino-Soviet hostilities during an interview published in the July 29, 1985, issue of Time magazine. The former President revealed that he had “considered using nuclear weapons” on four separate occasions during his Presidency. One was in Vietnam. In weighing options to end the war in Vietnam, Nixon said, “one of the options was the nuclear option, in other words, massive escalation: either bombing the dikes or the nuclear option.” Having decided not to avail himself of that option in Vietnam, the ex-President recalled also considering using nuclear weapons during the war in the Middle East in October 1973 and during the 1971 Indo-Pakistani crisis.​

Another time Nixon said he considered using nuclear weapons “involved China. There were border conflicts. Henry [Kissinger] used to come in and talk about the situation. Incidentally, this was before the tapes. You won’t have these on the tapes.” Nixon continued, “Henry said, ‘Can the U.S. allow the Soviet Union to jump the Chinese?’—that is, to take out their nuclear capability. We had to let the Soviets know we would not tolerate that.” (Time, July 29, 1985, pages 52–53)​

 

[ATP]

We actually have the smoking gun evidence itself from Nixon:

Nixon offered the most direct evidence of the link between the JCS Readiness Test and Sino-Soviet hostilities during an interview published in the July 29, 1985, issue of Time magazine. The former President revealed that he had “considered using nuclear weapons” on four separate occasions during his Presidency. One was in Vietnam. In weighing options to end the war in Vietnam, Nixon said, “one of the options was the nuclear option, in other words, massive escalation: either bombing the dikes or the nuclear option.” Having decided not to avail himself of that option in Vietnam, the ex-President recalled also considering using nuclear weapons during the war in the Middle East in October 1973 and during the 1971 Indo-Pakistani crisis.​

Another time Nixon said he considered using nuclear weapons “involved China. There were border conflicts. Henry [Kissinger] used to come in and talk about the situation. Incidentally, this was before the tapes. You won’t have these on the tapes.” Nixon continued, “Henry said, ‘Can the U.S. allow the Soviet Union to jump the Chinese?’—that is, to take out their nuclear capability. We had to let the Soviets know we would not tolerate that.” (Time, July 29, 1985, pages 52–53)​

Fucked Nixon.He damned world by not lettin soviets kill Mao.All Kissinger fault,again.Why anybody hear listen to that useful idiot?

 

[WolfBear]

Fucked Nixon.He damned world by not lettin soviets kill Mao.All Kissinger fault,again.Why anybody hear listen to that useful idiot?

TBH, I don't think that hundreds of millions of Chinese deaths would actually be an acceptable price worth paying to make China a democracy by now. Do you?

We actually have the smoking gun evidence itself from Nixon:

Nixon offered the most direct evidence of the link between the JCS Readiness Test and Sino-Soviet hostilities during an interview published in the July 29, 1985, issue of Time magazine. The former President revealed that he had “considered using nuclear weapons” on four separate occasions during his Presidency. One was in Vietnam. In weighing options to end the war in Vietnam, Nixon said, “one of the options was the nuclear option, in other words, massive escalation: either bombing the dikes or the nuclear option.” Having decided not to avail himself of that option in Vietnam, the ex-President recalled also considering using nuclear weapons during the war in the Middle East in October 1973 and during the 1971 Indo-Pakistani crisis.​

Another time Nixon said he considered using nuclear weapons “involved China. There were border conflicts. Henry [Kissinger] used to come in and talk about the situation. Incidentally, this was before the tapes. You won’t have these on the tapes.” Nixon continued, “Henry said, ‘Can the U.S. allow the Soviet Union to jump the Chinese?’—that is, to take out their nuclear capability. We had to let the Soviets know we would not tolerate that.” (Time, July 29, 1985, pages 52–53)​

Nixon's attempt to pull the nuclear trigger during the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War was especially disgraceful given Pakistan's extremely brutal mass slaughter in Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) during that war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Blood#The_Blood_telegram

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blood_Telegram:_Nixon,_Kissinger,_and_a_Forgotten_Genocide

 

[ATP]

TBH, I don't think that hundreds of millions of Chinese deaths would actually be an acceptable price worth paying to make China a democracy by now. Do you?



Nixon's attempt to pull the nuclear trigger during the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War was especially disgraceful given Pakistan's extremely brutal mass slaughter in Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) during that war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Blood#The_Blood_telegram

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blood_Telegram:_Nixon,_Kissinger,_and_a_Forgotten_Genocide

Not so many.And even there as much lives would be saved by killing Mao and his cronies there.
We would avoid Cambodia and Ethiopia genocides,too.
Entire Africa would be better place.
East Europe would be free at least 10 year earlier.

And,what is most important,leftist would not rule Europe and USA now.Becouse after something like that nobody would support their ideas for next 100 years.